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
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.
--
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
