Megalextoria: Computer Folklore » Tubes vs. Integrated circuits

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » Tubes vs. Integrated circuits

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408944]

Mon, 14 June 2021 15:43

hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011

Karma: 0

Senior Member

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408948 is a reply to message #408944]

Mon, 14 June 2021 17:22

Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012

Karma: 0

Senior Member

On 2021-06-14, undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> In the early 1960s, Electronics Magazine hosted advertisements for
> both vacuum tubes and the new integrated circuits.
>
> Vacuum tubes were still very much around. Manufacturers invested
> in improvements in performance, reliability, and cost. New tubes
> were developed for hi-fi/stereo, UHF and color television, and
> military needs.
>
> Integrated circuits, the earliest chips, were just being advertised.

<snip>

I remember that when transistor radios first came out, a big selling
point was that when you turned them on, they started playing instantly;
you didn't have to wait for the tubes to warm up. TVs still needed
some tubes, but developed "instant-on" circuits that kept a low
voltage on the heaters so that they'd come up quickly.

Nowadays, with nary a tube in sight, it takes just as long for
a TV to become ready. I tell people that it's warming up (and
usually get a blank stare in response).

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408949 is a reply to message #408944]

Mon, 14 June 2021 17:53

Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline

Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012

Karma: 0

Senior Member

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 12:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Tung Sol computer tube

Tung Sol valves are still made, there's a matched pair of their
EL34s in my Marshall head.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408958 is a reply to message #408944]

Tue, 15 June 2021 00:12

Robin Vowels
Messages: 426
Registered: July 2012

Karma: 0

Senior Member

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408963 is a reply to message #408948]

Tue, 15 June 2021 01:25

Robin Vowels
Messages: 426
Registered: July 2012

Karma: 0

Senior Member

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:23:30 AM UTC+10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-06-14, undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> In the early 1960s, Electronics Magazine hosted advertisements for
>> both vacuum tubes and the new integrated circuits.
>>
>> Vacuum tubes were still very much around. Manufacturers invested
>> in improvements in performance, reliability, and cost. New tubes
>> were developed for hi-fi/stereo, UHF and color television, and
>> military needs.
>>
>> Integrated circuits, the earliest chips, were just being advertised.
> <snip>
>
> I remember that when transistor radios first came out, a big selling
> point was that when you turned them on, they started playing instantly;
> you didn't have to wait for the tubes to warm up.
..
Valves operating from batteries featured instant warm-up
(the 0.5ma series such as 1R5, 3V4, 1S4, and so on). These
were mainly used in portable radios.
..
Tubes for TV in the 1950s had controlled heater warm-up time
of 11 seconds. Earlier tubes took about 20-30 seconds.
..
> TVs still needed
> some tubes, but developed "instant-on" circuits that kept a low
> voltage on the heaters so that they'd come up quickly.
>
> Nowadays, with nary a tube in sight, it takes just as long for
> a TV to become ready.
..
Takes just as long as a tube TV (around 10 seconds) because
that's how long the computer takes to "get going".
..
The 6J6 that I mentioned in previous post was available
by 1945 (may have been available in 1942).
..
> I tell people that it's warming up (and
> usually get a blank stare in response).

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408964 is a reply to message #408944]

Tue, 15 June 2021 01:39

Anonymous

Karma:

Originally posted by: drb

> Vacuum tubes were still very much around.

Vacuum tubes still _are_ around. In the US, the tv and radio broadcast
transmitters are migrating to solid state (GatesAir has an 80kW UHF
digital television transmitter, for example), but there are still plenty
of systems out there using tubes bigger than your head to generate tens
of thousands of watts.

I think Svetlana is still producing smaller stuff for audio and ham type
applications, too.

De

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408975 is a reply to message #408948]

Tue, 15 June 2021 05:53

Anonymous

Karma:

Originally posted by: Thomas Koenig

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> schrieb:
> On 2021-06-14, undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> In the early 1960s, Electronics Magazine hosted advertisements for
>> both vacuum tubes and the new integrated circuits.
>>
>> Vacuum tubes were still very much around. Manufacturers invested
>> in improvements in performance, reliability, and cost. New tubes
>> were developed for hi-fi/stereo, UHF and color television, and
>> military needs.
>>
>> Integrated circuits, the earliest chips, were just being advertised.
>
> <snip>
>
> I remember that when transistor radios first came out, a big selling
> point was that when you turned them on, they started playing instantly;
> you didn't have to wait for the tubes to warm up. TVs still needed
> some tubes, but developed "instant-on" circuits that kept a low
> voltage on the heaters so that they'd come up quickly.

