Transistors!

[DaleB]

We have some friends who are high level professors and researchers in marine biology at UC Santa Cruz (CA). They are constantly applying for grants, and when they get one, the university forces them to share a percentage with the departments that peddle the worthless degrees. Otherwise those departments would disappear, since no one in their right mind would give them any money.

Tim

Honestly... I have always felt that that's kind of one of the jobs of a university, to provide even the sort of knowledge for which no one really sees any immediate use.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Some of those "hollow state" devices warmed up about as fast as transistors did. We had (until my dad gave it to a church rummage sale) a Zenith TransOceanic receiver (AM and shortwave) that was a tube rig, but came on almost immediately when you turned it on. Never did have a battery pack for it (too much money). I've seen that radio one other place, in the radio room museum on the Queen Mary.

The "instant-on" feature in tube-type TVs and radios was done by cheating a little. The tube filaments ran at reduced power when the unit was off to keep them warm enough so that the picture and sound came on as soon as the unit was switched on. The switch controlled everything but the filaments, which ran as long as the thing was plugged in, and switching on sent full filament voltage to the tubes as well as all the high-voltage stuff.

Any tube that is at room temp isn't going to come on instantly. The cathode has to heat up first before it will emit electrons.

 

[wanttaja]

The "instant-on" feature in tube-type TVs and radios was done by cheating a little. The tube filaments ran at reduced power when the unit was off to keep them warm enough so that the picture and sound came on as soon as the unit was switched on. The switch controlled everything but the filaments, which ran as long as the thing was plugged in, and switching on sent full filament voltage to the tubes as well as all the high-voltage stuff.

We had a TV with the "instant on" feature in our basement rec room. Came out of the (basement) shower one morning to find the basement full of smoke. Apparently, something didn't LIKE having the filaments hot all the time.

When I was a kid, my friends referred to portable radios as "transistors"... not "transistor radios," just "transistors." No wonder I'm anal retentive.....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[IK04]

The "instant-on" feature in tube-type TVs and radios was done by cheating a little. The tube filaments ran at reduced power when the unit was off to keep them warm enough so that the picture and sound came on as soon as the unit was switched on.

Yeah, I learned about this one day with a flash and a puff of smoke!

 

[ColoPilot]

You guys are old. This is what we wanted when we were kids. No idea how many transistors it had haha.

 

[flyingbrit]

Any tube that is at room temp isn't going to come on instantly. The cathode has to heat up first before it will emit electrons.

True, but there was a huge difference between the warm up time of battery operated sets and AC line powered sets. The cathode of a battery operated tube was just a filament, termed directly heated. Their warm up time was on the order of 1 second. Tubes designed for AC operation were quite different. The filament (properly called a heater in this case) was inside an insulated thin metal tube which formed the cathode, termed indirectly heated. This was done to prevent the AC from coupling into the signal and causing hum. Warm up time for these was more like 10 seconds, assuming no "instant on" feature.

 

[Dana]

I think I still have a Zenith Trans-Oceanic radio in the attic somewhere, my grandfather got it as a retirement gift. I do remember, though I'd forgotten, wondering why it didn't need to warm up like other tube radios.

Early 1970s, I used to compare BBC, Voice of America, and Radio Moscow on the same night, it was interesting.

 

[3393RP]

I thought I was old because I worked on TTL stuff, you fellas talking about heated cathodes are ancient.

 

[DaleB]

I thought I was old because I worked on TTL stuff, you fellas talking about heated cathodes are ancient.

Hey, pal. I resemble that remark.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I thought I was old because I worked on TTL stuff, you fellas talking about heated cathodes are ancient.

And feeling every bit ancient. I remember showing my Mom (as if she'd be impressed) the small transistor compared to an eight-pin pentode, telling her that the little thing did the same job as the tube at a tiny faction of the power. If they had told us kids in high school that in a few decades we'd be carrying a machine in a shirt pocket that would let you call practically anywhere on earth, send pictures and videos there too, get you instant weather and news and perform complex mathematical functions, look up information on any imaginable subject, watch movies, and tell you exactly where you were on the surface of the earth and show you an satellite picture of the area, we'd have referred them to a psychiatrist. We'd have thought they'd been reading too much Robert Heinlein or something.


