Re: [drakelist] Why is it...?

2007-01-18 Thread Robert C. Abell
"Robert C. Abell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang -- Terrell E. Hamilton wrote: I believe that the Transceiver version of the T4X had an output of upwards of 300 watts, and I've heard that the T4 cou

[drakelist] Why is it...?

2007-01-18 Thread Terrell E. Hamilton
I believe that the Transceiver version of the T4X had an output of upwards of 300 watts, and I've heard that the T4 could only put out about 100 watts. Now if this is true, why was it so? It would seem to me that the transmitter-only version would be the better bet for higher power - no receiver,

[drakelist] Why is it...?

2007-01-18 Thread Terrell E. Hamilton
I believe that the Transceiver version of the T4X had an output of upwards of 300 watts, and I've heard that the T4 could only put out about 100 watts. Now if this is true, why was it so? It would seem to me that the transmitter-only version would be the better bet for higher power - no receiver,

Re: [drakelist] Why is it...?

2007-01-17 Thread EL34GUY
Hi Terry, TR4 transceiver has 3 6jb6 tubes so about 200 watts or so out T4X transmitter has 2 6JB6 tubes so about 130-140 out Im not sure why Drake did it that way or their rationale, but that's the way it was done. Very awesome equipment. Easier to match 2 vs 3 tubes as well 73 Ma