According to www.rcaselectron.com RCA made 9, 256, 1024 and 4096 bit
versions of the Selectron tube.
I don't know if any of them other than the 256 bit made it into production.
4096 Bit Selectron Pics http://www.rcaselectron.com/sel4096.html (4 by 1024)
1024 Bit Selectron Pics http://www.rcasel
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, 01:20 Joshua Rice via cctech
wrote:
>
> Not cost effective at nearly $10,000! I understand they're very rare,
> given they were only used for a few years in industry and they're
> clocking on 3/4 of a century old, but even then, that seems an order of
> magnitude or two off t
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, 08:45 Mike Katz via cctalk
wrote:
> There was also a 1K by 4 version of this tube.
>
I've never seen any info on a 1K*4 Selectron, but they weren't even able to
make the 4K*1 work, and the only production tubes were 256*1.
> On Jan 6, 2022, at 2:11 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 1/6/22 10:17, William Donzelli wrote:
>> If you include prototypes, then you need to include ALL the prototypes
>> - even things made in single quantities that never worked.
>>
>> That is a HUGE amount of stuff that makes E
On 1/6/22 10:17, William Donzelli wrote:
> If you include prototypes, then you need to include ALL the prototypes
> - even things made in single quantities that never worked.
>
> That is a HUGE amount of stuff that makes EBAM look gigantic.
To be fair, EBAM received a not-insignificant amount of
Prototypes don't count.
--
Will
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:41 PM Chuck Guzis via cctech
wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps even rarer were the EBAM tubes that CDC worked with during the
> 1970s. I recall seeing a 6' rack of a complete assembly sitting in a
> hallway at ADL around 1974. If CDC followed the di
Perhaps even rarer were the EBAM tubes that CDC worked with during the
1970s. I recall seeing a 6' rack of a complete assembly sitting in a
hallway at ADL around 1974. If CDC followed the dictates of management
then, the unit was probably utterly demolsihed before being sold as
scrap metal.
--
There was also a 1K by 4 version of this tube.
On 1/6/2022 3:03 AM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk wrote:
On 2022-Jan-06, at 12:19 AM, Joshua Rice via cctech wrote:
Not cost effective at nearly $10,000! I understand they're very rare, given
they were only used for a few years in industry and they're
> On Jan 6, 2022, at 4:06 AM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 2022-Jan-06, at 12:19 AM, Joshua Rice via cctech wrote:
>> Not cost effective at nearly $10,000! I understand they're very rare, given
>> they were only used for a few years in industry and they're clocking on 3/4
>> of
On 2022-Jan-06, at 12:19 AM, Joshua Rice via cctech wrote:
> Not cost effective at nearly $10,000! I understand they're very rare, given
> they were only used for a few years in industry and they're clocking on 3/4
> of a century old, but even then, that seems an order of magnitude or two off
>
Not cost effective at nearly $10,000! I understand they're very rare,
given they were only used for a few years in industry and they're
clocking on 3/4 of a century old, but even then, that seems an order of
magnitude or two off the real value.
Actually, looking them up, doesn't seem they wer
On 2022-Jan-06, at 12:19 AM, Joshua Rice via cctech wrote:
> Not cost effective at nearly $10,000! I understand they're very rare, given
> they were only used for a few years in industry and they're clocking on 3/4
> of a century old, but even then, that seems an order of magnitude or two off
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
