Nixie Tube History - help needed
Jens Boos
I am doing some research on the beginnings of the Nixie tube.
Wikipedia lists these sources:
Scientific American magazine, June 1973, p. 66
'Solid State Devices--Instruments' article by S. Runyon in Electronic
Design magazine vol. 24, 23 November 1972, p. 102, via Electronic
Inventions and Discoveries: Electronics from its Earliest Beginnings
to the Present Day, 4th Ed., Geoffrey William Arnold Dummer, 1997,
ISBN 0-7503-0376-X, p. 170
Can someone help out with these?
Many thanks,
Jens
threeneurons
>
> I am doing some research on the beginnings of the Nixie tube.
> Can someone help out with these?
>
> Many thanks,
> Jens
article takes issue with the Haydu brothers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nixie_tube
It mentions, Burroughs buying the Haydu brothers out for their tube
manufacturing abilities, and that the nixie was developed 'in-house',
at Burroughs.
Something to look into.
jb-electronics
> I, personally, can't be of any help. But while you're at it, the wiki
> article takes issue with the Haydu brothers:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nixie_tube
>
> It mentions, Burroughs buying the Haydu brothers out for their tube
> manufacturing abilities, and that the nixie was developed 'in-house',
> at Burroughs.
Hmm I have historical proof that Haydu Bros already were a Burroughs
subsidiary when they advertised the Nixie tube, see here:
http://www.jb-electronics.de/html/elektronik/nixies/n_hb106.htm Now that
was 1955, so quite early.
But sadly, I do not know if Haydu Bros had planned the Nixie tube before
they were bought by Burroughs, or if it was a true Burroughs story.
Wikipedia seems to point in that direction.
The wikipedia article seems wrong at one point, though: Telefunken made
their first Nixie tube in 1966 a German source says.
Jens
Accutron
wrote:
>
> But sadly, I do not know if Haydu Bros had planned the Nixie tube before
> they were bought by Burroughs, or if it was a true Burroughs story.
> Wikipedia seems to point in that direction.
>
> The wikipedia article seems wrong at one point, though: Telefunken made
> their first Nixie tube in 1966 a German source says.
>
> Jens
and should be ignored by all thinking individuals.
National Union released the Inditron in 1954. Haydu was bought by
Burroughs in 1954. Burroughs released the Nixie and beam switching
tube in 1955. All associated patents are assigned to National Union
and Burroughs. The one man most responsible for both the Burroughs
beam switching tube and the Burroughs Nixie is Saul Kuchinsky.
Kuchinsky was working at National Union during the development of the
Inditron, and it is inconceivable that he did not take that knowledge
with him to his new job at Burroughs. Meanwhile, Kuchinsky's primary
work was in beam switching tubes, trying to improve the original
problematic Ericsson design. He is the engineer most primarily
responsible for developing both the 6700 and BX-1000 tubes, and he
also worked extensively with the development of both the Nixie and the
Panaplex display.
I know that everybody wishes the Nixie was a Haydu invention, because
they are a small company with a novel history, but it is simply not
true. In regards to the Nixie and beam switching tube, Haydu was a
workhorse for Burroughs, and nothing more. I have looked at hundreds
of patents and advertisements, and I have never found any evidence
that Haydu did anything more than provide warm bodies to mass-produce
Burroughs designs. I don't know what sort of retarded licensing
agreement Burroughs accepted that resulted in tubes being branded
Haydu in the first place, but it was a bad idea.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
Unmitigated Fool
should work.
Accutron wrote:
> The Wikipedia Nixie tube page is horrible and wrong on many issues,
> and should be ignored by all thinking individuals.
>
> Micah Mabelitini
> http://www.decadecounter.com/
>
>
Accutron
wrote:
> should work.
a small group of despots take over the page, and any unsanctioned
changes are reverted. I used to try to edit Wiki pages; now I just
tell them they're stupid on the Talk page, and let them hash it out on
their own.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
jb-electronics
> National Union released the Inditron in 1954.
Do you have an add or a press release for that? That would be amazing. I
only have the snippet from "Popular Science", 1954, that you also have
on your VTA website.
> Haydu was bought by Burroughs in 1954.
OK, that is also what I know from several sources.
> Burroughs released the Nixie and beam switching
> tube in 1955.
That is a crucial point. Do we have any material proving this year?
> All associated patents are assigned to National Union
> and Burroughs. The one man most responsible for both the Burroughs
> beam switching tube and the Burroughs Nixie is Saul Kuchinsky.
> Kuchinsky was working at National Union during the development of the
> Inditron,
Sadly I could not find a bio on Saul Kuchinsky. Help, anyone?
> I don't know what sort of retarded licensing
> agreement Burroughs accepted that resulted in tubes being branded
> Haydu in the first place, but it was a bad idea.
A bad idea resulting in a faulty wikipedia page half a decade later.
Thanks for enlightening,
Jens
Accutron
wrote:
> Hello Micah,
(snipped)
The patent, official datasheet and press release for the GI-10
Inditron are all dated 1954. Here's the original datasheet, dated May
1954...
http://www.decadecounter.com/vta/pict5/inditrongi10.jpg
The GI-10 patent (US2756366) was filed on April 1, 1954, and the
Popular Science press release is dated September 1954.