Transistor radios effectively killed of a promising market
for Stirling motors. They could simply run on batteries...

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408977 is a reply to message #408975]

Tue, 15 June 2021 08:11

Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012

Karma: 0

Senior Member

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:53:39 -0000 (UTC)
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:

> Transistor radios effectively killed of a promising market
> for Stirling motors. They could simply run on batteries...

I recall a battery valve radio, with two batteries a 6V one for the
heaters and a 90V one for the HT - testing the 90V one by tongue was
inadvisable.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408979 is a reply to message #408977]

Tue, 15 June 2021 10:03

Anonymous

Karma:

Originally posted by: gareth evans

On 15/06/2021 13:11, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:53:39 -0000 (UTC)
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>
>> Transistor radios effectively killed of a promising market
>> for Stirling motors. They could simply run on batteries...
>
> I recall a battery valve radio, with two batteries a 6V one for the
> heaters and a 90V one for the HT - testing the 90V one by tongue was
> inadvisable.
>

A recent Repair Shop episode had 10-off PP3 batteries wire in series
to create the 90V for an old repair

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408983 is a reply to message #408977]

Tue, 15 June 2021 12:48

Anonymous

Karma:

Originally posted by: Douglas Miller

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:30:02 AM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:53:39 -0000 (UTC)
> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:
>
>> Transistor radios effectively killed of a promising market
>> for Stirling motors. They could simply run on batteries...
> I recall a battery valve radio, with two batteries a 6V one for the
> heaters and a 90V one for the HT - testing the 90V one by tongue was
> inadvisable.
> ...

I acquired a "farm radio" awhile ago, vacuum tubes and batteries (something like 6V and 90V). Even had an odd "cell" that was used to force a voltage drop (replaced by modern "coin cell" battery). They were apparently fairly common in this part of the country, as many farms did not have electricity until the latter half of the 20th century. I'm not sure if transistor radios butted up against that market, but it would have been close.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408985 is a reply to message #408983]

Tue, 15 June 2021 13:25

scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012

Karma: 0

Senior Member

Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:30:02 AM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:53:39 -0000 (UTC)=20
>> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:=20
>> =20
>>> Transistor radios effectively killed of a promising market=20
>>> for Stirling motors. They could simply run on batteries...
>> I recall a battery valve radio, with two batteries a 6V one for the=20
>> heaters and a 90V one for the HT - testing the 90V one by tongue was=20
>> inadvisable.
>> ...
>
> I acquired a "farm radio" awhile ago, vacuum tubes and batteries (something=
> like 6V and 90V). Even had an odd "cell" that was used to force a voltage =
> drop (replaced by modern "coin cell" battery). They were apparently fairly =
> common in this part of the country, as many farms did not have electricity =
> until the latter half of the 20th century. I'm not sure if transistor radio=
> s butted up against that market, but it would have been close.

A Stewart Warner model 303, by any chance?

I've got the one from my Grandparents attic in Wisconsin.

Requires an "A" battery and two "B" (45v) batteries.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408988 is a reply to message #408958]

Tue, 15 June 2021 15:51

hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011

Karma: 0

Senior Member

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #408990 is a reply to message #408963]

Tue, 15 June 2021 15:52

hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011

Karma: 0

Senior Member

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 1:25:57 AM UTC-4, Robin Vowels wrote:

> The 6J6 that I mentioned in previous post was available
> by 1945 (may have been available in 1942).

I believe IBM mentioned that particular tube as especially troublesome (write up in bitsavers).

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #409003 is a reply to message #408963]

Wed, 16 June 2021 02:48

Anonymous

Karma:

Originally posted by: Bob Eager

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 22:25:56 -0700, Robin Vowels wrote:

> Valves operating from batteries featured instant warm-up (the 0.5ma
> series such as 1R5, 3V4, 1S4, and so on). These were mainly used in
> portable radios.

The first radio I built used valves with a 1.4v filament, quick warm-up,
and 90v anode voltage. They were designed for battery use, of course, but
I used a transformer (lots of exposed main terminals...)

Valves were (British designation) DF96, DAF96, DK96, DL96. B7G base.

