Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #151661 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-21 09:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-27 16:43 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 130 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-21 09:38 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-21 14:00 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 20:20 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-21 21:37 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-09-21 17:59 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-22 18:13 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Bill Marcum <bill.marcum57@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 02:04 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-05 07:51 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-05 10:31 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-05 12:39 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-05 13:57 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-05 12:00 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-05 21:59 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-05 17:56 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 15:57 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-05 14:04 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 16:05 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-06 13:14 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-06 08:28 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2015-10-06 07:23 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-06 15:04 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:49 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-06 17:38 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-06 22:49 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-07 08:12 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 19:37 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-07 14:45 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 23:41 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 05:14 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-08 09:12 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 12:26 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-08 16:46 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 16:22 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-08 20:40 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 16:47 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:13 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 10:40 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? terry+googleblog@tmk.com - 2015-10-06 12:38 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:33 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:19 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 17:24 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-07 10:24 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-06 23:09 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-06 18:27 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 10:32 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-06 22:59 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:34 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 13:06 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 23:50 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:00 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-07 07:55 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-07 10:39 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 19:43 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 19:40 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-06 18:21 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-07 00:56 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-10-08 16:55 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-06 14:29 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:44 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:22 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-06 17:49 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-07 10:26 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 07:49 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:00 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 10:46 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:51 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-07 08:29 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 07:40 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 15:02 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-07 11:57 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 17:02 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-07 13:43 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 09:44 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-07 16:55 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 17:07 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-07 13:49 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 19:19 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-07 10:30 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-07 12:41 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-07 05:34 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-07 07:13 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-07 09:54 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-06 11:39 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-06 16:04 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-06 13:15 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 10:36 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-06 18:53 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:58 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-06 16:25 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 16:30 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-08 20:53 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID> - 2015-10-09 19:10 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 15:03 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-09 15:56 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 16:51 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:17 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-06 23:14 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 07:35 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-07 11:57 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 17:11 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-07 13:35 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-08 07:00 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-08 13:08 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-08 13:29 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-08 15:21 