There are also a few patents for Inditron-like devices which predate
the Inditron patent. The Inditron is just the first one to make it to
production.
There are several Haydu-Burroughs ads for both the Nixie and 6700 beam
switching tube that are dated from 1955, and I have seen no ads or
tubes dating earlier. The very earliest ad states that the 6700 was
perfected by Burroughs Research Labs and produced in quantity at the
Haydu plant, which was already a subsidiary of Burroughs at that time.
All I know about Saul Kuchinsky is his extensive patent history. He
was deeply involved in the development of every major class of
Burroughs tube.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
jb-electronics
> The patent, official datasheet and press release for the GI-10
> Inditron are all dated 1954. Here's the original datasheet, dated May
> 1954...
How embarassing - I never noticed the small "issued May 1954", even
though I have had this datasheet a long time. Good that this is a
keyboard only that does not see me turn red.
> The GI-10 patent (US2756366) was filed on April 1, 1954, and the
> Popular Science press release is dated September 1954.
OK, so it seems safe to say that the GI-10 was not introduced later than
May 1954. The "patent pending" found on many GI-10 tubes (on some of
mine as well) would underline this, since the respective patent was
issued 1956.
> [...] There are several Haydu-Burroughs ads for both the Nixie and 6700 beam
> switching tube that are dated from 1955, and I have seen no ads or
> tubes dating earlier.
Would you mind scanning the earliest ad you have for me? That would be
fantastic. I have an ad from 1955, but no month, sadly. See it at
http://www.jb-electronics.de/html/elektronik/nixies/n_hb106.htm?lang=en
> All I know about Saul Kuchinsky is his extensive patent history. He
> was deeply involved in the development of every major class of
> Burroughs tube.
Hmm there have to be some archives dealing with the National Union
history. (Like the CBI for Burroughs). Anyone have an idea where to
start looking for National Union information?
Jens
Accutron
published in Electronics magazine between May and December 1955...
http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/users/6435/vm_tubes/magnetron/Haydu1.jpg
http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/users/6435/vm_tubes/magnetron/Haydu2.jpg
http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/users/6435/vm_tubes/magnetron/Haydu3.jpg
These ads, along with the bulletins you have on your site, are the
earliest known evidence for the beam switching tube and Nixie. They're
all dated 1955.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
David Forbes
>
> Here are the three early advertisements I know about. They were
> published in Electronics magazine between May and December 1955...
>
> http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/users/6435/vm_tubes/magnetron/Haydu1.jpg
> http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/users/6435/vm_tubes/magnetron/Haydu2.jpg
> http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/users/6435/vm_tubes/magnetron/Haydu3.jpg
>
Thanks for the ad scans. They are historically interesting. Have you ever seen a
real Vari-Count module?
These ads are amusing in light of the HP decade counter module that uses four
5963 dual triodes as a decade counter, as used in the 52x series counters. True,
they needed a CdS photo-resistor plate to do the BCD-to-decimal conversion, but
they did with four generic tubes what Burroughs needed an exotic magnetic tube
to accomplish.
By the way, I have a Haydu Brothers box with a defective 6700 tube in it. It has
little stickers that say, "A subsidiary of Burroughs Corp." stuck on every side
of the box. Naturally, it was a gift from Tom Jennings.
It includes a data sheet. I could scan it if you're interested.
--
David Forbes, Tucson, AZ
jb-electronics
> Here are the three early advertisements I know about. They were
> published in Electronics magazine between May and December 1955...
> [...]
Oh yes, the article from Mr Ciardiello, see it here:
http://www.radiomuseum.org/forum/nixie_and_trochotron_haydu_vs_burroughs.html
How do you know when they were published, did I miss something in the
article?
> These ads, along with the bulletins you have on your site, are the
> earliest known evidence for the beam switching tube and Nixie. They're
> all dated 1955.
Hmm, I guess that's something. But you know, whenever a distance between
two things is measured, it is important to keep the error low ;-) So all
we can say is that the Inditron was not introduced later than September
1954, and that the Nixie tube was not introduced later than December (or
May) 1955.
But something bugs me: I have searched for "inditron" at Google books,
and they were some documents from 1950 that had "inditron tube" in them.
Isn't that weird?
Jens
Accutron
> Thanks for the ad scans. They are historically interesting. Have you ever seen a
> real Vari-Count module?
orange-label 6700. I've never even seen a photo of a Vari-Count
module. They might as well not exist.
On Nov 9, 2:27 pm, jb-electronics <webmas...@jb-electronics.de> wrote:
> Hello again,
The Haydu Vs. Burroughs article is the direct result of a lengthy,
heated email debate between Emilio Ciardiello and myself (with some
poor out-of-the-loop Radiomuseum moderator stuck in the middle). Mr.
Ciardiello had published another article dealing with all sorts of
velocity modulation tubes, including beam switching tubes, and he had
regurgitated the same incorrect Haydu origin mantra. He subsequently
edited the content of this article enough that it is vaguely-not-
incorrect, but he doesn't actually admit that I was right all along.
