Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
I have two data sheets for the 6N1P, both Russian with English
translations, which seem to give conflicting values for maximum heater to cathode voltages. One specifies Ukh as +100V and -250V. As the k precedes the h I assume these are cathode voltages relative to the heater, so this spec says the cathode can be at most 100V positive with respect to the heater. The other describes these parameters in words. It says: Voltage between cathode and heater: - with heater at positive potential 100V - with heater at negative potential 250V I take this to mean the heater can be up to 100V above the cathode or 250V below it, which seems to me to be the exact opposite of what the other spec says. So, which is right? Cheers Ian |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
Hi RATs!
I am not sure, neither. I love the 6N1P and have used it in many circuits. I do not design circuits with anything near 100V between heater and cathode. I put a a V-Cap between the 6AU6 and 6BN8 in an AA-161 amp today. It is new, so it will be some weeks before I can feel confident in saying it seems to work. I used a similar rated MusiCap in the other 161 in the same location and circuit. They measured 0.1047 and 0.1044 uF, so no meaningful comparison can be made I love soldering new parts into old amps I am easily amused. What drives people to build circuits with 250 volts between the cathode and the heater? Perhaps some folks are even crazier than me? Happy Ears! Al |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
"tubegarden" wrote in message ... Hi RATs! I am not sure, neither. I love the 6N1P and have used it in many circuits. I do not design circuits with anything near 100V between heater and cathode. I put a a V-Cap between the 6AU6 and 6BN8 in an AA-161 amp today. It is new, so it will be some weeks before I can feel confident in saying it seems to work. I used a similar rated MusiCap in the other 161 in the same location and circuit. They measured 0.1047 and 0.1044 uF, so no meaningful comparison can be made I love soldering new parts into old amps I am easily amused. Happy Ears! Al Hi Al. Nice to come back from holiday and see you posting. Hope you are well. What drives people to build circuits with 250 volts between the cathode and the heater? Perhaps some folks are even crazier than me? Not at all. With cathode folllowers and mu followers the cathode is always at a considerably higher potential thant the DC heater. I usualy put the heater at 95V to decrease the differential with a floating heater suply. Regards Iain |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote: I have two data sheets for the 6N1P, both Russian with English translations, which seem to give conflicting values for maximum heater to cathode voltages. One specifies Ukh as +100V and -250V. As the k precedes the h I assume these are cathode voltages relative to the heater, so this spec says the cathode can be at most 100V positive with respect to the heater. The other describes these parameters in words. It says: Voltage between cathode and heater: - with heater at positive potential 100V - with heater at negative potential 250V I take this to mean the heater can be up to 100V above the cathode or 250V below it, which seems to me to be the exact opposite of what the other spec says. So, which is right? Cheers Ian Probably all is misleading. I'd never run a cathode at a dc potential of more than +/- 70V with respect to the heater. So if you have a CF where the cathode swings maybe 135Vrms, as might be the case if driving an 845 grid in class AB2, then be prepared to have the filament and its voltage supply and transformer winding also swing as well, which may mean you also need a screened tranny winding to prevent stray C coupling to the mains. Never believe all the BS about heater to cathode voltage ratings, and don't tempt fate by allowing more than +/-70V peak to ever exist. Patrick Turner. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
does the 6922 tube tell you anything
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message ... I have two data sheets for the 6N1P, both Russian with English translations, which seem to give conflicting values for maximum heater to cathode voltages. One specifies Ukh as +100V and -250V. As the k precedes the h I assume these are cathode voltages relative to the heater, so this spec says the cathode can be at most 100V positive with respect to the heater. The other describes these parameters in words. It says: Voltage between cathode and heater: - with heater at positive potential 100V - with heater at negative potential 250V I take this to mean the heater can be up to 100V above the cathode or 250V below it, which seems to me to be the exact opposite of what the other spec says. So, which is right? Cheers Ian |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Ian Thompson-Bell wrote: I have two data sheets for the 6N1P, both Russian with English translations, which seem to give conflicting values for maximum heater to cathode voltages. One specifies Ukh as +100V and -250V. As the k precedes the h I