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-08 07:55 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-08 12:27 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2015-10-06 12:04 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 16:02 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-06 22:55 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-07 00:15 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:54 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:26 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 17:26 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 17:30 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 07:24 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-07 07:50 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-10-08 16:30 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-08 12:22 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-05 15:48 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-05 20:24 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-05 19:37 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:00 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-05 13:38 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-05 18:48 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-21 20:31 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-22 17:09 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:24 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-09-27 16:43 -0600
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 05:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09aa7cab-ce70-43ca-bdd7-a028d568992b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152316 |
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:46:57 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > However, the first modern computer, from 1969, the IBM System/360 Model 195 - > for the value of "modern" that corresponds to the internal architecture of the > microchips we make routine use of at the present day, involving both cache and > pipelined execution - didn't use IBM's SLT; the Model 91 was already built > using monolithic chips. Oops; the 91 was SLT (not the regular SLT, but a more advanced version with more transistors per chip and higher specs), while the 195 was monolithic. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 07:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn19hgj.9hs.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #152298 |
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:49:17 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:15:01 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> >Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is *not* >> >the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. >> >> As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or >> Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes >> eventually. > > Interesting question. > > Guitar musicians definitely use tube based amplifiers. However, I don't know > if that speciality on its own is enough to provide enough volume to keep a > small tube factory running, or what other applications still use tubes. Fender make tube amps by the thousand every year and they are only one of dozens of maufacturers. From memory Epiphone (Gibson), Gretsch, Vox, Marshall, Laney, Mesa and Hughes&Kettner still sell them in quantity. Enough to keep several factories running. Some tubes have been re-introduced such as the EF86 pentode for Hi-Fi amps, in production in Russia and Slovakia now, as well as the 6267 industial version - what they're being used for I don't know! -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 09:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510070952070.7305@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #152374 |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015, Stan Barr wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:49:17 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:15:01 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> >>>> Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is *not* >>>> the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. >>> >>> As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or >>> Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes >>> eventually. >> >> Interesting question. >> >> Guitar musicians definitely use tube based amplifiers. However, I don't know >> if that speciality on its own is enough to provide enough volume to keep a >> small tube factory running, or what other applications still use tubes. > > Fender make tube amps by the thousand every year and they are only one > of dozens of maufacturers. From memory Epiphone (Gibson), Gretsch, > Vox, Marshall, Laney, Mesa and Hughes&Kettner still sell them in quantity. > Enough to keep several factories running. Some tubes have been > re-introduced such as the EF86 pentode for Hi-Fi amps, in production > in Russia and Slovakia now, as well as the 6267 industial version - > what they're being used for I don't know! > And it's much easier keeping a factory going than starting a factory. There's all that talk about "vinyl coming back", which of course is relative. But with few factories remaining, they are strained. One local company gave up, selling their presses to some other company elsewhere, because they couldn't keep up with demands. And since the presses are now getting old, apparently they can be fussy. On the other hand, I don't think anyone is going to start manufacturing new record presses. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 11:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510061130360.5509@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #152292 |
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Scott Lurndal wrote: > "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes: >> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message >> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510051357510.4228@darkstar.example.org... >>> >>> [snip...] [snip...] >>> [snip...] >>> >>> I assume the same thing happened in the days of tubes, other than in the >>> very early days, there was a standardization of numbering them. So lots >>> of companies made 12AU7 double triodes. Even if they created something >>> new, they generally fit into the numbering scheme. >>> >> >> In some ways, we are still in "the days of tubes". The Fender company makes >> tube guitar amplifiers and all of the pre-amp stages use 12AX7 dual triodes. >> The 12AU7, the 12AT7, and the 12AX7 are all dual triodes. The 12AX7 >> potentially has the highest gain; the 12AU7, the lowest. >> >> http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/626807.html >> >> >> Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is *not* >> the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. > > As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or > Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes > eventually. > There's debate about that. Yes, if it's a new tube, it's coming from Russia. But so many tubes were made for so long, some wonder if they will ever run out. Some are in limited quantities, because they were never made in large quantities. Some are very desired, like the tubes used in audio amplifiers and preamps, so they might run out faster. But some argue that some of the demand for tubes is to keep old equipment going, and for many, that old equipment sees limited use, so the tubes may last forever. Others are arguing that a lot of regular tubes never see that much stress, so they may last forever. It's different with power tubes, they may see some abuse that limits their life. There's a whole are of tubes that likely are in really large quantities, and virtually no demand. These are the ones with odd filament voltage, intended for use in AC/DC radios and tv sets. They can really get exotic in the latter case, not just tubes nobody wants because of oddball filament voltage, but less useful types of tubes for other things. ON the other hand, if you get a bunch of dual triodes like the 12AU7, but with an odd filament voltage, it might be worth using them, figuring out a method of getting the needed filament voltage. At this point, run them off DC with a voltage regulator. I thought I had a decent selection of tubes, but when I recently dug out the box, I see I don't. I came in too late, the tide had turned to transistors, so I never really accumulated many. But I don't have much that would need tubes, I need to figure out if my $20 garage sale TMC GPR-90 SW receiver needs any tubes, and my Tektronics 545 oscilliscope can use a lot of tubes, but it sees limited use. On the other hand, I suddenly realized I could scrap some old two way radio equipment lying around, I'll never use them, and get the tubes from those. Gee, if I found a better scope, I could scrap the tubes from that. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 16:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <AiSQx.31368$PY3.12872@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #152301 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: >On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes: >>> >>> Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is *not* >>> the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. >> >> As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or >> Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes >> eventually. >> >There's debate about that. Yes, if it's a new tube, it's coming from >Russia. > >But so many tubes were made for so long, some wonder if they will ever run >out. Some are in limited quantities, because they were never made in >large quantities. Some are very desired, like the tubes used in audio >amplifiers and preamps, so they might run out faster. The real question is how long will these old tubes be kept in inventory given modern tax codes. As soon as the old farts pass on, the private collections will disappear. My main use for tubes back in the late 70's was as targets at the local range.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 13:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510061311110.5985@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #152304 |
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> >>> "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes: > >>>> >>>> Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is *not* >>>> the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. >>> >>> As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or >>> Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes >>> eventually. >>> >> There's debate about that. Yes, if it's a new tube, it's coming from >> Russia. >> >> But so many tubes were made for so long, some wonder if they will ever run >> out. Some are in limited quantities, because they were never made in >> large quantities. Some are very desired, like the tubes used in audio >> amplifiers and preamps, so they might run out faster. > > The real question is how long will these old tubes be kept in > inventory given modern tax codes. As soon as the old farts > pass on, the private collections will disappear. > In the antique radio circles, people are still talking about finding old stock for sale. A repair business closes down (likely due to the death of the owner) and for some reason, the place is kept intact for a long time. Finally it's sold off (assuming anything is still useful when the location may have suffered badly), people get this load of old stock. I assume not very much, since some have done it a few times. Of course that puts the hoard in private hands again. There is also debate on whether the collecting of old radios will continue. "Is there a new generation coming in?" An old radio collection isn't likely to find a new home, unless someone lucks on a local museum that wants it. Most collectors dont' want a full collection, they want to pick and choose, and newcomers likely don't want a full collection either. It may have cost a lot to accumulate the radios, and then resurrect them, but that doesn't mean an equal value will come if the collection is sold. Michael > My main use for tubes back in the late 70's was as targets at the > local range. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00e9f724-f0c5-4d46-ba8a-7a284b47cf9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152304 |
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 12:04:50 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote: > The real question is how long will these old tubes be kept in > inventory given modern tax codes. As soon as the old farts > pass on, the private collections will disappear. I don't know what tax codes have to do with it--a collection of old tubes probably would not have any value for inheritance taxes. More of a challenge would be proper storage space to protect the tubes from breakage*. Further, in the event a tube would be needed, people would have to remember where they are stored and be able to fetch out the desired type when it is needed. Tubes dumped in the back of a storage shed might not be accessible. * I don't know if extreme heat, cold, or humidity impacts tubes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 18:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9NUQx.82985$eQ4.18526@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #152314 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 12:04:50 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> The real question is how long will these old tubes be kept in >> inventory given modern tax codes. As soon as the old farts >> pass on, the private collections will disappear. > >I don't know what tax codes have to do with it--a collection of old tubes p= >robably would not have any value for inheritance taxes. Businesses pay taxes on the inventory. This leads to businesses getting rid of the inventory for slow-moving items to reduce their tax burdon. Burroughs did that in the late 80's when the discarded all the old adding machine parts (keycaps, springs, etc). Even if some collector with a large collection of NOS or used tubes passes on, it's unlikely his/her heirs would attempt to find a buyer for the collection rather than simply discarding it as obsolete.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 15:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mv1chl$op4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152320 |
"Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote in message news:9NUQx.82985$eQ4.18526@fx25.iad... > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 12:04:50 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> >>> The real question is how long will these old tubes be kept in >>> inventory given modern tax codes. As soon as the old farts >>> pass on, the private collections will disappear. >> >>I don't know what tax codes have to do with it--a collection of old tubes >>p= >>robably would not have any value for inheritance taxes. > > Businesses pay taxes on the inventory. This > leads to businesses getting rid of the inventory for slow-moving items > to reduce their tax burdon. Burroughs did that in the late 80's when > the discarded all the old adding machine parts (keycaps, springs, etc). > > Even if some collector with a large collection of NOS or used tubes > passes on, it's unlikely his/her heirs would attempt to find a buyer > for the collection rather than simply discarding it as obsolete. Collectors do *not* pay taxes on inventory. And sometimes collectors can be convinced to sell off part of their collection. It's a hobby, and the tax authorities have a different set of rules for hobbies. In particular, a hobbyist can *not* deduct money spent on the hobby as "business expense". This it at least true in the U.S. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 16:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d7isj6F6f1uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #152331 |
"Charles Richmond" wrote: > Collectors do *not* pay taxes on inventory. And sometimes collectors can > be convinced to sell off part of their collection. It's a hobby, and the > tax authorities have a different set of rules for hobbies. In particular, > a hobbyist can *not* deduct money spent on the hobby as "business > expense". This it at least true in the U.S. I would bet there are many hobbies being supported by taxpayers. Richard Branson (space flight) and Donald Trump (Miss USA) come to mind. Branson may be a bad example since he's a Brit but I don't know the names of the guys who own sports teams to cite them. Jay Leno will be eligible when his new TV show starts next week. How about an art collection, part of which is in the corporate offices of a CEO? ISTM the keys are public relations or advertising links.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mv6n5c$6ln$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152343 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message news:d7isj6F6f1uU1@mid.individual.net... > "Charles Richmond" wrote: > >> Collectors do *not* pay taxes on inventory. And sometimes collectors can >> be convinced to sell off part of their collection. It's a hobby, and the >> tax authorities have a different set of rules for hobbies. In >> particular, a hobbyist can *not* deduct money spent on the hobby as >> "business expense". This it at least true in the U.S. > > I would bet there are many hobbies being supported by taxpayers. Richard > Branson (space flight) and Donald Trump (Miss USA) come to mind. Branson > may be a bad example since he's a Brit but I don't know the names of the > guys who own sports teams to cite them. Jay Leno will be eligible when > his new TV show starts next week. How about an art collection, part of > which is in the corporate offices of a CEO? ISTM the keys are public > relations or advertising links. > In the United States, the key is you have to *make* a profit. If you are in "business" for three years without making a profit, the IRS declares your "business" a "hobby" and you have to withdraw *all* the business deductions you made for those three years. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 20:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510082052550.10871@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #152521 |
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: > "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:d7isj6F6f1uU1@mid.individual.net... >> "Charles Richmond" wrote: >> >>> Collectors do *not* pay taxes on inventory. And sometimes collectors can >>> be convinced to sell off part of their collection. It's a hobby, and the >>> tax authorities have a different set of rules for hobbies. In particular, >>> a hobbyist can *not* deduct money spent on the hobby as "business >>> expense". This it at least true in the U.S. >> >> I would bet there are many hobbies being supported by taxpayers. Richard >> Branson (space flight) and Donald Trump (Miss USA) come to mind. Branson >> may be a bad example since he's a Brit but I don't know the names of the >> guys who own sports teams to cite them. Jay Leno will be eligible when his >> new TV show starts next week. How about an art collection, part of which >> is in the corporate offices of a CEO? ISTM the keys are public relations >> or advertising links. >> > > In the United States, the key is you have to *make* a profit. If you are in > "business" for three years without making a profit, the IRS declares your > "business" a "hobby" and you have to withdraw *all* the business deductions > you made for those three years. > What if you are simply a really bad business person? Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 19:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA52E9ABBEB24ESenex@213.239.209.88> |
| In reply to | #152526 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510082052550.10871@darkstar.example.org: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: > >> In the United States, the key is you have to *make* a profit. If >> you are in "business" for three years without making a profit, >> the IRS declares your "business" a "hobby" and you have to >> withdraw *all* the business deductions you made for those three >> years. >> > What if you are simply a really bad business person? Then you get a government subsidy. -- Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 15:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mv96fk$hi5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152526 |