The Haydu Vs. Burroughs article is basically useless and draws no real
conclusions. Here's the first article dealing with velocity modulation
tubes...
http://www.radiomuseum.org/forum/vm_tubes_magnetrons_and_similar_devices.html
He indicates the origin and dates of the Haydu ads in this article.
I seem to remember somebody in the past telling me that there was
another unrelated tube called an Inditron, but I can't say for sure.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
Nick
...
> and should be ignored by all thinking individuals.
Please - do us all a favour and update it. Some of us have had a go at
bits (I did the citations and some other parts about lifespan and
Penning mixtures etc.) but the history is bunk (!)
Just go for it - we'll support you!
Cheers
jb-electronics
[...] Mr. Ciardiello had [...] had regurgitated the same incorrect Haydu origin mantra. He subsequently edited the content of this article enough that it is vaguely-not- incorrect, but he doesn't actually admit that I was right all along. The Haydu Vs. Burroughs article is basically useless and draws no real conclusions.
The article is not wrong at least, there are a couple of very different statements on the net:
1) http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~andrewp/Clocks.html (NU made Inditrons in the fourties)
2) http://www.wps.com/archives/decimal-tubes/ (Nixie tubes designed by Haydu 1952-1953)
These are the two most striking so far. Mr E. Barbour, an active member of the TCA, propagates the 1) version, and he is very certain that he is right. He also indicated that there were early Telefunken Nixie tubes from the fourtier, and my German sources say "no" to that.
I seem to remember somebody in the past telling me that there was another unrelated tube called an Inditron, but I can't say for sure.
Jens
Accutron
> little stickers that say, "A subsidiary of Burroughs Corp." stuck on every side
> of the box. Naturally, it was a gift from Tom Jennings.
>
> It includes a data sheet. I could scan it if you're interested.
box and tube.
The only transitional specimen of 6700 that I have is a first-run
Burroughs branded example, which has a white label and the unobtainium
MO-10 part number. The box is a standard Haydu box, but it has a white
label affixed to the top with typical military white box information.
Instead of coming from Plainfield, NJ, its origin is Portland, ME. The
shipping date is 6/1957, placing it right at the point where Burroughs
abandoned the Haydu branding.
On Nov 9, 3:22 pm, Nick <n...@desmith.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:44 pm, Accutron <accut...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> Please - do us all a favour and update it. Some of us have had a go at
> bits (I did the citations and some other parts about lifespan and
> Penning mixtures etc.) but the history is bunk (!)
>
> Just go for it - we'll support you!
>
> Cheers
Jens: on the subject of Inditrons in the 1940s, that's just wrong. We
were once given bad information as to the Inditron's age, and had a
date estimate of 1940s up on our site for some time. We have since
corrected that information, but it's quite likely that our estimate
was regurgitated on various sites. We're the first site to have the
Inditron datasheet, and we're the first site to say definitively that
the Inditron was released in 1954, with plenty of evidence to back it
up.
There were also no Telefunken Nixies in the 1940s. Based on what I
know about Eric Barbour, I would take most things he says with a grain
of salt.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
David Forbes
> On Nov 9, 2:25 pm, David Forbes<dfor...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>> By the way, I have a Haydu Brothers box with a defective 6700 tube in it. It has
>> little stickers that say, "A subsidiary of Burroughs Corp." stuck on every side
>> of the box. Naturally, it was a gift from Tom Jennings.
>>
>> It includes a data sheet. I could scan it if you're interested.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing the datasheet, as well as a photo of the
> box and tube.
>
> The only transitional specimen of 6700 that I have is a first-run
> Burroughs branded example, which has a white label and the unobtainium
> MO-10 part number. The box is a standard Haydu box, but it has a white
> label affixed to the top with typical military white box information.
> Instead of coming from Plainfield, NJ, its origin is Portland, ME. The
> shipping date is 6/1957, placing it right at the point where Burroughs
> abandoned the Haydu branding.
>
OK, I'll see about photographing it. Should be fun.
I will also contact Tom Jennings, who wrote that big wps.com decimal counting
tube page over 10 years ago, to update his information if you have more
substantial printed evidence that Burroughs rather than Haydu developed the beam
switching tube. He should be amenable to that, and since his web page is
considered the Holy Grail of info for these tubes by the Wikipedia crowd, your
outlook on life may improve. We'll see.
jb-electronics
> Okay, I suppose I'll give it a shot.
Great news.
> Jens: on the subject of Inditrons in the 1940s, that's just wrong. We
> were once given bad information as to the Inditron's age, and had a
> date estimate of 1940s up on our site for some time. We have since
> corrected that information, but it's quite likely that our estimate
> was regurgitated on various sites. We're the first site to have the
> Inditron datasheet, and we're the first site to say definitively that
> the Inditron was released in 1954, with plenty of evidence to back it
> up.
Yes, it makes no sense that the Inditron was released 1940 when the
official datasheet is from 1954. It would be interesting to know,
though, when the NU engineers started working on a readout tube.
> There were also no Telefunken Nixies in the 1940s.
Yep. A German tube collector told me that he actually has listings of
the Telefunken factory in Germany, and the first Nixie tube they
produced was the ZM1020 in 1966. Maybe they had some internal
discussions and maybe even prototypes of display tubes, that is still
not clear.
