[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
RE- Re: Get Your Oudin Coil Plans Here
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:16:00 GMT
From: Robert Michaels <robert.michaels-at-online.sme-dot-org>
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: RE- Re: Get Your Oudin Coil Plans Here
The tube to be used is the scarce and treasured '01.
The '01-A is rather different and will not work in Strong's
application. (The '01-A can still be found here and there
today. If you happen upon a genuine '01 you likely could
take the next week or so off work. It it's in working con-
dition, take a month off. If it's brand new and in the
original carton, start to plan an early retirement! ( -- They's
ain' makin' no mo' o' dem kind, sonny [not even in Red
China - or the Czech Republic] )
And if I find you making an ersatz
x-ray machine out of one ---
You'll have me to answer to, personally
(There. That oughta scare the pants off of
you!)
The preceding apostrophe is crucial. It stands as a sub-
stitute for the numeral 1 or 2 or 3 or ...
In it's time, different manufacturers would prepend a numeral
of their choosing (unique to their company) to an industry
standard type-number.
Thus a 101 is the product of one maker, a 201 of another
maker, a 301 of a third maker, etc., etc. Yet all of these
tubes nominally have the same electrical specs.
It escapes me which manufacturer used
which numerical prefix, but, for the
sake of example, RCA might = 1,
Stromberg Carlson might = 2, Cunningham
might = 3, Western Electric might =
4, etc., etc., etc.
If one wished to refer to a tube type generically, without
reference to any particular maker, one substituted an
apostrophe for the first numeral. Thus, '01 for any tube
in the family without regard to manufacturer.
Unlike modern times, tubes with like numbers were =not=
uniform in characteristics from maker to maker.
Thus, a 201 would =not= be entirely identical in
performance to a 301. So the prefix numeral was more
than just a vanity thing.
People used to argue at great length
and sometimes quite heatedly over the
questions of whether a 201 (say) was
better than a 101 (for instance) in
a given circuit. Sort of like we do
nowadays over "Navigator" vs. "Explorer";
or whether a hard drive interface is best
Super IDE or SCSI.
- - - - - - -
Although I have no official standing to do so, I would
like to respectfully request that you cease and
desist at once from the use of foul, disgusting, degenerate
words in your posts.
Terms such as "Oudin" (eeeech!) have no proper place on
this, the =Tesla= List.
Twenty-three Skidoo; The
Bees' Knees; and Boop-Boop
da Doop - to you, from
Robert Michaels, in --
Old Detroit, USA
TL>From: Geoff Schecht <geoffs-at-onr-dot-com>
TL>Subject: Re: Get Your Oudin Coil Plans Here
TL>I'd really like to find a copy of Stong's book. It made a huge impression
TL>on me when I read it as a kid.
TL>If you could, please e-mail me an attachment of that article about the
TL>Oudin coil. I remember that the X-ray machine used 01-A tubes and that the
TL>vibrator was wound on a chair leg; other than that the details are a bit
TL>fuzzy.
TL>Most of the things in that book seemed incredibly dangerous for the average
TL>dilettante to be playing with, although the linear accelerator would have
TL>been fun to build.
TL>Thanks.
TL>Geoff Schecht