Re: ARchive of tube specs?

Subject:   Re: ARchive of tube specs?
  Date:   Sun, 20 Apr 1997 18:19:29 +0500
  From:   "Alfred A. Skrocki" <alfred.skrocki-at-cybernetworking-dot-com>
    To:   Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>

On Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 19:14:39 +0300 (EET DST) Kristian Ukkonen 
<kukkonen-at-cc.hut.fi> wrote;

> Hello everyone,
> I recently got an idea of starting to scan specs-sheets of tubes and put
> them available to the 'net. Here I mean tubes that are of use for HV
> work/hobbies - triodes/tetrodes/thyrathrons/ x-ray/ignitrons/etc. - and
> are rare to find. 

I think it's a GREAT IDEA, Kristian! Only I am not sure that this is 
the appropriate place to put it, then again where would be an 
appropriate place to put it? I'd love to see specks for geiger mueler 
tubes if anyone knows where to find the info. Several years ago I 
started a tube substitution database for receiving tubes, it would be 
great to have that kind of info on special purpose tubes as well. I 
never really tried searching the net for this kind of information, one 
should check first rather than possible duplicating the effort or 
perhaps find a tube data base that exists for say receiving or 
communication tubes and build on it and extending it into the realm of 
special purpose tubes and the like!

> My plans include scanning the specs sheets to JPG pics. That way the
> filesize will be rational and JPG is a universal format most programs
> can read and comprehend. Postscript, where applicable, will be used as well. 

I don't know what you mean when you say "That way the filesize will 
be rational..", but .JPG's take a LOT more space then ASCII text 
which is native to almost all the presently used computers, the only 
difference between most computers in handling ASCII is the handling 
of carriage returns and linefeeds and that is easily dealt with by the 
end user. As for Postscript - it's a real pain! even with the 
availability of Ghost script it is far from easy to deal with! I find 
almost all Postscript files next to impossible to read on screen thus 
forcing all the files to be printed just to make sense of them, This 
is a needles waste of paper and printer life! The .GIF format is the 
closest to a universal format, with .JPG rapidly catching up. There 
are GOOD viewers for both of them on every platform in use!


                              \\  ~ ~  //
                               (  -at- -at-  )
                           Alfred A. Skrocki
                             .ooo0   0ooo.
                        -----(   )---(   )-----
                              \ (     ) /
                               \_)   (_/