Jens
David Forbes
http://www.nixiebunny.com/haydu6700/index.html
Enjoy. Let me know if the description is haywire.
--
David Forbes, Tucson AZ
http://www.cathodecorner.com/
Accutron
> Haydu 6700 tube and box photos here:
>
> http://www.nixiebunny.com/haydu6700/index.html
the black domed top cap is not normal for the Haydu version. It
probably dates to right around 1957 like my MO-10, and it has the same
included connection diagram. The next variation (1958-1959ish) has a
red Burroughs label, black top cap and clear bottom cap, and is
packaged in a red and black Burroughs box. Eventually they switched to
a black bottom cap, presumably because they finally ran out of the
leftover clear bottoms from the initial production run. There was also
more than one variation of the red Burroughs label used during this
period. Sometime around 1960, they eliminated the red plastic label
and started using the black/orange/grey style boxes. Serial numbers
were also abandoned at this point.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
yendor3
----- Original Message -----
From: "jb-electronics" <webm...@jb-electronics.de>
....clip...>
> Hmm there have to be some archives dealing with the National Union
> history. (Like the CBI for Burroughs). Anyone have an idea where to
> start looking for National Union information?
>
> Jens
>
How about a question to the TCA group then ?
john K.
jb-electronics
> How about a question to the TCA group then ?
>
> john K
Hello John,
oh yes, I am a member there, too, but Mr Barbour is very dominant there
and he insists that NU made Inditrons around 1940. I would love to see a
proof, but until now I did not get any responses.
Jens
Accutron
wrote:
> proof, but until now I did not get any responses.
Inditron/glowing-neon-number-thing in the 1940s, what you really need
to ask him about is the secret time machine he keeps in his garage. It
is quite well-known that the basic design for a Nixie has existed
since at least 1934 - the Boswau patent. However, the GI-10 is the
earliest glow discharge display produced in any significant quantity,
and I don't think there's any reasonable doubt about the GI-10's
introduction date. If there were something released in production
quantities prior to the GI-10, we would've encountered it already.
Even the GI-10 itself was only manufactured in small production
quantities, yet we've managed to collect several fistfuls of them over
the years.
I'm not even going to entertain the possibility of Telefunken Nixies
in the 1940s. You might as well tell me the Germans developed a
functional atomic bomb in the 1930s but never patented it or used it
because they didn't want to infringe on US atomic bomb patents that
would later be filed in the 1940s.
I'm also *highly confident* about the 1955 date for the Burroughs
tubes. This estimation is based not only on the dates of various ads
and brochures, but on the filing dates of numerous patents and the
date of the Haydu acquisition. It is not possible that the 6700
existed in production before 1954, because they didn't yet have the
Haydu production facilities. It is not possible that any Haydu/
Burroughs Nixie existed before the 6700, because the 6700 was their
first product. The Vari-Count ad dates to December 1955, and that is
the first time we see a Haydu/Burroughs Nixie in a document that's
dated to-the-month. No Haydu/Burroughs publication of any type has
been found prior to 1955. The earliest Burroughs Nixie patent dates to
1956 IIRC, and there are no Haydu Nixie patents. It is not entirely
impossible that somebody will eventually turn up a pre-release 6700
from 1954, but I'm confident the Haydu/Burroughs Nixie did not exist
in a manufacturable state until 1955.
A note on Haydu's role: Although the beam switching tube and Nixie
were electrically designed by Burroughs, I think it's a foregone
conclusion that Haydu production engineers were heavily involved in
the high-volume refinement of these tubes. If you note the Stems &
Sockets brochure, they're making a big fuss about the high-pin-count
button bases they're using. I'm guessing the button bases are a direct
result of Haydu production engineering.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
jb-electronics
I'm not even going to entertain the possibility of Telefunken Nixies in the 1940s. You might as well tell me the Germans developed a functional atomic bomb in the 1930s but never patented it or used it because they didn't want to infringe on US atomic bomb patents that would later be filed in the 1940s.
[...] The earliest Burroughs Nixie patent dates to 1956 IIRC, and there are no Haydu Nixie patents. It is not entirely impossible that somebody will eventually turn up a pre-release 6700 from 1954, but I'm confident the Haydu/Burroughs Nixie did not exist in a manufacturable state until 1955.
Yes, based on our collected material this is the only reasonable conclusion. I still have to find that early Burroughs patent though. There was a time when I knew some numbers, but this is half a year ago (I somehow lost track of the patent research I have to admit, it is such a detailed work...)
A note on Haydu's role: Although the beam switching tube and Nixie were electrically designed by Burroughs, I think it's a foregone conclusion that Haydu production engineers were heavily involved in the high-volume refinement of these tubes. If you note the Stems & Sockets brochure, they're making a big fuss about the high-pin-count button bases they're using. I'm guessing the button bases are a direct result of Haydu production engineering.
"Burroughs purchased the Haydu plant in 1954 expressly for the purpose of manufacturing and selling new products developed at our Paoli, Pennsylvania facility. One of the first new products, the NIXIE tube, started the division on the road to success." Ed. Lord, Editor, the Burroughs Readout Volume 1, Number 5, July 1972
But I guess it is natural that Burroughs wanted to market the Nixie tubes and their production solely as their own success.