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510082052550.10871@darkstar.example.org... > On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: > >> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:d7isj6F6f1uU1@mid.individual.net... >>> "Charles Richmond" wrote: >>> >>>> Collectors do *not* pay taxes on inventory. And sometimes collectors >>>> can be convinced to sell off part of their collection. It's a hobby, >>>> and the tax authorities have a different set of rules for hobbies. In >>>> particular, a hobbyist can *not* deduct money spent on the hobby as >>>> "business expense". This it at least true in the U.S. >>> >>> I would bet there are many hobbies being supported by taxpayers. Richard >>> Branson (space flight) and Donald Trump (Miss USA) come to mind. >>> Branson may be a bad example since he's a Brit but I don't know the >>> names of the guys who own sports teams to cite them. Jay Leno will be >>> eligible when his new TV show starts next week. How about an art >>> collection, part of which is in the corporate offices of a CEO? ISTM >>> the keys are public relations or advertising links. >>> >> >> In the United States, the key is you have to *make* a profit. If you are >> in "business" for three years without making a profit, the IRS declares >> your "business" a "hobby" and you have to withdraw *all* the business >> deductions you made for those three years. >> > What if you are simply a really bad business person? > I am sure that the Internal Revenue Service is "not interested in personalities". No profit in three years means what you are doing is a hobby. Period. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 15:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d7qnvoF638dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #152572 |
"Charles Richmond" wrote: > "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message > news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510082052550.10871@darkstar.example.org... >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: >> >>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:d7isj6F6f1uU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> "Charles Richmond" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Collectors do *not* pay taxes on inventory. And sometimes collectors >>>>> can be convinced to sell off part of their collection. It's a hobby, >>>>> and the tax authorities have a different set of rules for hobbies. In >>>>> particular, a hobbyist can *not* deduct money spent on the hobby as >>>>> "business expense". This it at least true in the U.S. >>>> >>>> I would bet there are many hobbies being supported by taxpayers. >>>> Richard Branson (space flight) and Donald Trump (Miss USA) come to >>>> mind. Branson may be a bad example since he's a Brit but I don't know >>>> the names of the guys who own sports teams to cite them. Jay Leno will >>>> be eligible when his new TV show starts next week. How about an art >>>> collection, part of which is in the corporate offices of a CEO? ISTM >>>> the keys are public relations or advertising links. >>>> >>> >>> In the United States, the key is you have to *make* a profit. If you >>> are in "business" for three years without making a profit, the IRS >>> declares your "business" a "hobby" and you have to withdraw *all* the >>> business deductions you made for those three years. >>> >> What if you are simply a really bad business person? >> > > I am sure that the Internal Revenue Service is "not interested in > personalities". No profit in three years means what you are doing is a > hobby. Period. Do you think its possible that the rules are more complicated than given here? Just one example, losses in three consecutive years are far from rare in the farming business. I own such a farm and rent out the land. Its relatively new but there are now farmers who grow only crops, no animals. No rain, no crop worth harvesting. For starters on more complicated rules, what is the position on minimum wage? Does the guy sitting on the tractor for 12 hours each day have to earn minimum wage?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 16:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mv9cq2$973$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152581 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message news:d7qnvoF638dU1@mid.individual.net... > "Charles Richmond" wrote: >> >> [snip...] [snip...] >> [snip...] >> >> I am sure that the Internal Revenue Service is "not interested in >> personalities". No profit in three years means what you are doing is a >> hobby. Period. > > Do you think its possible that the rules are more complicated than given > here? Just one example, losses in three consecutive years are far from > rare in the farming business. I own such a farm and rent out the land. > Its relatively new but there are now farmers who grow only crops, no > animals. No rain, no crop worth harvesting. > http://www.irs.gov/uac/Business-or-Hobby%3F-Answer-Has-Implications-for-Deductions > For starters on more complicated rules, what is the position on minimum > wage? Does the guy sitting on the tractor for 12 hours each day have to > earn minimum wage? > If you are self-employed, you are *not* required to pay yourself miniumum wage. I think that even if you employ family members, minimum wage laws to *not* apply to them. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef4b1657-8145-43a9-a3cb-280854fca8f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152320 |
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 2:53:58 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Even if some collector with a large collection of NOS or used tubes > passes on, it's unlikely his/her heirs would attempt to find a buyer > for the collection rather than simply discarding it as obsolete. We tossed what we thought were long obsolete drafting gear, and later we found it had a modest value on ebay. Go figure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 23:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510062307260.6634@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #152320 |
