Talk:Klystron tube

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Physics This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles

in the "Two Cavity Klystron" section shows the anode right next to the electron gun. Should't it be down by the collector at the end of the drift tube, or at least to the right of the seccond cavity?

I also wander what on earth they need a klystron for at a deep space listening station. The one pictured at the bottom on the article would easily be the biggest klystron I have ever seen, and useless at a station that is intended only for listening. Is it possible that it is in fact some other piece of equipment?

I was under the impression that almost all German WWII radars were Klystron based. If this is true, then the history section of this article appears to be wrong. Maury 15:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collector is spelled wrongly--Light current 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know if the Varian Associates mentioned in the article is the same company as Varian Medical Systems? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it probably is (or at least stems from the same origins) but I have no proof. 8-(--Light current 00:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. 121a0012 01:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else wrote that passage; all I did was edit. As for beryllium, I can verify that it's toxic, but I doubt that these days people use beryllium alloys for working in high mag fields. I know that service tools for MRI machines with superconducting magnets have mostly gone to titanium alloys. Before that, aluminum and copper alloys were popular. I can't imagine beryllium. Must be one of those zillion dollar military thingies.

As for giving advice, that whole section is advice-giving. The difference between advice and encylopedia writing is merely style. "This is how you do X" is advice. "This is how many people do X" is encyclopedic. Many people do wash hands after handling beryllium. :). Steve 23:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Tuning

Actually the US Air Force uses beryllium tools to tune thier klystrons for thier aging TRITAC microwave[2] and SATCOM [3] equipment systems. Even with the Air Force being safety concious, beryllium tools are still in use to-date.

As far as that TRC-170 shown in the link, I have to say they are rugged and dated machines, but they are still in use. The beryllium tools were included in the equipment's "Kit n' Kaboodle", might as well use what came with it. These systems, by the way, are listed in FEDLOG[4] for approximately 1 million USD.

Thanks though for your advice on in article advice :P, I will apply this methodology to future article additions. M jurrens 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Perhaps use of beryllium is an aircraft weight thing from the bad old cost-plus days of SAC. By the way, the name is not capitalized. Names of elements are lowercase when written out (carbon, oxygen, iron, beryllium), and only capitalized when in chem symbol (C, O, Fe, Be).SBHarris 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention SAC(Strategic Air Command), I happen to be assigned under ACC(Air Combat Command) which is the same thing in present day terms ;0. M jurrens 21:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for a given power level for various designs? Little discussion of that in current article except about one type in 3GHz range. Thanks,Rich 15:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]