Jens
Erick Anderson
keep an eye on the article from time to time, but I don't have much to
contribute to it besides taking photos of my own stuff.
On Nov 9, 9:37 am, Accutron <accut...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> I used to try to edit Wiki pages; now I just tell them they're stupid on the Talk page, and let them hash it out on their own.
>
> Micah Mabelitinihttp://www.decadecounter.com/
really help anyone.
Charles MacDonald
> If you have better information, please don't keep it to yourself. I
> keep an eye on the article from time to time, but I don't have much to
> contribute to it besides taking photos of my own stuff.
The trick/problem with Wikipedia is that the have some funny rules that
don't always work well with topics with a limited knowledge base.
1. Article must be verifiable, which means that almost any fact you want
to change needs a reference to a reliable source. anything from the 20th
century proably does not have an independent web page, and many of the
Nixie world source books don't have an ISBN (too Old)
2 No independent research, which means that if you have found some bit
of truth, you are not allowed to post it yourself. It is aright if
someone else posts it and cites your page as a source.
3 The Wiki crowd has some very funny ideas about relavence, and if some
14 year old gets bored they will just say that your article is not
important enough, and then you have an argument/vote situation to keep
track of.
I have tried to add stuff, and had my patience run down. see for
example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagrid_converter If you look at
the edits you will see the fight I had trying to get nonsense out of
this article. It still does not discuss the workings. They still use
my picture!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_River_Parkway has lost a nice shot I
took showing the actual road at sunset
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OttawaRPsunset.jpg becasue "Its campy
and terribly lit," Anyone want to put it back?
--
Charles MacDonald Stittsville Ontario
cm...@zeusprune.ca Just Beyond the Fringe
http://www.TelecomOttawa.net/~cmacd/
No Microsoft Products were used in sending this e-mail.
Jens Boos
some other question regarding the Nixie tube history: When did
Burroughs actually register "Nixie" as their trademark? There is
contradictory information on the net. I checked using the TESS system
from upsto.gov.uk, and here is what I found:
Word Mark NIXIE
Goods and Services (EXPIRED) IC 009. US 026. G & S: ELECTRONIC
INDICATOR TUBES. FIRST USE: 19560430. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19560430
[...]
Filing Date December 10, 1956
[...]
Registration Date November 19, 1957
Owner (REGISTRANT) BURROUGHS CORPORATION CORPORATION MICHIGAN 6071
2ND AVE. DETROIT MICHIGAN
[...]
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 19771119
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
I have some questions, as I am not too familiar with these terms. It
looks like Burroughs filed the "trademark request" Dec 10, 1956. But
what does the "Registration Date" mean? Was it only after that that
"Nixie" was a trademark?
It is also interesting to see that apparently the first use in
commerce was on April 30, 1956. What does that mean? We have material
from Dec 1955 showing the Nixie tube. Is this information inaccurate?
It'd also be interesting to get a full overview on the trademark's
renewals. Any clue where to find these?
Jens
Steve Scorn
seriously great knowledge, and true expert opinion bouncing back and
forth.
As a group, can we not overcome the he-said-she-said differences and
capture this to Wikipedia? From the perspective of a novice,
Wikipedia's voice speaks loudest. Can we make it speak the truth?
If there are differing opinions can we document them on Wikipedia
something like; Some think A, others think B?
From my perspective, knowing nothing. I want to read it all. I want to
read both perspectives. I'm smart, I can dig deeper; just get me
started!
Steve
Jens Boos
I think Micah agreed on giving the Wikipedia article another shot.
I will be writing an article on this soon, and I will include "our"
version as well as the "other" version. But I will point out that the
"other" theory needs historical proof and is thus merely conjecture
for now. I am just a little busy with my homepage, since I am
including a small "physics" section that is eating up all my free time
at the moment.
Any ideas on the trademark issue?
Jens
jb-electronics
Ludwell Sibley from TCA just send me an unbelievable historic treasure,
see here:
http://www.jb-electronics.de/tmp/Inditron.jpg
This could mean that the Inditron was planned as early as 1948! It was
developed at least from 1950 onwards, and if you consider four years of
research and two years of production seperately (which I think is
reasonable) and take may 1954 as the official Inditron release date
(which is also reasonable) this gives us 1948. Yeah baby. Sadly there is
no issue date.
Any thoughts?
I am just a little sad that I have never seen such an Inditron in over 4
years. :-(
Jens
marcin
On Nov 16, 8:55 am, jb-electronics <webmas...@jb-electronics.de>
wrote:
> see here:
> http://www.jb-electronics.de/tmp/Inditron.jpg
the left, GI-21 second from the right, but I don't remember seeing the
other tubes. Including that bargraph.
jb-electronics
> Nice! And... what are the other Inditrons? I mean GI-10 is second from
> the left, GI-21 second from the right, but I don't remember seeing the
> other tubes. Including that bargraph.
The one on the right is most likely the GI-30. The other tubes: no idea.
Jens
marcin
wrote:
that the Inditron series included GI-10 and GI-21 only.
