Forums

The Transistor will Never Work

Started by Unlisted October 14, 2019
On 10/16/19 10:36 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> bitrex wrote: > ---------------- > >> it's been done, the nuvistor. >>> >>> >> >> >> I read they assembled them robotic-ally inside a hard vacuum chamber >> because there wasn't any good way to remove the air after they were >> sealed up. >> \ > > > ** Yep - fitting the outer cover and sealing it to the ceramic base was done under hard vacuum. Lots of good detail here: > > http://www.r-type.org/articles/art-150.htm > > > Though I could find no cite - Nuvistors must owe a lot to the super rugged tubes produced for use in "proximity fuses". > > Mini VHF types, fitted inside artillery shells, blasted out the barrel at 20,000G. > > > > ..... Phil >
With respect to military purposes, from the site: "and it was found that a lot of the ostensibly modern avionics in the aircraft used Russian copies of Nuvistors, for what was believed to be nuclear survivability. There was cold logic behind having nuclear-hardened hardware in manned military equipment, whether it was Russian or made in the West. Although the human crew might receive a lethal dose of radiation it would take some time for them to finally succumb and the expectation was that they would try to complete their mission in that time." I've seen this claim before and it reads a bit like an "urban legend" of military electronics. I think the main reason the Soviets used tubes in eg Mig 25 was because their microelectronics industry was always at least 15 years behind the West's and tubes were just what they were most familiar with, and were well-suited to "Soviet-style" construction (manual labor.) I don't think any incidental advantages you'd get from using tube avionics with respect to EMP survivability would have been more appealing than the power and weight savings from using solid state if it had been logistically/technologically possible, and then hardening the solid state electronics methodically.
bitrex puked:

