3-500Z

[DLeeT]

 

[TWright33]

Looks out of focus.

 

[timor]

Yeah... focus shifted totally to transistors almost half a century ago.
But Mr. Wright is right, pic is on the soft side when comes to sharpness.

 

[SCraig]

Yeah... focus shifted totally to transistors almost half a century ago.

Not completely true. The 3-500Z is a triode power amplifier tube. Hard to find now but very popular back in the 80's. I've got a pair of them in a 2kw amplifier downstairs.

 

[timor]

Yeah... focus shifted totally to transistors almost half a century ago.

Not completely true. The 3-500Z is a triode power amplifier tube. Hard to find now but very popular back in the 80's. I've got a pair of them in a 2kw amplifier downstairs.

There are always exceptions. Some military installations still run on vacuum tubes as they are impervious to electromagnetic pulse. In case of my statement it was only a joke.

 

[SCraig]

There are always exceptions. Some military installations still run on vacuum tubes as they are impervious to electromagnetic pulse. In case of my statement it was only a joke.

Not only that, but solid-state electronics just can't handle the heat of a vacuum tube. That particular tube is rated at between 500 and 1000 watts input depending on how the circuit is designed, and it isn't anywhere near Eimac's largest tube. I saw one at a commercial FM radio transmitter site years ago that was about 8" in diameter with pins about the size of a pencil. As I recall the station manager told me it was rated at 5,000 watts.

 

[timor]

Oh la... I didn't know that. I guess not everything can go synthetic after all.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I thought too it looked a little soft but then most of it is looking thru glass (or lettering etched on glass), maybe it would work better with the lighting adjusted? Still a cool image, I like all the reflections you can see.

 

[DLeeT]

Thanks for all the comments and yes, on closer inspection, it is a bit soft. Although you can't go by the lettering since it is stamped on "soft" to begin with. Here is a little different version with, perhaps too much sharpening? Lee