In Reply to: RE: Dennis talks 2A3... post-RMAF 2016 posted by Tre' on December 25, 2016 at 09:56:21:
I think we may be interjecting a bit too much into the accuracy of the sketches. It does appear clear that the anode area is directly related to the filament structure. In the drawings I referenced there are curves around the corner which seems slightly more plausible than the sharp angles shown for the 211. I do strongly suspect that the edges are much more softly defined and and the "boxiness" of the drawings represents the average behavior over an area.
The point I was trying to put forth was that the filament appears to define the "active" plate area and while 100% "anode activity" may be achievable, I am not convinced it is a figure of merit that we should solely base out tube choice decisions on.
dave
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Dennis talks 2A3... post-RMAF 2016 - dave slagle 16:54:54 12/25/16 (6)
- While we're busy 'interjecting'... - Ivan303 17:44:24 12/25/16 (4)
- RE: While we're busy 'interjecting'... - dave slagle 08:42:57 12/26/16 (3)
- And I guess if you HAVE to parallel plates... - Ivan303 15:08:48 12/26/16 (1)
- RE: And I guess if you HAVE to parallel plates... - dave slagle 17:26:17 12/26/16 (0)
- RE: While we're busy 'interjecting'... - drlowmu 14:18:44 12/26/16 (0)
- RE: Dennis talks 2A3... post-RMAF 2016 - Tre' 17:08:53 12/25/16 (0)