--------------
> > > I've seen this claim before and it reads a bit like an "urban legend" of > military electronics. I think the main reason the Soviets used tubes in > eg Mig 25 was because their microelectronics industry was always at > least 15 years behind the West's and tubes were just what they were most > familiar with, and were well-suited to "Soviet-style" construction > (manual labor.) > > I don't think any incidental advantages you'd get from using tube > avionics with respect to EMP survivability would have been more > appealing than the power and weight savings from using solid state if it > had been logistically/technologically possible, and then hardening the > solid state electronics methodically. >
** See Wiki on the MiG-25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25#Technical_description " The majority of the on-board avionics were based on vacuum-tube technology, not solid-state electronics. Although they represented aging technology, vacuum tubes were more tolerant of temperature extremes, thereby removing the need for environmental controls in the avionics bays. With the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P's original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name "Foxfire") radar had enormous power – about 600 kilowatts. As with most Soviet aircraft, the MiG-25 was designed to be as robust as possible. The use of vacuum tubes also made the aircraft's systems resistant to an electromagnetic pulse, for example after a nuclear blast.[38] " ** The same plane used stainless steel for wing and fuselage skins for reduced thermal expansion. .... Phil
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 1:36:33 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:
> bitrex wrote: > ---------------- > > > it's been done, the nuvistor. > > > > > > > > > > > > I read they assembled them robotic-ally inside a hard vacuum chamber > > because there wasn't any good way to remove the air after they were > > sealed up. > >\ > > > ** Yep - fitting the outer cover and sealing it to the ceramic base was done under hard vacuum. Lots of good detail here: > > http://www.r-type.org/articles/art-150.htm > > Though I could find no cite - Nuvistors must owe a lot to the super rugged tubes produced for use in "proximity fuses". > > Mini VHF types, fitted inside artillery shells, blasted out the barrel at 20,000G.
Originally conceived in the UK by William A. S. Butement amongst others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze He was the research manager at Plessey Pacific in Melbourne when I worked there from 1969 to 1971. I didn't find out about his involvement until much later. The development of the tubes for the artillery shell version started in the UK. "As early as September 1939, John Cockcroft began a development effort at Pye Ltd. to develop tubes capable of withstanding these much greater forces. Pye's research was transferred to the United States as part of the technology package delivered by the Tizard Mission when the United States entered the war." Pye Ltd. was located in Cambridge UK. John Cockroft is also known for the Cockroft-Walton multiplier. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
bitrex wrote:
> On 10/16/19 6:03 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, 15 October 2019 00:30:44 UTC+1, bitrex  wrote: >>> On 10/14/19 6:41 PM, Unlisted wrote: >>>> Its been over 70 years since scientists began trying to invent a device >>>> to replace vacuum tubes. This device was named the TRANSISTOR. While >>>> it's a catchy name, it failed to work as predicted. How these >>>> scientists >>>> ever expected a piece of rock inside a container, with wires attached, >>>> to control the flow of electrons, is a mystery. After all, its a known >>>> fact that rocks do not conduct electricity. But these scientists >>>> dreamed >>>> it would work, and never gave up on this flawed experiment. >>>> >>>> Its 2019. over 70 years since this ridiculous concept was dreamed up. >>>> Yet, today they have still not been able to make this device work. It's >>>> impractical. It simply wont work. If and when they finally give up on >>>> this senseless experiment, maybe they will finally develop vacuum tubes >>>> that meet today's needs and are smaller in size and longer lasting. >>>> >>>> With any hope, the 2020s will bring science back to their senses. Maybe >>>> they will give up on trying to send electric current thru rocks and >>>> realize they must use metals. Its a bright frontier, but nothing will >>>> change until these scientists abandon the transistor and move on to a >>>> totally new design. >>>> >>> >>> it provoked mild amusement but one of this troll's weaker efforts, >>> unfortunately. 3/10 >> >> it's been done, the nuvistor. >> >> >> NT >> > > I read they assembled them robotic-ally inside a hard vacuum chamber > because there wasn't any good way to remove the air after they were > sealed up. I thought there might be a vid of the process on the web but > can't seem to find any, and I'd imagine the production hardware was all > scrapped before I was born. :(
That is a shame; that design concept was rather innovative; Ft maybe as good as or better than the acorn design, good on low power from small filament (one can optimize a bit further if need by low filament voltage and adding a first grid at +12V supply). Found the 1T6, one of the "all american 5" radio design set.
On 10/17/19 3:45 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
> bitrex wrote: >> On 10/16/19 6:03 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 15 October 2019 00:30:44 UTC+1, bitrex  wrote: >>>> On 10/14/19 6:41 PM, Unlisted wrote: >>>>> Its been over 70 years since scientists began trying to invent a >>>>> device >>>>> to replace vacuum tubes. This device was named the TRANSISTOR. While >>>>> it's a catchy name, it failed to work as predicted. How these >>>>> scientists >>>>> ever expected a piece of rock inside a container, with wires attached, >>>>> to control the flow of electrons, is a mystery. After all, its a known >>>>> fact that rocks do not conduct electricity. But these scientists >>>>> dreamed >>>>> it would work, and never gave up on this flawed experiment. >>>>> >>>>> Its 2019. over 70 years since this ridiculous concept was dreamed up. >>>>> Yet, today they have still not been able to make this device work. >>>>> It's >>>>> impractical. It simply wont work. If and when they finally give up on >>>>> this senseless experiment, maybe they will finally develop vacuum >>>>> tubes >>>>> that meet today's needs and are smaller in size and longer lasting. >>>>> >>>>> With any hope, the 2020s will bring science back to their senses. >>>>> Maybe >>>>> they will give up on trying to send electric current thru rocks and >>>>> realize they must use metals. Its a bright frontier, but nothing will >>>>> change until these scientists abandon the transistor and move on to a >>>>> totally new design. >>>>> >>>> >>>> it provoked mild amusement but one of this troll's weaker efforts, >>>> unfortunately. 3/10 >>> >>> it's been done, the nuvistor. >>> >>> >>> NT >>> >> >> I read they assembled them robotic-ally inside a hard vacuum chamber >> because there wasn't any good way to remove the air after they were >> sealed up. I thought there might be a vid of the process on the web >> but can't seem to find any, and I'd imagine the production hardware >> was all scrapped before I was born. :( >   That is a shame; that design concept was rather innovative; Ft maybe > as good as or better than the acorn design, good on low power from small > filament (one can optimize a bit further if need by low filament voltage > and adding a first grid at +12V supply). >   Found the 1T6, one of the "all american 5" radio design set. > >
The "newest" vacuum tube manufacturing video I can find from before transistors took over (not including from modern factories that make e.g. the small selection of common tube types still made for audio/hi fi use) is this one from a factory in what I think is in the former Czechoslovakia, 1973: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRpC8b2FFt0> Assembly is partly by hand by young women like it probably was in the US in the 50s, but there's a fair amount of automation, too. The tube tester(? machine for quality-control is my guess) at 3:53 looks to be computer or microprocessor-controlled.
On 10/17/19 4:59 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 10/17/19 3:45 PM, Robert Baer wrote: >> bitrex wrote: >>> On 10/16/19 6:03 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, 15 October 2019 00:30:44 UTC+1, bitrex&nbsp; wrote: >>>>> On 10/14/19 6:41 PM, Unlisted wrote: >>>>>> Its been over 70 years since scientists began trying to invent a >>>>>> device >>>>>> to replace vacuum tubes. This device was named the TRANSISTOR. While >>>>>> it's a catchy name, it failed to work as predicted. How these >>>>>> scientists >>>>>> ever expected a piece of rock inside a container, with wires >>>>>> attached, >>>>>> to control the flow of electrons, is a mystery. After all, its a >>>>>> known >>>>>> fact that rocks do not conduct electricity. But these scientists >>>>>> dreamed >>>>>> it would work, and never gave up on this flawed experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Its 2019. over 70 years since this ridiculous concept was dreamed up. >>>>>> Yet, today they have still not been able to make this device work. >>>>>> It's >>>>>> impractical. It simply wont work. If and when they finally give up on >>>>>> this senseless experiment, maybe they will finally develop vacuum >>>>>> tubes >>>>>> that meet today's needs and are smaller in size and longer lasting. >>>>>> >>>>>> With any hope, the 2020s will bring science back to their senses. >>>>>> Maybe >>>>>> they will give up on trying to send electric current thru rocks and >>>>>> realize they must use metals. Its a bright frontier, but nothing will >>>>>> change until these scientists abandon the transistor and move on to a >>>>>> totally new design. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> it provoked mild amusement but one of this troll's weaker efforts, >>>>> unfortunately. 3/10 >>>> >>>> it's been done, the nuvistor. >>>> >>>> >>>> NT >>>> >>> >>> I read they assembled them robotic-ally inside a hard vacuum chamber >>> because there wasn't any good way to remove the air after they were >>> sealed up. I thought there might be a vid of the process on the web >>> but can't seem to find any, and I'd imagine the production hardware >>> was all scrapped before I was born. :( >> &nbsp;&nbsp; That is a shame; that design concept was rather innovative; Ft >> maybe as good as or better than the acorn design, good on low power >> from small filament (one can optimize a bit further if need by low >> filament voltage and adding a first grid at +12V supply). >> &nbsp;&nbsp; Found the 1T6, one of the "all american 5" radio design set. >> >> > > The "newest" vacuum tube manufacturing video I can find from before > transistors took over (not including from modern factories that make > e.g. the small selection of common tube types still made for audio/hi fi > use) is this one from a factory in what I think is in the former > Czechoslovakia, 1973: > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRpC8b2FFt0> > > Assembly is partly by hand by young women like it probably was in the US > in the 50s, but there's a fair amount of automation, too. The tube > tester(? machine for quality-control is my guess) at 3:53 looks to be > computer or microprocessor-controlled.
In Soviet-style the factory looks to be vertically integrated; from the exterior shots looks to be a foundry or smelter on the left of the layout. Feed sand and ore in one end and vacuum tubes come out the other
Bill Sloman wrote:

