Jury in on 6146B/W

[Stewart Lyon]

Hi Gang,
I received over 20 responses to my query regarding 6146B's vs 6146W's. In
my view the most authoritative were from WB9IOG and K4NV. They are
paraphrased below.

>From WB9IOG via private correspondence --
"The following is a development sequence
6146   Original design
6146W  Ruggedized version of the above
6146A  Improved basic 6146
6146B  Final improvement will generate a bit more power"

>From K4NV in the July Collins reflector and private correspondence --
To W5DT --
"...Forget about 6146 and 6146A tubes. Their ratings and design features
left them both far short in performance when compared to the 6146B.
The 6146 and 6146A tubes had a plate dissipation of only 25 watts and
could not stand fluctuations in heater voltage  They were not meant to be
used in class AB1 service. So, out came the 6146B which had a 35 watt
plate dissipation rating plus
it had a new heater design called the "RCA Dark Heater." This heater
functioned
better at 350 degrees K below those of heaters in conventional tubes....
...The 6146B is a tube specifically designed for SSB service.
The others were not, only as a compromise."

To W6CUX --
"The 6146W is a ruggedized version of the 6146...... not the 6146B.
The course of action to take is the 6146B by GE."

K6KC & W3BJZ said essentially  the same thing.

>From the above, I conclude that the 6146B is a better tube for the SB101
and should NOT be replaced with a 6146W.

Thanks to all es 73,
Stu Lyon, W6CUX
Winnetka, CA
-ARRL Life Member

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
To subscribe: listserv at listserv.tempe.gov
and in body: subscribe HEATH yourfirstname yourlastname
To unsubscribe:  listserv at listserv.tempe.gov
and in body: signoff HEATH
Archives for HEATH: http://www.tempe.gov/archives
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --