XPost: rec.radio.shortwave   
   From: bit_bucket@gmx.com   
      
   On 11/13/2011 12:07 AM, Don Pearce wrote:   
   > On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:42:22 -0800, John Smith   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/12/2011 11:12 PM, Don Pearce wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:24:02 -0800 (PST), arthrnyork@webtv.net wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Nov 12, 2:44 pm, John Smith   wrote:   
   >>>>> On 11/11/2011 10:10 PM, RHF wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> ...   
   >>>>>> -wrt- Faraday Cage :   
   >>>>>> Old Metal {Steel} Garbage Can with a   
   >>>>>> tight fitting Lid.  -store-holding-   
   >>>>>> + The Solid State AM/FM/SW Radio   
   >>>>>> + Plenty of Batteries   
   >>>>>> -or- Re-Chargeable Batteries and a   
   >>>>>> Solar Charger   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> -no-tubes-required- ~ RHF   
   >>>>>>     .   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Satellites are withstanding these on an almost daily basis, for years,   
   >>>>> if not decades ... doesn't seem to be a real problem anymore ...   
   >>>>> however, laying hands to that technology might be a bit of a different   
   >>>>> story ... as, while one nation might wants its' own satellites hardened,   
   >>>>> it certainly doesn't want the enemies ...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Regards,   
   >>>>> JS   
   >>>>   
   >>>> As far as I know- none of the satellites are using vacuum tubes .   
   >>>> That's the reality .   
   >>>   
   >>> Dream on. Just about every satellite in the sky uses vacuum tubes. The   
   >>> TWT (travelling wave tube) is still the way to generate high, reliable   
   >>> power for space-borne transmitters.   
   >>>   
   >>> d   
   >>   
   >> They would be fools to attempt to boost the weight and fragility of   
   >> vacuum tubes into space, if they have any other alternative ... high   
   >> power is easily handled with the modern transistors ... the energy   
   >> requirements of the heaters is also another no-go ...   
   >>   
   >> Regards,   
   >> JS   
   >   
   > Energy requirements are not a problem, and neither is G-loading on   
   > takeoff. You are inventing problems where none need exist. TWTs are   
   > mega-reliable devices with a very predictable life curve.   
   >   
   > It is much more important to know exactly how long and how well your   
   > satellite is going to work than to hope to get longer by using a   
   > technology that might last longer, but will more probably die   
   > unexpectedly when struck by a cosmic ray burst.   
   >   
   > d   
      
   I see more that it is you arguing insanity is in vogue this day ...   
   whatever ...   
      
   Regards,   
   JS   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)