---------------------

Phil Allison wrote:

 > 
> > > I read they assembled them robotic-ally inside a hard vacuum chamber > > > because there wasn't any good way to remove the air after they were > > > sealed up. > > > > > > > > > ** Yep - fitting the outer cover and sealing it to the ceramic base was done under hard vacuum. Lots of good detail here: > > > > http://www.r-type.org/articles/art-150.htm > > > > Though I could find no cite - Nuvistors must owe a lot to the super rugged tubes produced for use in "proximity fuses". > > > > Mini VHF types, fitted inside artillery shells, blasted out the barrel at 20,000G. > >
> Originally conceived in the UK by William A. S. Butement amongst others > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze >
** FYI to all: Butement was a NZ physicist & radar expert, early in WW2 he and others trialled a "proof of concept" radio proximity device using Doppler. But he was not involved in making the needed super rugged tubes. However, after WW2 he became heavily involved in Nuclear Weapons testing here in Australia - several above ground test firings of various, early British nukes. These tests were held in the Montebelleo Islands, just off the coast of WA and at Maralinga in SA. Seven atmospheric tests of fission devices and three thermonuclear. The resulting radioactive fallout was serious. Such tests were are still are very controversial, carried out in extreme secrecy and with many falsehoods used to cover up the unpalatable facts. Many of the weapons tested were of similar or several times larger capacity than the weapons dropped on Japan. An unthinkably reckless action if taken today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montebello_Islands#British_nuclear_weapons_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga#Operation_Antler .... Phil
Phil Allison wrote:

