Quote from: KM1H on June 27, 2012, 02:06:30 PM
The Vikings are OK in stock form if you dont run beyond about an 80W carrier and audio to match; otherwise the driver iron folds up.
See? I don't think running them at their rated output could be considered 'extreme'. I'll bet if you cut back the 32V to 75-80w you'll have fewer failures of original components too. It just stands to reason due to the things mentioned previously about elevated line voltage, etc.
Folded up doesnt mean failed, I thought you knew more about the teriminology. Also Im still trying to get it thru your thick bean that the later 32V's had problems before AM died off and yes 125VAC doesnt help these days. But the Vikers dont seem to be bothered nor do most other transmitter brands. Ask Gary what he thinks about Collins iron, I forget his call.
http://members.tripod.com/tubes_tubes_tubes/transformerrewindingservice/Start by reading all the old CQ's for more info, most cant be found in index searches
Don't need to - there are already ample examples of this theory being inaccurate too. Not that the ARRL wasn't eventually pro SSB, we're all certain of that. But as I pointed out in a thread in the QSO section, SSB had yet to become an issue when some manufacturers like Collins were restricting bandwidth on their own, to create more audio punch and sell more radios. Simply a business decision. The KW-1 sold back in the early 50s and started off with much broader audio than it ended up with. If your conspiracy theory is true, why wouldn't they have started with restricted audio from the get-go in 51-52, instead of waiting until half way through the production run? And the Ranger is known for having broader audio out of the box. Did Edgar not get the ARRL memo until the Valiant in '56? What about the Eico 720 from the late 50s/early 60s?
What examples? All Ive seen so far is chatter.
As far as Collins the obvious answer is that they phased into it rather than scrap costly iron. Im sure the ARRL had agreements. Who cares about the KW-1, they didnt make enough to count anyway.
The Ranger is known for WHAT? Do you have a plotted bandwidth handy or does it just sound better because iron isnt being stressed into saturation?
The Eico 720 was a CW rig for crying out loud and the seperate 730 wasnt anything special as designed, what is its BW? Did the 730 ads run in QST for the years it was offered or was it more a catalog and store item?
I wasn't there, but everything I've read and heard from others back then says it was merely a case of it being Amateur radio, not broadcast AM. Communication was the goal, so the more punch your audio had and the less wasted in extra lows and highs, the better your chances for being heard. Who wanted to sell a transmitter that sounded wonderful but got lost in the noise?
Not there but you believe everything you hear 3rd hand and more. The fact is that the punch became accepted with the help of many QST editorials and articles drumming it in.
The deep lows were a waste of power and highs didnt affect the talk power, it was bringing up the average percentage that gave the punch. Highs took up some BW but even they were chopped off in many receivers by 1955 or so
Even the fine sounding phasing rigs were restricted to around 3KHz but sounded a lot better than 2.4 to 2.7KHz filter rigs.
When I kick my TS-950SD to about 3300Hz on AM or SSB it also sounds much better.