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 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 17:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3ncRx.61042$YG4.44327@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #152395 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: >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 regret, somewhat, turning down the Collins R390 that a friend was selling, but that thing weighed a ton. I do have a Stewart-Warner from the 30's (was my grandparents) with tubes, but I suspect that the caps are long shot; and who knows if the tubes are (1) any good, or (2) replacable. Not to mention the difficulty of acquiring 'A' and 'B' sized batteries :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 13:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510071325080.7881@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #152402 |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: >> 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 regret, somewhat, turning down the Collins R390 that a friend > was selling, but that thing weighed a ton. > But it's a classic. Lots of the function is now available in a cheap portable, but not that many receivers will match the overall specs of the R390. And top of the line receivers that came later, they never seemed to sell in as large quantities, or perhaps it's that they never got into the surplus market much. I was just reading about someone who bought a broken HRO-600 (which was probably National's last receiver, one site says they made less than 200 of them) and the trouble he had finding schematics for it, and dealing with sixties-vintage ECL (not just finding data, but finding replacements). So the R390 can probably be kept going "forever", while a fancier solid state receiver from more recently may be terminal if you can't find some specialized IC. I knew someone who had both an Collins R388 (just a regular analog dial, in either 500KHz or 1MHz bands, I cant' remember which), and then had Hammarlund SP-600 right next to it. The latter was great, since it only had five bands, and you could spin the weighted tuning knob, and the receiver would go half-way across the band before you needed to spin it again. Both receivers complemented each other, the SP-600 for rapid tuning and finding signals, the R388 for much more accurate tuning and better specs. We have it so easy with modern digitally tuned receivers, no need to change bands every 500Khz. > I do have a Stewart-Warner from the 30's (was my grandparents) with > tubes, but I suspect that the caps are long shot; and who knows if the > tubes are (1) any good, or (2) replacable. Not to mention the difficulty > of acquiring 'A' and 'B' sized batteries :-) > > The tubes probably are replaceable, the collectors talk about that vintage radio on a regular basis. And if replacements can't be found, someone is bound to have figured out a workaround. My grade 5 teacher offered me the chassis from an Atwater Kent receiver about 1972. He taken it out because he wanted to use the cabinet as a liquor cabinet. That was all he could see as valuable. The collectors wince at that story now, but at the time it wasn't uncommon, few were collecting old radios back then. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 07:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1c54p.8un.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #152402 |
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:11:27 GMT, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > > I regret, somewhat, turning down the Collins R390 that a friend > was selling, but that thing weighed a ton. Always wanted one of them! My Racal RA-17 is about the same weight... > > I do have a Stewart-Warner from the 30's (was my grandparents) with > tubes, but I suspect that the caps are long shot; and who knows if the > tubes are (1) any good, or (2) replacable. Not to mention the difficulty > of acquiring 'A' and 'B' sized batteries :-) > There are devices available that produce the voltages by switch-mode methods from AA batteries. They are usually sized so the will fit into the cardboard outer af an original battery for an authentic appearance. -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 13:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <0fvhec-f3n.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #152451 |
In article <slrnn1c54p.8un.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de>, Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:11:27 GMT, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: >> >> I regret, somewhat, turning down the Collins R390 that a friend >> was selling, but that thing weighed a ton. > >Always wanted one of them! My Racal RA-17 is about the same weight... >> >> I do have a Stewart-Warner from the 30's (was my grandparents) with >> tubes, but I suspect that the caps are long shot; and who knows if the >> tubes are (1) any good, or (2) replacable. Not to mention the difficulty >> of acquiring 'A' and 'B' sized batteries :-) >> > >There are devices available that produce the voltages by switch-mode >methods from AA batteries. They are usually sized so the will fit >into the cardboard outer af an original battery for an authentic >appearance. I have found, on Amazon, a category of amazing regulators. They are adjustable, from 0.8 to 24 volts on output, and take 3-30 volts in; (they need 1.7 margin for the output). They rate 3-10A(3,5,7,10) and are running completely cool. The ripple is less than 100mV. And they are small, about 1.5 times the length of my outer thumb joint, and about 2/3rds as wide and deep. And they cost much less than the wall warts we have every where. I am in the process of replacing every wart, and using these from a 12V supply, which we have in cars, camping and boats too. And this has a battery for UPS. You could use one or more of these to power any DC need in a radio from one battery. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 13:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20151008132945.504de19cbaa3f4fe7de0d1cf@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #152455 |
