Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not exactly a sophisticated piece of test equipment, but lets you eject
bad metal enclosure tubes early:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5b4ogl4pqn8tu1/IMG_20171109_110954264.jpg?dl=0
(all the metal tubes in the 1935 table radio passed)
Not exactly a sophisticated piece of test equipment, but lets you eject
bad metal enclosure tubes early:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5b4ogl4pqn8tu1/IMG_20171109_110954264.jpg?dl=0
(all the metal tubes in the 1935 table radio passed)
bitrex wrote:
Not exactly a sophisticated piece of test equipment, but lets you eject
bad metal enclosure tubes early:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5b4ogl4pqn8tu1/IMG_20171109_110954264.jpg?dl=0
(all the metal tubes in the 1935 table radio passed)
  A common as dirt filament tester. They were common as dirt, and sold
for about $3 in the early '60s. They hyped as real tube testers.
On 11/09/2017 05:58 PM, Michael A Terrell wrote:
bitrex wrote:
Not exactly a sophisticated piece of test equipment, but lets you eject
bad metal enclosure tubes early:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5b4ogl4pqn8tu1/IMG_20171109_110954264.jpg?dl=0
(all the metal tubes in the 1935 table radio passed)
A common as dirt filament tester. They were common as dirt, and
sold for about $3 in the early '60s. They hyped as real tube testers.
"It Does What It Says on the Tin"
bitrex wrote:
On 11/09/2017 05:58 PM, Michael A Terrell wrote:
bitrex wrote:
Not exactly a sophisticated piece of test equipment, but lets you eject
bad metal enclosure tubes early:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5b4ogl4pqn8tu1/IMG_20171109_110954264.jpg?dl=0
(all the metal tubes in the 1935 table radio passed)
   A common as dirt filament tester. They were common as dirt, and
sold for about $3 in the early '60s. They hyped as real tube testers.
"It Does What It Says on the Tin"
  Just like the cans of 'Replacement Vacuum'?
Michael A Terrell wrote:
bitrex wrote:
Michael A Terrell wrote:
A common as dirt filament tester. They were common as dirt, and
sold for about $3 in the early '60s. They hyped as real tube testers.
"It Does What It Says on the Tin"
Just like the cans of 'Replacement Vacuum'?
How do I get the vacuum out of the can and back in the tube, though?
Not exactly a sophisticated piece of test equipment, but lets you eject
bad metal enclosure tubes early:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5b4ogl4pqn8tu1/IMG_20171109_110954264.jpg?dl=0
(all the metal tubes in the 1935 table radio passed)
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:14:39 -0500, bitrex
bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
Not exactly a sophisticated piece of test equipment, but lets you eject
bad metal enclosure tubes early:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5b4ogl4pqn8tu1/IMG_20171109_110954264.jpg?dl=0
(all the metal tubes in the 1935 table radio passed)
Tube testers came as
Filament test
Emission (basically see some plate current)
Gas (grid current)
Shorts
"Mutual conductance" with real AC signals
There were transistor testers for a while, but they went away.
On 11/09/2017 08:44 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:14:39 -0500, bitrex
bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
Not exactly a sophisticated piece of test equipment, but lets you eject
bad metal enclosure tubes early:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5b4ogl4pqn8tu1/IMG_20171109_110954264.jpg?dl=0
(all the metal tubes in the 1935 table radio passed)
Tube testers came as
Filament test
Emission (basically see some plate current)
Gas (grid current)
Shorts
"Mutual conductance" with real AC signals
There were transistor testers for a while, but they went away.
I don't feel much like buying an old-timey tube tester, I don't havea
lot of space in the lab, they're bulky and I wouldn't usually have much
use for it - tubes are kinda cool but I'm not an obsessive and don't do
much with them usually.
I can check for shorts with a DMM, for emission and mutual conductance I
can probably just put 'em in a socket and wire up the standard CC
circuit in the datasheet, using one of the variable high voltage boost
converter modules I have on hand, feed with signal generator and see
what happens
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:14:39 -0500, bitrex
bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
Not exactly a sophisticated piece of test equipment, but lets you eject
bad metal enclosure tubes early:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5b4ogl4pqn8tu1/IMG_20171109_110954264.jpg?dl=0
(all the metal tubes in the 1935 table radio passed)
Tube testers came as
Filament test
Emission (basically see some plate current)
Gas (grid current)
Shorts
"Mutual conductance" with real AC signals
There were transistor testers for a while, but they went away.
On 11/09/2017 08:44 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:14:39 -0500, bitrex
bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
Not exactly a sophisticated piece of test equipment, but lets you eject
bad metal enclosure tubes early:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5b4ogl4pqn8tu1/IMG_20171109_110954264.jpg?dl=0
(all the metal tubes in the 1935 table radio passed)
Tube testers came as
Filament test
Emission (basically see some plate current)
Gas (grid current)
Shorts
"Mutual conductance" with real AC signals
There were transistor testers for a while, but they went away.