-------------------
> > Bill Sloman wrote: > >> > > Originally conceived in the UK by William A. S. Butement amongst others > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze > > > > > ** FYI to all: > > Butement was a NZ physicist & radar expert, early in WW2 he and others trialled a "proof of concept" radio proximity device using Doppler. But he was not involved in making the needed super rugged tubes. > > However, after WW2 he became heavily involved in Nuclear Weapons testing here in Australia - several above ground test firings of various, early British nukes. > > These tests were held in the Montebelleo Islands, just off the coast of WA and at Maralinga in SA. Seven atmospheric tests of fission devices and three thermonuclear. The resulting radioactive fallout was serious. > > Such tests were are still are very controversial, carried out in extreme secrecy and with many falsehoods used to cover up the unpalatable facts. > > Many of the weapons tested were of similar or several times larger capacity than the weapons dropped on Japan. An unthinkably reckless action if taken today. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montebello_Islands#British_nuclear_weapons_tests > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga#Operation_Antler >
** This detailed vid is worth a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WMsJxTe-hU .... Phil
On 17/10/19 04:24, Phil Allison wrote:
> > ** See Wiki on the MiG-25. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25#Technical_description > > " > The majority of the on-board avionics were based on vacuum-tube technology, not solid-state electronics. Although they represented aging technology, vacuum tubes were more tolerant of temperature extremes, thereby removing the need for environmental controls in the avionics bays. > > With the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P's original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name "Foxfire") radar had enormous power &ndash; about 600 kilowatts. As with most Soviet aircraft, the MiG-25 was designed to be as robust as possible. The use of vacuum tubes also made the aircraft's systems resistant to an electromagnetic pulse, for example after a nuclear blast.[38] "
The Vulcan bomber used vacuum tubes too, and that was still in service during the Falklands War in 1982. Some of its avionics were derived from the Avro Lancaster of WW2. Some of the current contributors to this thread also contributed to a thread from almost 3 years ago, which discussed similar things: <https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.electronics.design/362wTl53mhQ> -- Jeff
On 10/18/19 1:24 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
> Phil Allison wrote: > > ------------------- >> >> Bill Sloman wrote: >> >>> >>> Originally conceived in the UK by William A. S. Butement amongst others >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze >>> >> >> >> ** FYI to all: >> >> Butement was a NZ physicist & radar expert, early in WW2 he and others trialled a "proof of concept" radio proximity device using Doppler. But he was not involved in making the needed super rugged tubes. >> >> However, after WW2 he became heavily involved in Nuclear Weapons testing here in Australia - several above ground test firings of various, early British nukes. >> >> These tests were held in the Montebelleo Islands, just off the coast of WA and at Maralinga in SA. Seven atmospheric tests of fission devices and three thermonuclear. The resulting radioactive fallout was serious. >> >> Such tests were are still are very controversial, carried out in extreme secrecy and with many falsehoods used to cover up the unpalatable facts. >> >> Many of the weapons tested were of similar or several times larger capacity than the weapons dropped on Japan. An unthinkably reckless action if taken today. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montebello_Islands#British_nuclear_weapons_tests >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga#Operation_Antler >> > > ** This detailed vid is worth a look: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WMsJxTe-hU > > > > .... Phil > > >
This is one of the better quality retouched film footage of Castle Bravo, the first US solid-fuel thermonuclear test: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9YBR-AWUAU> The "double flash" is easy to see, as the expanding shockwave becomes temporarily opaque to most visible radiation from the super-hot fireball core. the bright spots at the beginning are vaporized pieces of the bomb casing, its enclosure and surrounding structures. Yield was 15 megatons, 1000 times more than Hiroshima bomb. 1/2 the explosive power of the eruption of Krakatoa. and 2.5 times more than expected. Most of the experimental equipment was destroyed. one of several occasions the US nearly waxed their own scientists due to some flawed calculations...