assume these are cathode voltages relative to the heater, so this spec says the cathode can be at most 100V positive with respect to the heater. The other describes these parameters in words. It says: Voltage between cathode and heater: - with heater at positive potential 100V - with heater at negative potential 250V I take this to mean the heater can be up to 100V above the cathode or 250V below it, which seems to me to be the exact opposite of what the other spec says. So, which is right? Cheers Ian Probably all is misleading. I'd never run a cathode at a dc potential of more than +/- 70V with respect to the heater. So if you have a CF where the cathode swings maybe 135Vrms, as might be the case if driving an 845 grid in class AB2, then be prepared to have the filament and itsa voltage supply and transformer winding also swing as well, which may mean you also need a screened tranny winding to prevent stray C coupling to the mains. If you don't have a dedicated winding, you can use a pair of resistors across one of the B+ first filter caps to total 1M and adjust their values to give you the elevated voltage you need at the centre of these two. You then apply this voltage to both sides of the heater cap via 100 Ohms resistors. The heater supply must, of course, float. It works well. Details are given in Rozenblit's book. a small decoupling cap (I use 0.1µF) is required at the junction of the two resistors, and also on each leg of the heater at the tube socket. Regards to all Iain |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
Iain Churches wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Ian Thompson-Bell wrote: I have two data sheets for the 6N1P, both Russian with English translations, which seem to give conflicting values for maximum heater to cathode voltages. One specifies Ukh as +100V and -250V. As the k precedes the h I assume these are cathode voltages relative to the heater, so this spec says the cathode can be at most 100V positive with respect to the heater. The other describes these parameters in words. It says: Voltage between cathode and heater: - with heater at positive potential 100V - with heater at negative potential 250V I take this to mean the heater can be up to 100V above the cathode or 250V below it, which seems to me to be the exact opposite of what the other spec says. So, which is right? Cheers Ian Probably all is misleading. I'd never run a cathode at a dc potential of more than +/- 70V with respect to the heater. So if you have a CF where the cathode swings maybe 135Vrms, as might be the case if driving an 845 grid in class AB2, then be prepared to have the filament and itsa voltage supply and transformer winding also swing as well, which may mean you also need a screened tranny winding to prevent stray C coupling to the mains. If you don't have a dedicated winding, you can use a pair of resistors across one of the B+ first filter caps to total 1M and adjust their values to give you the elevated voltage you need at the centre of these two. You then apply this voltage to both sides of the heater cap via 100 Ohms resistors. The heater supply must, of course, float. It works well. Details are given in Rozenblit's book. a small decoupling cap (I use 0.1µF) is required at the junction of the two resistors, and also on each leg of the heater at the tube socket. I think Patricks point was if you have a valve where the cathode moves +- 190v then no fixed reference will work for that heater, and the only choice is a supply for that valve that only feeds that valve and is allowed to swing with the cathode. This of course implies that for two chan, you need two of the supplies. And then as mentioned, the cathode will have to drag the supply around with all its associated capacitances. -- Nick |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message ... I have two data sheets for the 6N1P, both Russian with English translations, which seem to give conflicting values for maximum heater to cathode voltages. One specifies Ukh as +100V and -250V. As the k precedes the h I assume these are cathode voltages relative to the heater, so this spec says the cathode can be at most 100V positive with respect to the heater. The other describes these parameters in words. It says: Voltage between cathode and heater: - with heater at positive potential 100V - with heater at negative potential 250V I take this to mean the heater can be up to 100V above the cathode or 250V below it, which seems to me to be the exact opposite of what the other spec says. So, which is right? Cheers Ian I doubt it can reliably stand 250V. Quality control was not that good at Russian factories to guarantee such strong insulation. Also measuring cathode-heater leakage I found that Russian tubes 6N1P, 6N2P, 6N6P might have up to 10uA leakage even at about 10V between caathode and the heater, while European, Japanese and American tubes ECC83, ECC85, etc. leakage well under 1uA. Excessive leakage in Russian tubes can cause hum, if cathode to ground impedance is not low. Regards, Alex |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