I don't feel much like buying an old-timey tube tester, I don't havea
lot of space in the lab, they're bulky and I wouldn't usually have much
use for it - tubes are kinda cool but I'm not an obsessive and don't do
much with them usually.
I can check for shorts with a DMM, for emission and mutual conductance I
can probably just put 'em in a socket and wire up the standard CC
circuit in the datasheet, using one of the variable high voltage boost
converter modules I have on hand, feed with signal generator and see
what happens
Shorts don't always show up until you load the tube (or tap it). You can
also get leakage and other odd things (microphonics, etc.) that the
better tube testers would show. Yes you can make some test gear in your
shop, but how do you get a standard unless you have several NOS tubes to
compare to? We do repair tube gear and so have to have a couple of tube
testers in our shop - mutual conductance is our preferred machine.
John Robertson wrote:
-------------------------
Shorts don't always show up until you load the tube (or tap it). You can
also get leakage and other odd things (microphonics, etc.) that the
better tube testers would show. Yes you can make some test gear in your
shop, but how do you get a standard unless you have several NOS tubes to
compare to? We do repair tube gear and so have to have a couple of tube
testers in our shop - mutual conductance is our preferred machine.
** I still do a lot of work with valves (tubes if you are a Yank) but have never thought buying a "Tube Tester" worthwhile. They simply do not carry out tests needed for audio service or production.
The best way to test a tube is to into plug it into a known working piece of gear and put it through it paces. Another way is to replace a suspect tube with a known good one and see if that changes things.
Recently, inspired by the schem of an old AVO163 "Valve Characteristic Meter" I designed and built my own tube tester that would perform all the needed tests at least as far as common 8 and 9 pin output tubes were concerned.
Using a very simple circuit plus basic bench equipment, it puts a power tube under realistic operating conditions and finds if it working normally. Also matching the performance and idle bias settings for sets of tubes to be used in parallel is easily accommodated. The beauty of the method used is the tube operates under low duty cycle conditions so plate and screen dissipation limits are not approached or exceeded.
I find most use for the tester is with newly purchased tubes, to see if they are up to spec or not.
MY colleague, Rod Elliot, published the design on his web sight as Project 165 in February last year.
http://sound.whsites.net/project165.htm
The many warnings are justified, valve testers can destroy valves.
..... Phil
Shorts don't always show up until you load the tube (or tap it). You can
also get leakage and other odd things (microphonics, etc.) that the
better tube testers would show. Yes you can make some test gear in your
shop, but how do you get a standard unless you have several NOS tubes to
compare to? We do repair tube gear and so have to have a couple of tube
testers in our shop - mutual conductance is our preferred machine.
** I still do a lot of work with valves (tubes if you are a Yank) but have never thought buying a "Tube Tester" worthwhile. They simply do not carry out tests needed for audio service or production.
The best way to test a tube is to into plug it into a known working piece of gear and put it through it paces. Another way is to replace a suspect tube with a known good one and see if that changes things.
Recently, inspired by the schem of an old AVO163 "Valve Characteristic Meter" I designed and built my own tube tester that would perform all the needed tests at least as far as common 8 and 9 pin output tubes were concerned.
Using a very simple circuit plus basic bench equipment, it puts a power tube under realistic operating conditions and finds if it working normally.. Also matching the performance and idle bias settings for sets of tubes to be used in parallel is easily accommodated. The beauty of the method used is the tube operates under low duty cycle conditions so plate and screen dissipation limits are not approached or exceeded.
I find most use for the tester is with newly purchased tubes, to see if they are up to spec or not.
MY colleague, Rod Elliot, published the design on his web sight as Project 165 in February last year.
http://sound.whsites.net/project165.htm
The many warnings are justified, valve testers can destroy valves.
I think I want a AVO VCM163 Valve Characteristic Meter!
John Robertson wrote:
-----------------------
Shorts don't always show up until you load the tube (or tap it). You can
also get leakage and other odd things (microphonics, etc.) that the
better tube testers would show. Yes you can make some test gear in your
shop, but how do you get a standard unless you have several NOS tubes to
compare to? We do repair tube gear and so have to have a couple of tube
testers in our shop - mutual conductance is our preferred machine.
** I still do a lot of work with valves (tubes if you are a Yank) but have never thought buying a "Tube Tester" worthwhile. They simply do not carry out tests needed for audio service or production.
The best way to test a tube is to into plug it into a known working piece of gear and put it through it paces. Another way is to replace a suspect tube with a known good one and see if that changes things.
Recently, inspired by the schem of an old AVO163 "Valve Characteristic Meter" I designed and built my own tube tester that would perform all the needed tests at least as far as common 8 and 9 pin output tubes were concerned.