Saw a Telex machine in a museum recently. Made me feel real old. Spent the '70s and early '80s using one of those things as part of my work. Seems so clunky now.

 

[wanttaja]

And feeling every bit ancient. I remember showing my Mom (as if she'd be impressed) the small transistor compared to an eight-pin pentode, telling her that the little thing did the same job as the tube at a tiny faction of the power.

I'd already mentioned the kids in my area that used the word "transistor" to refer to the radio itself, not the solid-state device. One of them (slightly brighter than the rest) came to me with his vacuum-tube radio and asked me to plug in transistors instead of the tubes.

If they had told us kids in high school that in a few decades we'd be carrying a machine in a shirt pocket that would let you call practically anywhere on earth, send pictures and videos there too, get you instant weather and news and perform complex mathematical functions, look up information on any imaginable subject, watch movies, and tell you exactly where you were on the surface of the earth and show you an satellite picture of the area, we'd have referred them to a psychiatrist. We'd have thought they'd been reading too much Robert Heinlein or something.

I remember reading Heinlein's Space Cadet back in the 70s. There's a part in there where the main character is preparing to ride a rocket up to the space academy on orbit. He packs up his portable phone and sends it back to his parents.

Even now, I remember my disbelief: "They'll never have those! It would take a tremendous infrastructure to support wireless phones like that !"



Ron Wanttaja

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I'd already mentioned the kids in my area that used the word "transistor" to refer to the radio itself, not the solid-state device. One of them (slightly brighter than the rest) came to me with his vacuum-tube radio and asked me to plug in transistors instead of the tubes.


I remember reading Heinlein's Space Cadet back in the 70s. There's a part in there where the main character is preparing to ride a rocket up to the space academy on orbit. He packs up his portable phone and sends it back to his parents.

Even now, I remember my disbelief: "They'll never have those! It would take a tremendous infrastructure to support wireless phones like that !"



Ron Wanttaja

Even more impressive is that he wrote it in 1948

 

[Arrow76R]

I installed 3 Radio Shack "car phones", complete with phone type handset in my vehicles in the early 80's as I recall, after my Luddite wife got stuck in a snowstorm and had to walk a ways to find a land-line phone. She had refused (up to that point) to let me put a "car phone" in her vehicle. Still have one, I think. Also had a Motorola "brick" that had a matching modem and battery pack. Made for heavy load!! And before all these I used my 2 meter ham rig with outboard touch-tone pad to access a club sponsored "phone patch".

 

[Dan Thomas]

Even more impressive is that he wrote it in 1948

Yup. The writers of science fiction were better prophets than the science writers that told us we'd all have flying cars by now.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Yup. The writers of science fiction were better prophets than the science writers that told us we'd all have flying cars by now.

You mean Popular Mechanics and those magazines?

 

[timrb]

The writers of science fiction were better prophets than the science writers that told us we'd all have flying cars by now.

Sometimes they were not even outlandish enough. I get a kick out of the old Star Trek TV episodes where the "23rd-century technology" has already been obsoleted by 20th-century technology.

Tim

 

[wsuffa]

 

[Dana]

In the news report about the guy that was arrested for using a handheld aviation radio to make fake ATC calls, he was described as a "transistor radio buff".

 

[Dan Thomas]

You mean Popular Mechanics and those magazines?

Yeah. Those guys. I read them in the '60s and '70s and had access to issues from the '50s as well. Nearly every issue had some "revolutionary new" engine or car or airplane or helicopter in it. As young folks we were easily taken in by this stuff, and now we old guys recognize baloney when we see it. So many breathless articles on just-around-the-corner revolutionary technologies, written by people whose education is in writing, not technology. The motive, as always, is to make money through subscriptions and advertising space. Truth is not necessary and is actually inconvenient.

After all those promises of wonderful new engines and vehicles, we're still being propelled by pistons in cylinders, an adaptation of the 250-year-old steam engine. We're still flying airplanes like the 172 (1956), the Cherokee (1960), the Bonanza (1947) and numerous others. The Moller Skycar ate up something like $100 million and fifty years of effort, to no avail. Helicopters are still far out of reach for most pilots, instead of being in every driveway as promised.