Alex wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message ... I have two data sheets for the 6N1P, both Russian with English translations, which seem to give conflicting values for maximum heater to cathode voltages. One specifies Ukh as +100V and -250V. As the k precedes the h I assume these are cathode voltages relative to the heater, so this spec says the cathode can be at most 100V positive with respect to the heater. The other describes these parameters in words. It says: Voltage between cathode and heater: - with heater at positive potential 100V - with heater at negative potential 250V I take this to mean the heater can be up to 100V above the cathode or 250V below it, which seems to me to be the exact opposite of what the other spec says. So, which is right? Cheers Ian I doubt it can reliably stand 250V. Quality control was not that good at Russian factories to guarantee such strong insulation. Also measuring cathode-heater leakage I found that Russian tubes 6N1P, 6N2P, 6N6P might have up to 10uA leakage even at about 10V between caathode and the heater, while European, Japanese and American tubes ECC83, ECC85, etc. leakage well under 1uA. Excessive leakage in Russian tubes can cause hum, if cathode to ground impedance is not low. Regards, Alex The Sovtek (Russian) 7199 was so bad in this respect, they did away with it entirely. LV |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
Nick Gorham wrote: Iain Churches wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Ian Thompson-Bell wrote: I have two data sheets for the 6N1P, both Russian with English translations, which seem to give conflicting values for maximum heater to cathode voltages. One specifies Ukh as +100V and -250V. As the k precedes the h I assume these are cathode voltages relative to the heater, so this spec says the cathode can be at most 100V positive with respect to the heater. The other describes these parameters in words. It says: Voltage between cathode and heater: - with heater at positive potential 100V - with heater at negative potential 250V I take this to mean the heater can be up to 100V above the cathode or 250V below it, which seems to me to be the exact opposite of what the other spec says. So, which is right? Cheers Ian Probably all is misleading. I'd never run a cathode at a dc potential of more than +/- 70V with respect to the heater. So if you have a CF where the cathode swings maybe 135Vrms, as might be the case if driving an 845 grid in class AB2, then be prepared to have the filament and itsa voltage supply and transformer winding also swing as well, which may mean you also need a screened tranny winding to prevent stray C coupling to the mains. If you don't have a dedicated winding, you can use a pair of resistors across one of the B+ first filter caps to total 1M and adjust their values to give you the elevated voltage you need at the centre of these two. You then apply this voltage to both sides of the heater cap via 100 Ohms resistors. The heater supply must, of course, float. It works well. Details are given in Rozenblit's book. a small decoupling cap (I use 0.1µF) is required at the junction of the two resistors, and also on each leg of the heater at the tube socket. I think Patricks point was if you have a valve where the cathode moves +- 190v then no fixed reference will work for that heater, and the only choice is a supply for that valve that only feeds that valve and is allowed to swing with the cathode. This of course implies that for two chan, you need two of the supplies. And then as mentioned, the cathode will have to drag the supply around with all its associated capacitances. -- Nick Yes, you got my point OK. In many amps the swing is less than we need to be concerned about, eg, say a driver tube ahead of a trioded KT88 etc, and where the driver has Ek at say +10V. But when the output tube is an 845, or where there is a lot of CFB, say in a McIntosh, where the drive voltage to an output grid can be 150Vrms, and there is a cathode follower, then you have some concerns about exceeding specs sometimes. McIntosh were not concerned though. They never empoyed floating heater windings. If McI did id, then why not everyone else? Well, I have to fix a lot of failed and badly designed hi-end brandname amps and this all teaches me that McI and others are eternal optimists, and that **** happens!!!! Chinese tube making quality control standards leaves much to be desired. Big Vswing + chinese tube = probable disaster. In ARC VT100, I have seen 6922 used as direct coupled CF to drive output tubes. There is +450V at the CF anodes, but cathodes are at -60V for biasing the output tubes and wanted max swing is 65Vrms to the 6550 grids with the mild CFB with UL. The heaters are at 0V and the whole set up using 6922 stinks of brown smoke sooner rather than later. I replace the whole gain stage with with 12BH7, and **** those 6922 outa there, no CF and just have normal C&R coupling to output tubes with individual biasing, so the whole **** load of unreliability is jetisoned. A CF will typically have an Rout = 1/gm = say 400 ohms if gm = 0.0025A/V .. The capacitance between a 6.3V winding and 0V or some shield