Using a very simple circuit plus basic bench equipment, it puts a power tube under realistic operating conditions and finds if it working normally.. Also matching the performance and idle bias settings for sets of tubes to be used in parallel is easily accommodated. The beauty of the method used is the tube operates under low duty cycle conditions so plate and screen dissipation limits are not approached or exceeded.
I find most use for the tester is with newly purchased tubes, to see if they are up to spec or not.
MY colleague, Rod Elliot, published the design on his web sight as Project 165 in February last year.
http://sound.whsites.net/project165.htm
The many warnings are justified, valve testers can destroy valves.
I think I want a AVO VCM163 Valve Characteristic Meter!
** That is a very ambiguous thing to post.
My design does a whole HOST of things the AVO does NOT - since it is specifically an output tube tester with used defined parameters that one to mimic or exceed actual operation.
The only similarity lies in the use of unrectified AC for screen and plate voltages.
...... Phil
bitrex wrote:
Michael A Terrell wrote:
bitrex wrote:
Michael A Terrell wrote:
A common as dirt filament tester. They were common as dirt, and
sold for about $3 in the early '60s. They hyped as real tube testers.
"It Does What It Says on the Tin"
Just like the cans of 'Replacement Vacuum'?
How do I get the vacuum out of the can and back in the tube, though?
That was explained on the tin, not in the ads.
Shorts don't always show up until you load the tube (or tap it). You can
also get leakage and other odd things (microphonics, etc.) that the
better tube testers would show. Yes you can make some test gear in your
shop, but how do you get a standard unless you have several NOS tubes to
compare to? We do repair tube gear and so have to have a couple of tube
testers in our shop - mutual conductance is our preferred machine.
** I still do a lot of work with valves (tubes if you are a Yank) but have never thought buying a "Tube Tester" worthwhile. They simply do not carry out tests needed for audio service or production.
The best way to test a tube is to into plug it into a known working piece of gear and put it through it paces. Another way is to replace a suspect tube with a known good one and see if that changes things.
Recently, inspired by the schem of an old AVO163 "Valve Characteristic Meter" I designed and built my own tube tester that would perform all the needed tests at least as far as common 8 and 9 pin output tubes were concerned.
Using a very simple circuit plus basic bench equipment, it puts a power tube under realistic operating conditions and finds if it working normally.. Also matching the performance and idle bias settings for sets of tubes to be used in parallel is easily accommodated. The beauty of the method used is the tube operates under low duty cycle conditions so plate and screen dissipation limits are not approached or exceeded.
I find most use for the tester is with newly purchased tubes, to see if they are up to spec or not.
MY colleague, Rod Elliot, published the design on his web sight as Project 165 in February last year.
http://sound.whsites.net/project165.htm
The many warnings are justified, valve testers can destroy valves.
I think I want a AVO VCM163 Valve Characteristic Meter!
** That is a very ambiguous thing to post.
My design does a whole HOST of things the AVO does NOT - since it is specifically an output tube tester with used defined parameters that one to mimic or exceed actual operation.
The only similarity lies in the use of unrectified AC for screen and plate voltages.
Yes, Phil, it was ambiguous, however we use about forty or more
different types of tubes.
And your process above, while it would be
great on high end equipment, is deeper than we would ever need to go for
our jukebox customers.
These aren't Macintosh amps - and my staff just
can't take the time to learn a whole new set of testing procedures just
to get the best tube for the job.
I need something quicker and easier to use in our shop.
Hence the MC
style tube tester which does a pretty good test for most tubes. And when
the results are inconclusive we have swapped tubes from our stock to try
and find the best sounding ones.
The AVO looked like a step up from our current 1950s tester...
In article <6Z6NB.1751$227.328@fx40.iad>, mike.terrell@earthlink.net
says...
bitrex wrote:
Michael A Terrell wrote:
bitrex wrote:
Michael A Terrell wrote:
A common as dirt filament tester. They were common as dirt, and
sold for about $3 in the early '60s. They hyped as real tube testers.
"It Does What It Says on the Tin"
Just like the cans of 'Replacement Vacuum'?
How do I get the vacuum out of the can and back in the tube, though?
That was explained on the tin, not in the ads.
I like that idea. Did you have to wear a space-suit in case any vacuum
got spilled?
Mike.
In article <6Z6NB.1751$227.328@fx40.iad>, mike.terrell@earthlink.net
says...
bitrex wrote:
Michael A Terrell wrote:
bitrex wrote:
Michael A Terrell wrote:
A common as dirt filament tester. They were common as dirt, and
sold for about $3 in the early '60s. They hyped as real tube testers.
"It Does What It Says on the Tin"
Just like the cans of 'Replacement Vacuum'?
How do I get the vacuum out of the can and back in the tube, though?
That was explained on the tin, not in the ads.
I like that idea. Did you have to wear a space-suit in case any vacuum
got spilled?
Mike.