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Scott Lurndal wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 12:04:50 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> >>> The real question is how long will these old tubes be kept in >>> inventory given modern tax codes. As soon as the old farts >>> pass on, the private collections will disappear. >> >> I don't know what tax codes have to do with it--a collection of old >> tubes p= robably would not have any value for inheritance taxes. > > Businesses pay taxes on the inventory. This > leads to businesses getting rid of the inventory for slow-moving items > to reduce their tax burdon. Burroughs did that in the late 80's when > the discarded all the old adding machine parts (keycaps, springs, etc). > > Even if some collector with a large collection of NOS or used tubes > passes on, it's unlikely his/her heirs would attempt to find a buyer > for the collection rather than simply discarding it as obsolete. > Well yes. The family likely doesn't know what that stuff is, and isn't familiar with where or how to liquidate it for the greatest return. That TMC GPR-90 receiver I mentioned, it dates from the late fifties and was a mid-range receiver then. I was walking down a street to a garage sale, and saw what was clearly an old tube receiver facing me, but couldn't recognize it until I got closer. I assumed they'd want four or five hundred dollars for it, there was no price. So I asked, more out of curiosity. And they said "$20". I said "are you sure, it's worth hundreds of dollars, at least". No, they just wanted to get rid of it. So I had to change my plans and lug all 60 pounds or so of it home. In doing a search for information about it, I find an a local ad for the same receiver, it has to be them. They'd asked $100 for it there, so clearly I was the last hope, and if I'd not passed by then, it likely would have landed in the garbage. I'd passed some garage sales at that house, and it had been an older woman, and these were the kids, so finally they were clearing it out. If they can't find the local venue for it, they are out of luck. Ebay makes the whole world the potential market, but shipping that receiver would require great effort to package properly and to ship, so few would bother. I got a near deal of the century, but on the other hand, I recognized the receiver and give it a good home. I can't imagine selling it, though I guess it merely postpones the ultimate outcome of this receiver, some decade down the line it will have to be disposed of again. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c5d089e-bdf2-4852-93b4-38f31ecc694a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152368 |
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:12:46 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote: > > Even if some collector with a large collection of NOS or used tubes > > passes on, it's unlikely his/her heirs would attempt to find a buyer > > for the collection rather than simply discarding it as obsolete. > > > Well yes. The family likely doesn't know what that stuff is, and isn't > familiar with where or how to liquidate it for the greatest return. From my observations, it's more that the the decedent never left instructions on the disposition of his collection, and the family just wants to settle the estate quickly. Just finding an ordinary antique dealer won't yield very much. > Ebay makes > the whole world the potential market, but shipping that receiver would > require great effort to package properly and to ship, so few would bother. One hope might be ebay stores, which do all that (plus take pictures and post the sale) for a fee. I don't know how much they charge, how effective they are, or if there is a minimum price before they'll take something (e.g. an old book). But if I hand them something I would otherwise toss, and walk away with $25, I'm happy. (I have a bunch of old road maps which apparently have collector interest, despite being in ratty condition. I'll be happy just to see someone with an interest have them.) For instance, someone once posted a book TJ Watson Sr's writings on ebay. The condition was poor, but he noted someone might like it for the info inside. I bought it. (Actually, it turned out to be a bunch of mindless platitudes from his speeches, but it was still interesting to read and I'm glad I got it.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 11:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510071153130.7777@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #152388 |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:12:46 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote: > >>> Even if some collector with a large collection of NOS or used tubes >>> passes on, it's unlikely his/her heirs would attempt to find a buyer >>> for the collection rather than simply discarding it as obsolete. >>> >> Well yes. The family likely doesn't know what that stuff is, and isn't >> familiar with where or how to liquidate it for the greatest return. > > From my observations, it's more that the the decedent never left instructions on the disposition of his collection, and the family just wants to settle the estate quickly. Just finding an ordinary antique dealer won't yield very much. > > > >> Ebay makes >> the whole world the potential market, but shipping that receiver would >> require great effort to package properly and to ship, so few would bother. > > One hope might be ebay stores, which do all that (plus take pictures and > post the sale) for a fee. I don't know how much they charge, how > effective they are, or if there is a minimum price before they'll take > something (e.g. an old book). But if I hand them something I would > otherwise toss, and walk away with $25, I'm happy. (I have a bunch of > old road maps which apparently have collector interest, despite being in > ratty condition. I'll be happy just to see someone with an interest > have them.) > I was talking specifically old radios. The one I bought is at least 60 pounds. If you don't pack it properly, it will damage whatever it's in, and damage itself in the process. The old radio collectors do suffer this. Then the cost of shipping the 60 pound radio with the extra weight of the packaging will add much to the cost of the radio. I remember surplus catalogs, and they'd give the weight of the item, and then the weight in the original shipping container. There was considerable difference. That said, small items like maps or books obviously do benefit from this, no need for really careful packaging, and not much in the weight department. But even books aparently aren't doing so well, unless it's something particularly uncommon. I gather lots of people got into the selling of used books via Amazon and the like, and now get minimal profit from it. Which is why i see those people at used book sales with barcode readers, trying to find the books that will bring in the money, without learning anything about books in general. Michael > For instance, someone once posted a book TJ Watson Sr's writings on ebay. The condition was poor, but he noted someone might like it for the info inside. I bought it. (Actually, it turned out to be a bunch of mindless platitudes from his speeches, but it was still interesting to read and I'm glad I got it.) > > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web