[Heathkit] SB200 inrush

[C E]

Just as a matter of practice, if I can prevent putting
additional stress on any component to last longer,
that's good enough for me to preserve my electronics. 

You can say the same for any mechanical device that is
constantly battered. If you can stretch the
mean-time-between failure rates even more, I see no
reason not to do so. 

Cal, N6KYR/8
> 
> Inrush protection is typically required where the
> current rating of a 
> transformer is in the 2X or greater value of the
> operating current.  Heath 
> did not over-design these amps in that manner.  Thus
> the current rating or 
> maximum current available at startup is will within
> safe limits of the tubes 
> and transformers.
> 
> I think it having worked for some 30 to 40+ years
> without mods, it is likely 
> good for anther 30 to 40 years without mods.
> 
> I've never found solid technical reasons for inrush
> current limiting.
> 
> 73
> Bob, K4TAX
> 
> 
> >
> > But I do disagree on the current inrush protection
> > comment. I highly suggest adding this item into
> your
> > amplifier. It is another potential unit to fail
> but
> > the way I take a look at it is that you can have a
> > $1.00 part to fail or a $100 or more part (i.e.
> the
> > power transformer) fail. I think you see the
> economics
> > in this. Besides, why needlessly hammer the power
> > transformer with those annoying inrush 'thuds'?
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF        
> ** For Assistance: dfischer at usol.com **         
> $$ See the vintage area on the HCI web site -
> http://www.w9wze.org $$ 
> Heathkit mailing list
> Heathkit at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/heathkit
> 
> 
> End of Heathkit Digest, Vol 40, Issue 3
> ***************************************
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com