Marcin
Nick
> quantities, yet we've managed to collect several fistfuls of them over
> the years.
(unused but not in original box).
Fantastically crude construction - first time in probably 10 years
I've had a close look at them...
Nick
jb-electronics
I also have several GI-10 and GI-21 tubes all NIB, but I have NEVER seen
any of those on the promo sheet.
The GI-30 was described as similar to the GI-21 but slightly larger. So
this description fits, I guess. Mr Barbour from TCA gave me that
information. He said he donated his GI-30 to the computer history museum
(http://www.computerhistory.org/) in 1998 - I have send an inquiring
email several months ago and I have not received a response, sadly.
Jens
Nick
GI-21, they are in Mil-spec boxes from "The Martin Company" with a
variety of marks, one of which I think is a date stamp of 6/60 (June
1960). No anode mesh.
nick
Jens Boos
>
> Nice! And... what are the other Inditrons? I mean GI-10 is second from
> the left
tubuation on the side, and not between her pins. So these two tubes
might be some GI-10 variants.
Jens
Jens Boos
OK, first one to catch a GI-30 or any of the other Inditrons alive
will be given Nixie-knighthood^^
Jens
Marcin Adamski
> My GI-10 tubes that I have here are from 1962, so quite late as well.
successful product being made for approx. 15 years? ;)
Another thing which bother me - the lack of an anode in GI-10. Was it
only because there was no way to fit 11 pins on a basically 9 pin socket?
jb-electronics
> On 16/11/2010 16:36, Jens Boos wrote:
>> My GI-10 tubes that I have here are from 1962, so quite late as well.
> My GI-10s are from 65. Doesn't it mean that they were a rather
> successful product being made for approx. 15 years? ;)
Only because they are labelled 1965 they do not necessarily have to be
made then. There are manufacturers that label their tubes when they sell
them. But I dno not know if this applies for National Union. It is weird
that they stuck around so long.
> Another thing which bother me - the lack of an anode in GI-10. Was it
> only because there was no way to fit 11 pins on a basically 9 pin socket?
The noval socket was a socket that was readily available. But this does
not explain the lack of an anode. I do not know why there was no anode.
Maybe it was planned to drive these tubes mechanically as on the
datasheet, and in that case it does not matter.
Jens
Charles MacDonald
> Just found a load of NIB GI-21s - Though the tubes are marked NU
> GI-21, they are in Mil-spec boxes from "The Martin Company" with a
> variety of marks, one of which I think is a date stamp of 6/60 (June
> 1960). No anode mesh.
IS it possible to scan the box? or a take a closeup digital photo?
Often some of the TCA folks can read between the lines on those boxes.
Accutron
not yet managed to invent an anode configuration which did not
infringe on the Boswau patent or the Northrop patent or any of the
other early gas discharge patents. The Burroughs Nixie is the earliest
known production tube with a dedicated anode electrode, and the anode
design does not infringe on the Boswau patent, which describes a
device with a dedicated anode for each digit.
That Inditron advertisement serves as evidence of one important point
- it proves that the Inditron was in development while Saul Kuchinsky
was employed by National Union. Various patent dates strongly suggest
that he was employed by NU during the right time period, but if
National Union had somehow managed to develop the Inditron in only a
few months prior to the 1954 release, Kuchinsky would have already
left to work at Burroughs. The ad specifies a development time
measured in years, which means Kuchinsky was definitely employed there
during the development period.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
Accutron
product...if any military contractor used the Inditron in any sort of
equipment, NU would've been obligated to maintain production for many
years after the last Inditron-using equipment was no longer being
produced. If they only used the tube in a single airspeed indicator in
a single model of aircraft, NU would've had to make Inditrons until
that model of aircraft was dead and buried. Inditrons do not have an
outstanding lifespan, and would've been changed like lightbulbs.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
marcin
> In all likelihood, the GI-10 does not have an anode because they had
I would like to mention pro-forma that GI-21 does have an anode. It is
not a front grid but it is there.
> On the subject of the Inditron's apparently long lifespan as a
Very likely. It would be the same on the other side of the Iron
Curtain.
But accordingly - a promising product of a military usage might be
kept secret for years before being made available to the general
public.
Maybe, just maybe this would explain that strange discrepancy in the
GI-10 beginning of production? It's just a theory without any
foothold.
Marcin
jb-electronics
> I would like to mention pro-forma that GI-21 does have an anode. It is
> not a front grid but it is there.
It does? This is new information for me. When I made the pictures for
the GI-21 site
(http://www.jb-electronics.de/html/elektronik/nixies/n_gi21.htm?lang=en)
I had to change my "anode" wire to the adjacent digits of the currently
cathode. I know the GI-21 has 11 pins, but I do not see the anode.
"The Martin company" is found on several Inditron cartons. I guess
Micahs theory is correct and possible the "Martin company" was some kind
of reseller for pre-manufactured National Union Inditrons, or a licensed
producer with no own product line of their own.
By the way, Northrop Aircraft seems to have filed quite a lot of
interesting and different patents in 1950, are there stories to tell
about that?
Jens
Charles MacDonald
> "The Martin company" is found on several Inditron cartons. I guess
> Micahs theory is correct and possible the "Martin company" was some kind
> of reseller for pre-manufactured National Union Inditrons, or a licensed
> producer with no own product line of their own.