in a small 1:1 tranny used between an existing 6.3V winding and the CF is next to nothing, maybe 200pF, So the amount of C "dragged around" is SFA depending how much effort you use to set things up. But of course at above 100kHz the C does cause an extra phase shift so with FB the C does no good, but then with a good knowledge of critcal damping, a wise designer will get over that little problem like all the rest. 0.002uF would be a much worse problem! In a bloomin VAC 7070 amp with 8 x 300B for both channels, there are 8 heater supplies taken from 4 small transformers, 2 windings per tranny. With direct heated tubes, you MUST have floating heater windings. So having a couple is child's play if you need them. As I said, to avoid the C between a 6.3V winding and a nearby mains winding, and the ingress of switching noise, a second small 1:1 tranny may be used with a larger gap between P&S to reduce the stray C to mains by 1/10. Or fit a screen between P&S, which is the best. One could then even connect the CT of the heater winding directly to a live indirectly heated cathode. I have often thought of doing a 211 amp which might run in class AB2, so CF drive is a good idea, and a high swing is needed. I would probably use a an EL84 in triode as the CF driver, Rout 200ohms, so noise from stray C probably won't affect it much. Patrick Turner. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
Patrick Turner wrote:
One could then even connect the CT of the heater winding directly to a live indirectly heated cathode. I have often thought of doing a 211 amp which might run in class AB2, so CF drive is a good idea, and a high swing is needed. I would probably use a an EL84 in triode as the CF driver, Rout 200ohms, so noise from stray C probably won't affect it much. Yep, thats what this is: http://www.lurcher.org/nick/images/211/ 6sn7 - 6sn7 - el84 - 211 Produces about 32w with a B+ of about 950v -- Nick |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message ... Patrick Turner wrote: One could then even connect the CT of the heater winding directly to a live indirectly heated cathode. I have often thought of doing a 211 amp which might run in class AB2, so CF drive is a good idea, and a high swing is needed. I would probably use a an EL84 in triode as the CF driver, Rout 200ohms, so noise from stray C probably won't affect it much. Yep, thats what this is: http://www.lurcher.org/nick/images/211/ 6sn7 - 6sn7 - el84 - 211 Produces about 32w with a B+ of about 950v Excellent pics, Nick. Great project. Any other performance figs? Glad to see you are using Sowter iron:-) Iain |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: One could then even connect the CT of the heater winding directly to a live indirectly heated cathode. I have often thought of doing a 211 amp which might run in class AB2, so CF drive is a good idea, and a high swing is needed. I would probably use a an EL84 in triode as the CF driver, Rout 200ohms, so noise from stray C probably won't affect it much. Yep, thats what this is: http://www.lurcher.org/nick/images/211/ 6sn7 - 6sn7 - el84 - 211 Produces about 32w with a B+ of about 950v It looks like you are using input transformers in that amplifier, what is your thinking on that? Regards, John Byrns -- Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
John Byrns wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: One could then even connect the CT of the heater winding directly to a live indirectly heated cathode. I have often thought of doing a 211 amp which might run in class AB2, so CF drive is a good idea, and a high swing is needed. I would probably use a an EL84 in triode as the CF driver, Rout 200ohms, so noise from stray C probably won't affect it much. Yep, thats what this is: http://www.lurcher.org/nick/images/211/ 6sn7 - 6sn7 - el84 - 211 Produces about 32w with a B+ of about 950v It looks like you are using input transformers in that amplifier, what is your thinking on that? Regards, John Byrns Two reasons, first the requirement was to support a balanced input, and secondly it removes any issue with hum loops. Given the first need, sending the RCA input through the TX's as well made more sense. It provided the reduction in hum loops, and to my ears had no negative effect on the sound. Also to provide balanced input and single ended without the TX's would have required a lot of faffing about with switching which to my mind would only tend to introduce problems. -- Nick |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Input transformers was 6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltage specs
