[Hammarlund] 6C4 issues - progress ! (was dead on 15m HQ-170a)

Tue Jan 27 08:25:04 EST 2009

Glen Zook said:

In the relatively few applications where a truly "matched set" of tubes 
is required (and none of the amateur radio equipment manufacturers 
shipped transmitters with "matched" tubes from the factory) use of a 
tube tester is handy.  However, one also has to realize that many tubes 
do not "age" at exactly the same rate and therefore, after several hours 
of operation, they start becoming mismatched anyway.

Now I don't criticize someone who uses a tube tester to check the 
condition of their tubes.  But, at least for me, I haven't found a tube 
tester to be that important

______________________________________________

Au contraire.

Many ham manufacturers used matched tubes. Most sweep tube finals were 
matched and there are instances where other types were specifically 
selected for performance in a circuit.

A tube tester is completely useless for matching since the voltages used 
are insufficient. The Hickok 539 comes close but that only counts in 
horseshoes and hand grenades.

A tester is a big help in finding leakage, especially when spares arent 
on hand. Cathode leakage in one tube on an AVC line can seriously mess 
up performance. Leakage in an audio stage has a similar effect.

I use a Hickok 752A with every overhaul/restoration as its nice to know 
what you have even before starting. It also culls out the leakers and 
microphonics in the used inventory as well as shorts. I also have a TV-7 
and I-177 which get occassional use.

I also recently bought and overhauled a Jackson 648S and shipped it to 
my guitar playing son as a Christmas present. He has many tube amps and 
accessories and the Jackson is one of the best emissions testers.

Carl
KM1H

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Zook" <gzook at yahoo.com>
To: <hammarlund at mailman.qth.net>; "Ken Kaplan" <krkaplan at cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Hammarlund] 6C4 issues - progress ! (was dead on 15m 
HQ-170a)

> The problem with tube testers, emission, transconductance, etc., is 
> that they cannot test tubes under all circumstances.  For example, 
> there was on manufacturer (I am "blank" on which one right now) that 
> made a batch of 6146W tubes for the military.  That particular batch 
> checks fine in any tube tester yet they will not function much above 
> audio frequencies.  Now this manufacturer got paid for the tubes and 
> then went out of business before the tubes were actually used.  When 
> those tubes started to be put into service it was found that they 
> would not work even at 2 MHz.
>
> Over the years I have "run into" a number of tubes that were well into 
> the "green" on an emission tester yet when put into a radio there were 
> all sorts of problems.  Sometimes the tubes were extremely noisy, 
> sometimes the circuit oscillated (i.e. "squealing" in an audio 
> circuit), sometimes the tube had very low amplification (i.e. when 
> used in an r.f. or i.f. stage in a receiver), and so forth.
>
> Then I have run into tubes that checked basically as almost dead that 
> were working fine.  For example, years ago, when tube type commercial 
> FM two-way receivers were the norm, I have checked the performance on 
> various Motorola receivers that had not been "touched" for many years 
> (like 15 to 20 or more).  The receiver still met factory 
> specifications yet when the tubes were tested a number of them were, 
> according to the tube tester, almost completely dead.
>
>>From what I have read, in the 1950s General Electric designed and 
>>built a tube tester that could test a tube under all known (at least 
>>at the time) conditions including frequency, load, and so forth. 
>>Reportedly the tube tester cost in excess of $3,000,000 in 1950s 
>>dollars.  Pretty expensive, especially for the period.  I believe that 
>>it was constructed so that General Electric could verify the 
>>performance of tubes that were being supplied for critical performance 
>>applications.
>
> In the relatively few applications where a truly "matched set" of 
> tubes is required (and none of the amateur radio equipment 
> manufacturers shipped transmitters with "matched" tubes from the 
> factory) use of a tube tester is handy.  However, one also has to 
> realize that many tubes do not "age" at exactly the same rate and 
> therefore, after several hours of operation, they start becoming 
> mismatched anyway.
>
> I own 3 or 4 tube testers.  But, it has been years since I have even 
> turned them on.  Now of couple of these were actually made before 
> World War II and I keep them basically as examples of test equipment 
> from the 1930s.  If I need to check the filament/heater it is much 
> quicker to use a VOM or DMM to verify that it is still good.
>
> Now a tube checker is useful in checking for shorted elements.  But 
> the performance in the unit being serviced is usually a good 
> indication of the usefulness of the tube.
>
> Now I don't criticize someone who uses a tube tester to check the 
> condition of their tubes.  But, at least for me, I haven't found a 
> tube tester to be that important.
>
> Glen, K9STH
>
> Website:  http://k9sth.com
>
>
> --- On Mon, 1/26/09, Ken Kaplan <krkaplan at cox.net> wrote:
>
> I have heard this about using the unit itself as the tube checker and 
> I understand why. But are you suggesting that a tube that measures low 
> in an emissions test may work just as well as a tube that measures 
> high in the same test? Even more odd, it sounds like you may be saying 
> that the opposite may sometimes be true (high emissions = poor 
> performance and low emissions = good performance).
>
> If such is the case, then it seems to me that the emissions type 
> testers are not testing enough. Actually, I think we probably all 
> agree on that <g>. But I'm guessing that even a transconductance 
> tester is not totally sufficient? Maybe that Tektronix 570 Curve 
> Tracer I passed up a few years ago would be the ticket. Then again, I 
> could buy a lot of tubes for the price of that beast.
>
> What do you think? Is emissions and/or transconductance testing a 
> waste of time?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hammarlund Mailing List provided by QSL.net
> List Administrator: Duane Fischer W8DBF
> ** For Assistance: dfischer at usol.com **
> ----
> List Info: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hammarlund
> Mailman FAQ: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> 