It is not uncommon for a contractor for a system to have provided a
spares kit which would include lamps, Fuses and electron tubes. those
would have be packed with the contractor name. The Audio world often
gets this wrong and pays extra for say a Western Electric - CKR 6SJ7!
Tube Electron JAN CKR 6SJ7GT
Contract XY47-PHILA-012345
Acceptance Jan 1945
Contractor Western Electric Company.
That would have been a spare Ken Rad tube for a western Electric Gizmo,
probably a Radar set. Occasionaly you will even see the Name of the
intended system the spare was for.
Some of the TCA folks have a list of the Signal Corps inspection codes
and can tie an orange "cross flags" stamp to a given Geographical area.
Accutron
would end up as part of Lockheed Martin. They also produced missiles
and other military stuff. The tubes are probably replacement parts for
a Martin aircraft display, or were possibly used as part of the
Project Vanguard rocket program, which was going on in the late 1950s.
Do the boxes have a USAF contract number? The contract number would
provide a base of origin and you might be able to find out the exact
program.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
Nick
a label which reads:
5960-552-0265
ELECTRON TUBE
1 EACH ITEM 1-2498
7901-PP-60-54-54-GFP
THE MARTIN COMPANY
GI-21 P/N SM-C-209280-1
EXPORT PACKING AND CRATING Co., INC.
A IIIX 6/60
The end of the box is printed (not on a lable, on the box itself)
with:
NU
GI-21
MADE IN U.S.A.
The digits are stacked (looking from the top) 0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1
There is no anode as all unused digits are used as anodes by means of
tying them each high with a high value resistor (typically 330K) and
then pulling the digit you wish to light low.
The advantage of this is that no anode mesh is required, so no patent
infringement. Downside is the need for 9 extra resistors (10 needed
vs. 1 if you have a single anode). The GI-10 patent, #2,769,939 -
Charles R Williams, Northrop Aircraft Inc., (granted) November 6th
1956 (application) June 12th 1950 covers this well... Interestingly, a
major claim of this patent is that the current draw of the tube is
substantially reduced (to about 1mA).
Nick
Dekatron42
Here is some information which does not match the GI-21 but atleast
shows that the "SM-C-2092" number is used for other parts in the US
military, http://www.wbparts.com/nsndetail.cfm?NIIN=006429929 - this
also shows that the 5960 number is used for these parts, although I
did not find any reference in the public lists.
The numbers on the box resembled those I use to find on old moving
coil panel meters so I did a quick search and found this similar
information above. I hope it can help you in some small part to hunt
for more information.
/Martin
Accutron
patent up on his site as the GI-10 patent, but the GI-10 patent is
actually #2756366. The Northrop patent is not related to the GI-10,
other than it's another gas discharge display design.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2756366.pdf
The boxes unfortunately do not have a USAF contract number. The 5960
thing is just the National Stock Number. NSNs are basically
useless...they show up on partminer sites, and tell you that your
GI-21 or whatever is an ELECTRON TUBE, but that's about all they're
good for. The Martin boxes are still important though, because they
prove the Inditron was actually *used* in something. Based on what
Martin was doing at the time, the best guess is an aircraft display or
some piece of equipment that was part of Project Vanguard. It is not
impossible that some Inditrons have been launched into space, much to
the amusement of any intelligent aliens who happen to discover their
crude construction.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
marcin
On 17 Nov, 23:34, jb-electronics <webmas...@jb-electronics.de> wrote:
> > I would like to mention pro-forma that GI-21 does have an anode. It is
> > not a front grid but it is there.
> It does? This is new information for me. When I made the pictures for
> the GI-21 site
GI-21 has 11 pins in its base. Ten are connected to the respective
digits and the 11th to those four vertical rods. You can clearly see
these rods on Jens web page.
If I pull up the rods I can lighten up any digit except '4' and '8'.
To Lighten '4' and '8' it's necessary to pull up some other digits.
Probably when I was playing with the tube before I simply missed the
'4' and '8' issue and came to conclusion that that the rods are true
anode. Now I have to withdraw it: GI-21 doesn't have an anode. I don't
know for sure what is the purpose of the four rods. They may help to
completely lighten up the digits, or they are just a construction
elements. Seeing NU application note specifically for GI-21 would
certainly help.
Marcin
Nick
On Nov 18, 3:03 pm, Accutron <accut...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> Patent #2769939 is *not* the GI-10 patent. Dieter incorrectly has that
> patent up on his site as the GI-10 patent, but the GI-10 patent is
> actually #2756366. The Northrop patent is not related to the GI-10,
> other than it's another gas discharge display design.
section to other patents at the end including some of the "usual
suspects" (but not Verbal Kint...)
Nick
Charles MacDonald
> Nick,
>
> Here is some information which does not match the GI-21 but atleast
> shows that the "SM-C-2092" number is used for other parts in the US
> military, http://www.wbparts.com/nsndetail.cfm?NIIN=006429929 - this
> also shows that the 5960 number is used for these parts, although I
> did not find any reference in the public lists.
