[Boatanchors] 6146 vs 6146A vs 6146B or 6146W

Wed Jul 6 02:44:15 EDT 2011

Give it a rest Carl, we all know that "YOUR THE MAN"

Gary
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>
To: "Glen Zook" <gzook at yahoo.com>; "lee" <pulsarxp at embarqmail.com>; 
<boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] 6146 vs 6146A vs 6146B or 6146W


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Glen Zook" <gzook at yahoo.com>
> To: "lee" <pulsarxp at embarqmail.com>; <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>; "Carl"
> <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] 6146 vs 6146A vs 6146B or 6146W
>
>
>> And they don't work in my Seneca and several others that I have worked on
>> for others WITHOUT modification.  That is the key, MODIFICATION.  For
>> those who think that the tubes can just be interchanged they are badly
>> mistaken.  Sometimes they can and sometimes they cant.
>
> And just what is that modification? And I dont mean simply retuning which 
> is
> not considered a mod.
>
>>
>> Considering the severe disagreements between you and W8JI on QRZ.com, I 
>> am
>> surprised that you are now mentioning him!
>
> Tom and I have  been battling for close to 20 years, he has his good days
> and other times he is full of it and many feel the same way.  As the sole
> engineer for a 4th rate company he is able to bull his way thru as there 
> is
> no one there to question him. On the internet there are others who can 
> blow
> him away daily. You note how he completely dances around a subject when
> anyone is boring in and gets his friends to lock the thread.
>
>
>> In fact, you have had some very uncomplimentary comments about his ideas!
>
> Yep but its not constant. He just likes to believe he is perfect but note
> that over the years QRZ is the only place left he can confuse and confound
> the majority who are arguably mostly ex CBers with the ink still wet on
> their so called no code Tech ham license. He is gone from all the premier
> sites.
> We actually do agree at times BTW.
>
> > W8JI has NOT rebuked my article.
>
> Thats not what I said.
>
>
>>  He has commented that in his experience that he has not had problems and
>> based on that he has his opinion.  Also, W8JI is VERY critical of 
>> Collins'
>> designs and those of Motorola as well.  Of course, it just seems to me,
>> that if the designs by Motorola and Collins were so bad that they would
>> not have sold hundreds of thousands of radios in both the civilian and
>> military markets!
>
>
> And only a small fraction had a 6146 in it. Youre starting to sound like 
> JI
> who is a master of obfuscation.
>
> The Collins neutralizing circuit was bad from the very beginning and was
> unable to handle many 6146 and A's to be fully neutralized on 10M. On 
> other
> bands it was close enough to work OK. The later version was what should 
> have
> been there since the beginning. Collins was by far NOT the greatest of
> engineering brilliance in several areas, some of it caused by the 
> egomaniac
> at the top. The 30L1 is another example of a firecracker waiting to go off
> even after a steady run of changes during its production life.
>
> And again I dont give a damn about Motorola, GE, RCA, or any other
> commercial VHF FM manufacturer. A local friend has owned an independent 2
> way shop since the 60's and Ive been his go-to guy for taking care of 
> poorly
> designed amp circuits, tube and SS. Selling thousands just means they have 
> a
> good sales force and the end users are about as intelligent as a rock.
>
>>
>> By the way, it was not just Motorola that had problems with the
>> 6146B/8298A, General Electric, RCA, and other commercial two-way radio
>> manufacturers did as well.
>
>
> See above, not all brands of even straight 6146/A's are compatible in some
> gear produced by a tube manufacturer.
>
>
>> I do not intend to edit my article.  It has been well received in the 9
>> years since it was written and the comments, letters, E-Mail, etc.,
>> received have run at least 10:1 confirming my observations.  The article
>> has been reprinted in several countries besides the United States.
>>
>
> Well its also derided by many whom I consider well qualified real 
> engineers.
> My email just today is about 8:0 the other way and its similar everytime 
> we
> get into it again.
>
>
>> No where do I absolutely state that the 6146B/8298A should not be used. 
>> I
>> mention that there are operators who have had no problems at all.  But, I
>> do recommend that the person who replaces the earlier versions of the
>> tubes with the 6146B/8298A be aware that they may have problems and those
>> problems happen much more times than not.
>
> Its been edited since it first appeared as a good CYA move. JI does that
> often as he is blown out of the water or takes a page down entirely.
>
>
>>
>> You have stated on QRZ.com that you have MODIFIED equipment to work with
>> the 6146B/8298A.
>
>
> I did? Except for replacing sweep tubes I dont recall any but its 
> possible.
> Maybe you mean my using the 12V version in 2 of my  4 TS-830's? Is moving
> some wires considered a mod? I dont think so as the tube hasnt otherwise
> changed.
>
>
>
>> I have MODIFIED equipment to work with the 6146B/8298A.  That is NOT a
>> "plug and play" replacement.  Many operators are very comfortable with
>> modifying their equipment but a much larger number are not comfortable
>> doing so.
>>
>> Again, the article was written to inform operators that there are often
>> problems using the 6146B/8298A in older equipment.  If they are aware of
>> the potential problems then they can proceed knowing the situation.  If
>> they are not aware, then when the do have problems then often that person
>> doesn't have any idea as to the cause of the problems.
>
> If a component hasnt been changed its not a modification. If a component 
> has
> been changed it may be to fix the symptom and not the cause. There is a
> difference between doing a tech fix and an engineered analysis. Both may
> result in the same outcome. In other cases the rig is inherently 
> borderline
> unstable to start with which should be the first thing addressed. 
> Companies
> on a limited budget couldnt afford a lot of time for perfection and a big
> plus is they did not have the test equipment available these days even on 
> a
> hams budget.
>
> The article is worded so that it positively scares non technical types 
> into
> believing their rig will blow up. I run into this all the time on forums,
> email, and customer gear in the shop. "Oh my God, you cant put 6146B's in 
> my
> grandfathers HT-32".....etc is what I have to put up with.
> Maybe you believe the article is OK but IMO its way too strong and over 
> the
> top for many; and based upon the current crop of "hams" it will only
> increase.
>
> Carl
> KM1H
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Glen, K9STH
>>
>> Website:  http://k9sth.com
>>
>>
>> --- On Tue, 7/5/11, Carl <km1h at jeremy.mv.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Lee and Glen has been preaching this nonsense way too long 
>> on
>> these forums plus on QRZ.com where W8JI tore your comments up pretty bad.
>>
>> Glen, its time to edit that web page and stick to basics and as mentioned
>> nobody gives a damn about Motorola.
>>
>> The 6146B's even work in a Heathkit Seneca and a Gonset G-50 just fine as
>> well as every HF rig Ive ever tried.
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3746 - Release Date: 07/05/11
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Boatanchors mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Boatanchors at mailman.qth.net
>
> List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF
> ** For Assistance: dfischer at usol.com **
>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>