Not offended really just puzzled

Posted by LR-dan (A) on April 9, 2007 at 19:04:33

In Reply to: Re: 6550 closest to GE. Current production only posted by Jim McShane on April 9, 2007 at 16:05:45:

I really am not offended. I just don't like for you to keep quoting me out of context. The other other half that you leave out totally messes up the meaning. This started in my 2nd response and 3rd response.

One thing that puzzled me was this exchange: in my 2nd post I also said:

"Good point. I forgot to say that the Mark 3 standard bias setting runs each KT88 with 70mA to get me to 35 Watts at idle per tube."

You still came back with:
"Did you read what I said about voltage? It appears not... so let me write it one more time - voltage of and by itself is not hard on a tube!"

So I really started to think it was you that wasn't reading my post fully. No big deal, I just get kind of confused why you take it down that way.

I want to thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding about the design max versus absolute max. As I said, I did not even have the absolute max on my data sheet just the design max. That was the source of my problem. Not the understanding of the voltage versus power issue. So I guess I need to get tube data some books.

I spent much time at my last job using various high voltage discharge units to get parts to fail from arcing. Sometimes high voltage section of the circuit would arc to ground and reset the microcontroller. However...

I also spent equal amounts of time connecting just one more unit up to see of the master unit could handle just a few more mA of current before a resistor, circuit trace, transistor or diode would fail from overheating. From time to time components had to be made more robust for each case. So I have some understanding of the differences at least in the solid state world.

Sorry for the hijack of the original post.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - 6550 closest to GE. Current production only - gnugear 18:22:26 04/08/07 (16)

Re: 6550 closest to GE. Current production only - LR-dan 11:30:48 04/09/07 (10)

Re: 6550 closest to GE. Current production only - Jim McShane 11:56:15 04/09/07 (9)

Re: I agree about GE and SED sounding the closest. - SirAnthony 21:22:16 04/10/07 (0)

Re: 6550 closest to GE. Current production only - LR-dan 12:32:32 04/09/07 (7)

Re: 6550 closest to GE. Current production only - Jim McShane 12:47:10 04/09/07 (6)

Re: 6550 closest to GE. Current production only - LR-dan 15:21:56 04/09/07 (5)

Re: 6550 closest to GE. Current production only - nightdoggy 16:52:43 04/09/07 (0)

Re: 6550 closest to GE. Current production only - Jim McShane 16:05:45 04/09/07 (3)

Not offended really just puzzled - LR-dan 19:04:33 04/09/07 (2)

I'll try - Russ57 08:53:27 04/10/07 (1)

Re: I'll try - LR-dan 12:05:06 04/10/07 (0)

Re: 6550 closest to GE. Current production only - peterguarino@earthlink.net 07:18:25 04/09/07 (0)

Re: 6550 closest to GE. Current production only - Eli Duttman 18:59:28 04/08/07 (1)

Re: 6550 closest to GE. Current production only - Michael Samra 20:51:14 04/08/07 (0)

I like the "Flying C" 6550 tubes (formerly known as Svetlana)(nt) - Chris O 18:51:27 04/08/07 (1)

I'll Second the Flying =C= (nt) - kstagger 04:35:21 04/09/07 (0)

Follow Ups

Not offended really just puzzled - LR-dan 19:04:33 04/09/07 (2)

I'll try - Russ57 08:53:27 04/10/07 (1)

Re: I'll try - LR-dan 12:05:06 04/10/07 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.