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:08:48 +0200 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > I have found, on Amazon, a category of amazing regulators. They are > adjustable, from 0.8 to 24 volts on output, and take 3-30 volts in; > (they need 1.7 margin for the output). They rate 3-10A(3,5,7,10) and > are running completely cool. The ripple is less than 100mV. And they > are small, about 1.5 times the length of my outer thumb joint, and > about 2/3rds as wide and deep. And they cost much less than the > wall warts we have every where. Sounds interesting, I see a number of similar ones but none with quite those specs or a price that would make them attractive to replace wall warts. -- 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/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 15:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1d2gn.1tp.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #152455 |
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:08:48 +0200, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > > I have found, on Amazon, a category of amazing regulators. They are > adjustable, from 0.8 to 24 volts on output, and take 3-30 volts in; > (they need 1.7 margin for the output). They rate 3-10A(3,5,7,10) and > are running completely cool. The ripple is less than 100mV. And they > are small, about 1.5 times the length of my outer thumb joint, and > about 2/3rds as wide and deep. And they cost much less than the > wall warts we have every where. I'm using something similar to run military 24V radio equipment from a 12V supply. They generate quite a bit of rf intererence and need good filtering but do a great job. -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 07:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d7n7e1F8v64U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #152451 |
"Stan Barr" wrote: > On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:11:27 GMT, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> > wrote: >> >> I regret, somewhat, turning down the Collins R390 that a friend >> was selling, but that thing weighed a ton. > > Always wanted one of them! My Racal RA-17 is about the same weight... >> >> I do have a Stewart-Warner from the 30's (was my grandparents) with >> tubes, but I suspect that the caps are long shot; and who knows if the >> tubes are (1) any good, or (2) replacable. Not to mention the difficulty >> of acquiring 'A' and 'B' sized batteries :-) >> > > There are devices available that produce the voltages by switch-mode > methods from AA batteries. They are usually sized so the will fit > into the cardboard outer af an original battery for an authentic > appearance. I don't want to even think about how much a 90 V 'B' battery would sell for. Its probably comparable to buying cut film for my Speed Graphic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 12:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510081223570.9383@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #152451 |
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Stan Barr wrote: > On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:11:27 GMT, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: >> >> I regret, somewhat, turning down the Collins R390 that a friend >> was selling, but that thing weighed a ton. > > Always wanted one of them! My Racal RA-17 is about the same weight... I read somewhere a few months ago that that Racal (it's the one with the Wadley Loop?) was intended to be the UK equivalent of the R390. SO they probably are equivalent receivers, certainly they were both expensive when new. And if it uses the Wadley Loop, they got away without having to use all those crystals. >> >> I do have a Stewart-Warner from the 30's (was my grandparents) with >> tubes, but I suspect that the caps are long shot; and who knows if the >> tubes are (1) any good, or (2) replacable. Not to mention the difficulty >> of acquiring 'A' and 'B' sized batteries :-) >> > > There are devices available that produce the voltages by switch-mode > methods from AA batteries. They are usually sized so the will fit > into the cardboard outer af an original battery for an authentic > appearance. > The collectors even trade scans of the covers of the old batteries, so it will look like the original. The A batteries are the real problem, relatively high current at 1.5V. The high voltage B battery doesn't require much current. Many have gotten away with a string of 9v batteries, they add up fast, though I guess that's been for mostly home made projects using tubes. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mv15rc$st7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152304 |
> As soon as the old farts > pass on, the private collections will disappear. > There are people like Will http://www.ebay.com/sch/toober/m.html?_ipg=50 who makes a living buying collections from estates. I'm sure there are others. If you ever go to a hamfest, there are people swarming around tube collections, probably looking for 12AX7's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 16:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mv1cpi$pu3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152322 |
"Al Kossow" <aek@bitsavers.org> wrote in message news:mv15rc$st7$1@dont-email.me... > >> As soon as the old farts >> pass on, the private collections will disappear. >> > > There are people like Will http://www.ebay.com/sch/toober/m.html?_ipg=50 > who makes a living buying collections from estates. I'm sure there are > others. > If you ever go to a hamfest, there are people swarming around tube > collections, > probably looking for 12AX7's. > You can buy a *new* (probably Chinese built) 12AX7 in the U. S. ... for between $12 and $25 US. You may *not* like that in your "vintage" radio equipment, but a guitarist who needed one for his tube amp would have *no* problem accepting it. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 22:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510062254450.6634@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #152332 |
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote:
> "Al Kossow" <aek@bitsavers.org> wrote in message
> news:mv15rc$st7$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>>> As soon as the old farts
>>> pass on, the private collections will disappear.
>>>
>>
>> There are people like Will http://www.ebay.com/sch/toober/m.html?_ipg=50
>> who makes a living buying collections from estates. I'm sure there are
>> others.
>> If you ever go to a hamfest, there are people swarming around tube
>> collections,
>> probably looking for 12AX7's.
>>
>
> You can buy a *new* (probably Chinese built) 12AX7 in the U. S. ... for
> between $12 and $25 US. You may *not* like that in your "vintage" radio
> equipment, but a guitarist who needed one for his tube amp would have *no*
> problem accepting it.
>
But don't they claim the old tubes sounded better?
Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 00:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? |
| Message-ID | <mv29nq$cs9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152367 |
On 10/6/2015 9:55 PM, Michael Black wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: >> You can buy a *new* (probably Chinese built) 12AX7 in the U. S. ... >> for between $12 and $25 US. You may *not* like that in your >> "vintage" radio equipment, but a guitarist who needed one for his >> tube amp would have *no* problem accepting it. >> > But don't they claim the old tubes sounded better? > https://www.tubesandmore.com is a vendor's website that has descriptions of all(?) the currently manufactured tubes and and their audio characteristics. How much of the difference is real, and how much is all in the mind, is another question. Looks like China, Russia, and Slovakia still have production lines running. Several "old" brands (Mullard, Tung-sol) are apparently made in Russia now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 15:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mv1caf$o39$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152301 |
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510061130360.5509@darkstar.example.org... > 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. > If the tube is in use... and if the tube has a filament or heater... it *will* burn out, just like an incandescent light. None of these will "last forever". -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 14:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d94f8e8-3f1d-4d10-bf09-fdc0597504e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152330 |
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote: > If the tube is in use... and if the tube has a filament or heater... it > *will* burn out, just like an incandescent light. None of these will "last > forever". Somewhere I read of _new_ developments in tiny tubes, as well as "molecular punch cards". Probably nothing came of either. But you read it here first: IBM will replace its Z series with a tube computer. (That's my story and I'm sticking to it!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 17:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27152d58-aca4-46ce-8467-2768a45f67b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152344 |
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 3:26:14 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Somewhere I read of _new_ developments in tiny tubes, as well as "molecular punch cards". Probably nothing came of either. Did a Google on that latter phrase. Turns out it referred to a storage technology worked on at IBM, codenamed "Millipede". John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 17:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b80f02a7-8aa4-43cf-8e8c-ef7d36b9dfb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152359 |
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 6:26:55 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 3:26:14 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > > Somewhere I read of _new_ developments in tiny tubes, as well as "molecular punch cards". Probably nothing came of either. > > Did a Google on that latter phrase. Turns out it referred to a storage technology > worked on at IBM, codenamed "Millipede". Not surprising that improvements in magnetic storage led IBM to decide there was no market for a data storage device that used a *scanning tunneling microscope* as its read head. It would have been just a tad pricey. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 07:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <481df580-54d3-4b95-9eae-5ad14474f230@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152359 |
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 8:26:55 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: > > Somewhere I read of _new_ developments in tiny tubes, as well as "molecular punch cards". Probably nothing came of either. > Did a Google on that latter phrase. Turns out it referred to a storage technology > worked on at IBM, codenamed "Millipede". I can't wait to see the card sorter for that. I'm thinking of "Fantastic Voyage" miniaturization, with Raquel Welch as a computer operator. However, I'll have to give this more thought to come up with a reason to put her in a wetsuit (as was in the movie)*. *On the TV show, The Middleman, they put the girl in a bikini while the guys were in wetsuits. The girl asked why they did that. They replied "because you're pretty".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 07:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn19jmd.9hs.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #152344 |
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:26:11 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote: > >> If the tube is in use... and if the tube has a filament or heater... it >> *will* burn out, just like an incandescent light. None of these will "last >> forever". > > Somewhere I read of _new_ developments in tiny tubes, as well as "molecular > punch cards". Probably nothing came of either. There was some work done in the '80s developing vacuum tube arrays and integrated circuits. No heaters so no burn-out problems. The Russians had some ineresting tubes about as thick as a pencil: http://www.radicalvalves.com/russian/russian-rod-pentodes-1/ -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence@cluon.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87h9m1fn62.fsf@cluon.com> |
| In reply to | #152330 |
"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes: > If the tube is in use... and if the tube has a filament or > heater... it *will* burn out, just like an incandescent light. None > of these will "last forever". Filaments nearly never 'burn out' unless treated extremely harshly. A tube will fail to fulfill its role in a circuit because of emission loss long before that happens. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 12:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510081218410.9383@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #152464 |
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, lawrence@cluon.com wrote: > "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes: >> If the tube is in use... and if the tube has a filament or >> heater... it *will* burn out, just like an incandescent light. None >> of these will "last forever". > > Filaments nearly never 'burn out' unless treated extremely harshly. > Just like incandescent bulbs, the filament is more likely to fail due to mechanical stress. So all those two way radios bouncing around in the trunk of a car decades ago, those tubes likely needed replacing prematurely. I had a halogen desk lamp that went through bulbs pretty fast, but it was of light construction and vibrated quite a bit when touched, so I assume the filament got a lot of motion while in operation. > A tube will fail to fulfill its role in a circuit because of emission > loss long before that happens. > And for some uses, "not so good" is okay. If someone has a collection of tube radios, and turns each on for a bit every so often, they might find they don't need tubes that test "perfect" on their tube testers. SOmeone with one radio that is used a lot might find more perfect tubes to be worthwhile. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web