Nick Gorham wrote: John Byrns wrote: In article , Nick Gorham wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: One could then even connect the CT of the heater winding directly to a live indirectly heated cathode. I have often thought of doing a 211 amp which might run in class AB2, so CF drive is a good idea, and a high swing is needed. I would probably use a an EL84 in triode as the CF driver, Rout 200ohms, so noise from stray C probably won't affect it much. Yep, thats what this is: http://www.lurcher.org/nick/images/211/ 6sn7 - 6sn7 - el84 - 211 Produces about 32w with a B+ of about 950v It looks like you are using input transformers in that amplifier, what is your thinking on that? Regards, John Byrns Two reasons, first the requirement was to support a balanced input, and secondly it removes any issue with hum loops. Given the first need, sending the RCA input through the TX's as well made more sense. It provided the reduction in hum loops, and to my ears had no negative effect on the sound. Also to provide balanced input and single ended without the TX's would have required a lot of faffing about with switching which to my mind would only tend to introduce problems. Input trannies need carefully done sheilding against magnetic fields from mains trannies nearby and need careful thought about input impedance, so inductance is high and then there is the distortion to consider. I have the whole audio circuit in preamps and power amps always *never* connected directly to the earth wire from the wall socket. I have 10 ohms or more between chassis which *is* earthed and the 0V amp rail. Hum in all my gear is NEVER a problem because the outer coax shielding of a typical interconnect has far less impedance than the 10+ ohms used between Earth and 0V. So I avoid all the bothers of balanced inputs. Balanced makes sense only when you have long signal runs from microphones, or for telephones. For short runs in a domestic loungeroom, and at line levels, there is NO need for balanced and its complexity, ever. Perhaps one might use it between a TT cart and a phono amp. But only if ya hafta. And ya shouldn't ever hafta, in your loungeroom. Patrick Turner. -- Nick |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Input transformers was 6N1P conflicting heater/cathode voltagespecs
Patrick Turner wrote:
So I avoid all the bothers of balanced inputs. Balanced makes sense only when you have long signal runs from microphones, or for telephones. For short runs in a domestic loungeroom, and at line levels, there is NO need for balanced and its complexity, ever. Perhaps one might use it between a TT cart and a phono amp. But only if ya hafta. And ya shouldn't ever hafta, in your loungeroom. Patrick Turner. Other than the person who asked me to design this amp for him required it to have balanced inputs. -- Nick |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Input transformers was 6N1P conflicting heater/cathodevoltagespecs
Nick Gorham wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: So I avoid all the bothers of balanced inputs. Balanced makes sense only when you have long signal runs from microphones, or for telephones. For short runs in a domestic loungeroom, and at line levels, there is NO need for balanced and its complexity, ever. Perhaps one might use it between a TT cart and a phono amp. But only if ya hafta. And ya shouldn't ever hafta, in your loungeroom. Patrick Turner. Other than the person who asked me to design this amp for him required it to have balanced inputs. The customer is king, and ya hafta do what he says. I just had a customer ask me to replace the caps in the speakers I made for him. He wanted all Obligato polypylene, instead of generic NP electros bypasseed with plastics, so it meant entirely re-building the crossovers and I barely had enough room inside the box to fit such huge capacitors. It took me all last weekend. Was it worth it? Well, he thinks so, but I ain't convinced, his system sounded really excellent before the cap changes. But the new caps sure didn't make the sound worse. Now he talks of removing the Xover boards into external boxes on the floor to avoid the effects of microphony. The Obligatos have outside covers made from copper and brass water pipe, and the internal cap is sealed with epoxy resin, so how microphonic they are is a moot point. His amp system has SE tubes throughout, so i'd say balanced connections would be totally useless, and would add unecessary complexity. His unbalanced system with no transformers at any input and a low output moving coil cart makes not the slightest perceptible hum. Patrick Turner. -- Nick |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Input transformers was 6N1P conflicting heater/cathodevoltagespecs
Hi RATs!
I am happy to see my workspace is not the only less than tidy on he planet. Thank you, Nick. In terms of scientific method, I admit my experiments are wildly out of control My ears only fall in love when the atmospheric pressure and my poor old sick wife's aura are in perfect harmony. I don't really mind, as I prefer to think of changing a pair of caps as physical therapy for me. I find listening to music very pleasant, although which CD I am in the mood for is becoming an issue, occasionally. No accounting for the vagabond tastes of the lame solder slinger Happy Ears! Al |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
heater cathode insulation | Vacuum Tubes | |||
exceeding heater to cathode voltage | Pro Audio | |||
Heater voltage | Vacuum Tubes | |||
low voltage high current heater supplies | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Reduced Heater Voltage | Vacuum Tubes |