So electric airplanes of practical value will have to be seen to be believed by us old guys. I appreciate that battery technology has come a long ways in 50 years, from the usually-dead carbon cells in my old incandescent flashlights to the alkalines in my LED flashlights, stuff I wouldn't want to go without now. The lithium-ion batteries in my cordless tools are similarly welcome. But I also know that my cordless tools are gutless compared to my old corded tools, too, and if I work them hard the battery is gone quickly. If they can develop batteries that store power in densities at least a third that of fossil fuels, don't cost $50K for a set, recharge in an hour or two, and don't catch fire in flight, this will be a good thing.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Yeah. Those guys. I read them in the '60s and '70s and had access to issues from the '50s as well. Nearly every issue had some "revolutionary new" engine or car or airplane or helicopter in it. As young folks we were easily taken in by this stuff, and now we old guys recognize baloney when we see it. So many breathless articles on just-around-the-corner revolutionary technologies, written by people whose education is in writing, not technology. The motive, as always, is to make money through subscriptions and advertising space. Truth is not necessary and is actually inconvenient.

They tended to mix truth and fiction for sure. I found plans they published for a home-built airplane on the EAA web site. I preferred Scientific American. As a kid, I enjoyed the Amateur Scientist and Martin Gardner's Mathematical Games and Recreations columns most. I don't know if you could find back issues anymore. They described how to build lasers, and model rocket engines using a mixture of zinc and sulfur as a propellant. Those things certainly weren't considered safe when I was a kid, but you could get compilations of the articles. The nitrogen laser actually worked!

After all those promises of wonderful new engines and vehicles, we're still being propelled by pistons in cylinders, an adaptation of the 250-year-old steam engine. We're still flying airplanes like the 172 (1956), the Cherokee (1960), the Bonanza (1947) and numerous others. The Moller Skycar ate up something like $100 million and fifty years of effort, to no avail. Helicopters are still far out of reach for most pilots, instead of being in every driveway as promised.

Some things, like cylinders and pistons, are difficult to improve upon. Turbines simplified high performance engines, but are only useful if you need a lot of power (aerial applicators, larger helicopters), or flying high and fast. After watching other drivers, I'm glad helicopters aren't in every driveway. As an example, we had over a foot of snow earlier this week and someone thought it was sufficient to make a viewing slit rather than clean the windshield. It looked like a mobile pillbox!

So electric airplanes of practical value will have to be seen to be believed by us old guys. I appreciate that battery technology has come a long ways in 50 years, from the usually-dead carbon cells in my old incandescent flashlights to the alkalines in my LED flashlights, stuff I wouldn't want to go without now. The lithium-ion batteries in my cordless tools are similarly welcome. But I also know that my cordless tools are gutless compared to my old corded tools, too, and if I work them hard the battery is gone quickly. If they can develop batteries that store power in densities at least a third that of fossil fuels, don't cost $50K for a set, recharge in an hour or two, and don't catch fire in flight, this will be a good thing.

I understand the skepticism. I get to read about some amazing possibilities. Most of them won't become commercialized for a number of reasons. Too expensive or difficult to make outside of a lab. Or it doesn't stand up to real life well (hot, cold, vibration). Or a corporate culture doesn't move it forward- I've first hand experience of that. I've read about things happening with batteries that I'm optimistic about a practical electric plane, if you consider practical to be something with speed and range like a C-172 or Piper Cherokee. It doesn't help that even the better articles make it sound like such planes will be flying Real Soon Now. Maybe in 10 years, after the car people have proven the batteries.

 

[Daleandee]

I installed 3 Radio Shack "car phones", complete with phone type handset in my vehicles in the early 80's as I recall

As a young child I remember my oldest brother had a 1956 Ford Fairlane and he had one of these (or a similar model) under the dash:

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Yeah. Those guys. I read them in the '60s and '70s and had access to issues from the '50s as well. Nearly every issue had some "revolutionary new" engine or car or airplane or helicopter in it. As young folks we were easily taken in by this stuff, and now we old guys recognize baloney when we see it. So many breathless articles on just-around-the-corner revolutionary technologies, written by people whose education is in writing, not technology. The motive, as always, is to make money through subscriptions and advertising space. Truth is not necessary and is actually inconvenient.

