[Heathkit] Re: Re: 6293 tube question

[Ken Kaplan]

Harold,

Hang on to your 6146. I bet we'll have a problem finding a 6293 for autopsy. Seriously - if I 
can get 2 specimens, I'll tear'em down, take measurements & pictures and post the results 
on a website.

Ken

> Looks like there is a simple solution available. Obtain a weak/defective 
> specimen of each tube. Wrap them separately in a cloth and and take a hammer 
> to them or cut them open if you have the tools. I will supply the 6146.
>
> Harold
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ken Kaplan" <krkaplan at cox.net>
> To: <heathkit at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 4:00 Hank
> Subject: [Heathkit] Re: 6293 tube question
>
>
> > Ok - I don't doubt that Glen is right about the 6293 being a "tougher" 
> > 6146. What I haven't
> > been able to figure out is how they (the manufacturers) did it. I examined 
> > a 6293 and a 6146
> > under a 10x-30x stereo microscope and I'd swear on a stack of good matched 
> > pair gold pin
> > cryogenic treated shot peened magnafluxed 6L6's that they are the same 
> > inside (at least
> > what you can see through the glass). The plate metal and other visible 
> > parts are the same
> > thickness and the spot welds look the same. Must be something different 
> > deeper inside.
> > Guess I'll have to wait until they go bad to find out.
> >
> > Anyone who uses 6146 family tubes (bet there are at least a dozen of you) 
> > should read
> > Glen's article on the tube.
> >
> > fyi - tubes are not pretty at 10x and worse at 30x.
> >
> > btw - I was just kidding about the 6L6's (especially the shot peened 
> > part).
> >
> > 73 Ken kb7rgg
> >
> > 
>