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #409044 is a reply to message #408963]

Wed, 16 June 2021 23:29

Robin Vowels
Messages: 426
Registered: July 2012

Karma: 0

Senior Member

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 3:25:57 PM UTC+10, Robin Vowels wrote:
..
> Valves operating from batteries featured instant warm-up
> (the 0.5ma series such as 1R5, 3V4, 1S4, and so on). These
> were mainly used in portable radios.
..
Sorry, I made a typo as to filament current. It was 50 ma
for that series.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #409049 is a reply to message #408990]

Thu, 17 June 2021 02:55

Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012

Karma: 0

Senior Member

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 1:25:57 AM UTC-4, Robin Vowels wrote:

>> The 6J6 that I mentioned in previous post was available
>> by 1945 (may have been available in 1942).

> I believe IBM mentioned that particular tube as especially troublesome (write up in bitsavers).

I couldn't find anything relevant at Bitsavers, but Ed Thelen's Nike Missile Web Site quotes
the book "IBM's Early Computers" from MIT Press about it:

http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/IBM-604.html

John Savard

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #409060 is a reply to message #409049]

Thu, 17 June 2021 09:25

Robin Vowels
Messages: 426
Registered: July 2012

Karma: 0

Senior Member

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 4:55:10 PM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 1:25:57 AM UTC-4, Robin Vowels wrote:
>
>>> The 6J6 that I mentioned in previous post was available
>>> by 1945 (may have been available in 1942).
>
>> I believe IBM mentioned that particular tube as especially troublesome (write up in bitsavers).
> I couldn't find anything relevant at Bitsavers, but Ed Thelen's Nike Missile Web Site quotes
> the book "IBM's Early Computers" from MIT Press about it:
>
> http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/IBM-604.html
..
Interesting.
The 6J6 was used extensively in the English Electric DEUCE, a very reliable
machine.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #409354 is a reply to message #409049]

Sat, 26 June 2021 15:58

hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011

Karma: 0

Senior Member

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:55:10 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 1:25:57 AM UTC-4, Robin Vowels wrote:
>
>>> The 6J6 that I mentioned in previous post was available
>>> by 1945 (may have been available in 1942).
>
>> I believe IBM mentioned that particular tube as especially troublesome (write up in bitsavers).
> I couldn't find anything relevant at Bitsavers, but Ed Thelen's Nike Missile Web Site quotes
> the book "IBM's Early Computers" from MIT Press about it:
>
> http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/IBM-604.html

One of the early computer symposiums, listed in the IBM section, talks about machine reliability. All the pioneers had lots of problems. The early circuits were unreliable. Anyway, the IBM rep said the 6J6, used in their 604 calculator, was particularly troublesome.

On a related note, the Williams CRT, used for memory in the earliest IBM computers, was very unreliable. They converted to core as soon as that was perfected (which took some doing as well).

I think the Whirlwind writeups also discussed circuitry issues.

The IBM history discusses this in detail, both the electronic and physical characteristics of audio tubes that needed to be improved for digital service.

In the late 1950s various computer mfrs introduced computer grade tubes, as well as tubes for other tough applications.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Tubes vs. Integrated circuits [message #409366 is a reply to message #409354]

Sat, 26 June 2021 20:49

Robin Vowels
Messages: 426
Registered: July 2012

Karma: 0

Senior Member

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 5:58:08 AM UTC+10, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:55:10 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 1:25:57 AM UTC-4, Robin Vowels wrote:
>>
>>>> The 6J6 that I mentioned in previous post was available
>>>> by 1945 (may have been available in 1942).
>>
>>> I believe IBM mentioned that particular tube as especially troublesome (write up in bitsavers).
>> I couldn't find anything relevant at Bitsavers, but Ed Thelen's Nike Missile Web Site quotes
>> the book "IBM's Early Computers" from MIT Press about it:
>>
>> http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/IBM-604.html
> One of the early computer symposiums, listed in the IBM section, talks about machine reliability. All the pioneers had lots of problems. The early circuits were unreliable. Anyway, the IBM rep said the 6J6, used in their 604 calculator, was particularly troublesome.
>
> On a related note, the Williams CRT, used for memory in the earliest IBM computers, was very unreliable. They converted to core as soon as that was perfected (which took some doing as well).
>
> I think the Whirlwind writeups also discussed circuitry issues.
>
> The IBM history discusses this in detail, both the electronic and physical characteristics of audio tubes that needed to be improved for digital service.
>
> In the late 1950s various computer mfrs introduced computer grade tubes, as well as tubes for other tough applications.
..
Mullard introduced the E90CC in 1955. Good for 10,000 hours.
..
As for the 6J6, it was used in the very reliable DEUCE in large quantities from 1955.

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	Learning PDP-11 in 2021
Next Topic:	1962 new tube factory

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Thu Apr 25 10:07:24 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.14390 seconds