After all those promises of wonderful new engines and vehicles, we're still being propelled by pistons in cylinders, an adaptation of the 250-year-old steam engine. We're still flying airplanes like the 172 (1956), the Cherokee (1960), the Bonanza (1947) and numerous others. The Moller Skycar ate up something like $100 million and fifty years of effort, to no avail. Helicopters are still far out of reach for most pilots, instead of being in every driveway as promised.

So electric airplanes of practical value will have to be seen to be believed by us old guys. I appreciate that battery technology has come a long ways in 50 years, from the usually-dead carbon cells in my old incandescent flashlights to the alkalines in my LED flashlights, stuff I wouldn't want to go without now. The lithium-ion batteries in my cordless tools are similarly welcome. But I also know that my cordless tools are gutless compared to my old corded tools, too, and if I work them hard the battery is gone quickly. If they can develop batteries that store power in densities at least a third that of fossil fuels, don't cost $50K for a set, recharge in an hour or two, and don't catch fire in flight, this will be a good thing.

Somehow, I didn't see the picture when I replied yesterday.

Although little more than a toy, this may interest you:
https://news.mit.edu/2018/first-ionic-wind-plane-no-moving-parts-1121

 

[Dan Thomas]

Somehow, I didn't see the picture when I replied yesterday.

Although little more than a toy, this may interest you:
https://news.mit.edu/2018/first-ionic-wind-plane-no-moving-parts-1121

Yes, that article came through the homebuiltairplanes.com forum a while ago. I had read that old PM article way back in the '60s and knew that this was nothing new, so went looking for it. Found this picture, too:



The MIT guys were 54 years behind with it. De Seversky proved the concept, but no load-carrying aircraft ever came of it. The thrust generated is miniscule. The MIT improvement is in using the thrust to propel a fixed-wing aircraft, not lift it directly. The voltages are high, and I can't see that the thing would work in any rain or snow. The article gives no numbers as to the thrust produced for power consumed, which is the most critical thing about the whole idea. The ion grids also present a lot of drag.

Sure would be nice if it could be made to work. Flight could get quiet and more reliable.

 

[Ghery]

I remember reading Heinlein's Space Cadet back in the 70s. There's a part in there where the main character is preparing to ride a rocket up to the space academy on orbit. He packs up his portable phone and sends it back to his parents.

Even now, I remember my disbelief: "They'll never have those! It would take a tremendous infrastructure to support wireless phones like that !"



Ron Wanttaja

I remember reading that story, as well. Truth is stranger than fiction.

I installed 3 Radio Shack "car phones", complete with phone type handset in my vehicles in the early 80's as I recall, after my Luddite wife got stuck in a snowstorm and had to walk a ways to find a land-line phone. She had refused (up to that point) to let me put a "car phone" in her vehicle. Still have one, I think. Also had a Motorola "brick" that had a matching modem and battery pack. Made for heavy load!! And before all these I used my 2 meter ham rig with outboard touch-tone pad to access a club sponsored "phone patch".

I went straight from autopatches to a cell phone, more than 2 decades ago. I remember using the autopatch on the club repeater in Cupertino from Angel Island several times while camped with our Boy Scout troop to keep tabs on the Apple Cup in Pullman (which my wife was watching). The "Snow Bowl" as it has been known by Cougars everywhere. The 1992 Apple Cup was great fun (for Cougs, not so much for mutts).

 

[Palmpilot]

I remember reading that story, as well. Truth is stranger than fiction.



I went straight from autopatches to a cell phone, more than 2 decades ago. I remember using the autopatch on the club repeater in Cupertino from Angel Island several times while camped with our Boy Scout troop to keep tabs on the Apple Cup in Pullman (which my wife was watching). The "Snow Bowl" as it has been known by Cougars everywhere. The 1992 Apple Cup was great fun (for Cougs, not so much for mutts).

I remember feeling like computers fast enough for video were a pipe dream. (I don't remember whether I had heard of Moore's law by then.)