The NATO/FSN number were changed at one point, by adding a country code
wich is 00 for existing USA parts, but I think that there were a few
other changes.
5960 is the code for Electron Tubes and related parts.
Interestingly a search for that NATO number turns up a picture or two
from an Italian E-bay Auction..
http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160484115941
Charles MacDonald
> On 10-11-18 06:20 AM, Dekatron42 wrote:
>> Nick,
>>
>> Here is some information which does not match the GI-21 but atleast
>> shows that the "SM-C-2092" number is used for other parts in the US
>> military, http://www.wbparts.com/nsndetail.cfm?NIIN=006429929 - this
>> also shows that the 5960 number is used for these parts, although I
>> did not find any reference in the public lists.
>
> The NATO/FSN number were changed at one point, by adding a country code
> wich is 00 for existing USA parts, but I think that there were a few
> other changes.
>
> 5960 is the code for Electron Tubes and related parts.
>
> Interestingly a search for that NATO number turns up a picture or two
> from an Italian E-bay Auction..
> http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160484115941
Another search on finds another parts dealer who says..
Result of
NSN: 5960-00-552-0265
ELECTRON TUBE
Part No:
Brief Report for NSN: 5960-00-552-0265
This NSN was canceled on 05/14/1997, reason: - ITEM IS CANCELLED-INACTIVE
A.J. Franzman
On Nov 18, 7:03 am, Accutron <accut...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> The Martin boxes are still important though, because they
> prove the Inditron was actually *used* in something. Based on what
> Martin was doing at the time, the best guess is an aircraft display or
> some piece of equipment that was part of Project Vanguard. It is not
> impossible that some Inditrons have been launched into space, much to
> the amusement of any intelligent aliens who happen to discover their
> crude construction.
in ground control equipment, and not the rockets or satellites
themselves.
A.J.
A.J. Franzman
On Nov 18, 5:41 pm, Charles MacDonald <cm...@zeusprune.ca> wrote:
> Interestingly a search for that NATO number turns up a picture or two
> from an Italian E-bay Auction..http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160484115941
picked up the Italian eBay site but the seller gives the location as
California:
< http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160484115941 >
A.J.
Jens Boos
all these codes, basically I have never heard of these before, and I
have no clue where to search for them.
As I understand it, these codes were used to indicate in which
equipment the respective component (here: our Inditron) was used, to
enable quick references in the future. So what this code could be used
for is finding out in which equipment the Inditron was actually used.
This equipment is most likely some some aircraft control thingy,
right? Anybody made progress in finding something more detailed?
I have been digging into Burroughs history a little deeper, and found
out that they mention their indicator tube program in their 1958
Annual Report. 1958, that is right. Three years late, that is weird,
since they started adertising the Nixie tube since 1955 as a huge
breakthrough, so why not mention it in their annual report?
Also interesting within the 1954 Annual Report - Haydu Brothers of
Plainfield NJ listed as a Burroughs Manufacturing Plant. (so far not
confusing). In the report, there is the following text about the Haydu
plant: "Similarly, in acquiring sources of supply for electronic and
other components of business equipment, other products have been
acquired (!). Thus, Burroughs is moving into growing fields outside
that of office equipment. Haydu Brothers, for example, acquired in
1954, manufactures cathode ray television tubes and other precision
components for the electronics industry."
Other products have been acquired! This is the first time that I have
read evidence for Burroughs acquiring products from Haydu Brothers.
Any comments?
Jens
Charles MacDonald
> Also interesting within the 1954 Annual Report - Thus, Burroughs is moving into growing fields outside
> that of office equipment. Haydu Brothers, for example, acquired in
> 1954, manufactures cathode ray television tubes and other precision
> components for the electronics industry."
>
> Other products have been acquired! This is the first time that I have
> read evidence for Burroughs acquiring products from Haydu Brothers.
> Any comments?
Sounds like they bought out Haydu Brothers in their fiscal 1954 year,
and they were using the outfit to make CRTs and other electronic components.
When a company buys out another firm, they often will gradually change
the name (so as to not scare off existing customers of the firm they
bought) In some cases this can go on almost forever, GM still makes
Buick Branded cars for example. In other cases they fire everyone and
the Might Trucks of Midnight take all the equipment away over the
weekend. The good stuff goes to existing plants and the rest gets
junked to make sure that the competition from that firm they bought is
truly eliminated.
IN either case they may use the bought companies brand, phase it out or
even sell the rights to the brand. if they discontinue the brand it
will appear as a footnote under "goodwill" in the annual report. (all
the interesting stuff is in the footnotes in accountant speak so they
can show they told everyone without making anyone the wiser.)
jb-electronics
> IN either case they may use the bought companies brand, phase it out
> or even sell the rights to the brand. if they discontinue the brand
> it will appear as a footnote under "goodwill" in the annual report.
> (all the interesting stuff is in the footnotes in accountant speak so
> they can show they told everyone without making anyone the wiser.)
What I just find interesting is that Burroughs purchased Haydu with
their products. It would be interesting too see what kinds of products
Haydu Brothers had to offer at that time.
I am hoping to get in contact with a Haydu/Burroughs employee of the
time 1953-onwards to clarify these matters once and for all :-)
Jens