[R-390] Re: 6C4? 6C4W? 6C4WA?

[David Drew]

Thanks for the advice on the 6C4 mixers. Now I can stop losing sleep over it!  :-)
I only have 6C4's - no W's or WA's. Tim's quick test was very interesting.
I have not yet seen 6C4WA's for under $5 in small quantities.

Dave - K3DX

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:56:41 -0400
> From: "Tim  Shoppa" <tshoppa at wmata.com>
> Subject: Re: [R-390] 6C4? 6C4W? 6C4WA?
> 
> 
> My personal experience: I've got bunches of 6C4's, 6C4W's, and 6C4WA's.
> I believe the technical quantification is "metric buttload".
> 
> Modulo small changes in IF/RF gain balance, I see zero functional
> difference
> between them. I'm not going to claim they all have the same noise figure
> etc. but the "WILL NOT WORK" quote is entirely off-target.
> 
> The CV133 and EC90's are equivalent to 6C4's too.
> 
> But rather than guess what typos somebody else may have 
> made, this afternoon when I got home I put in
> 3 6C4W's and the radio works just fine (even bumping up against
> some of my local AM BCB intermod sources) with nearly identical
> S-meter reading (1 to 2 db higher) than the few-months-installed (and 
> 50 year old) 6C4's I had in there.
>------------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:11:33 +0000
> From: odyslim at comcast.net
> Subject: Re: [R-390] 6C4? 6C4W? 6C4WA?
> To: shoppa_r390a at trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa),
> 	r-390 at mailman.qth.net, David_Wise at Phoenix.com
> 	
> 
>  I have a few different manuals. The oldest states "no substitutions".
> W WA or whatever. the newer manual which is dated April 1970 
> does not mention the tube substitution and has the correct tube
> listed as 6C4W.
> 
>  Scott W3CV