Author Topic: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet  (Read 4757 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mikeselectricstuffTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13695
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« on: February 14, 2019, 08:39:59 pm »
Interesting old doc from a tube/valve manufacturer trying to dissuade people from using those new-fangled transistor things.

http://www.rcaselectron.com/TNT.html
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 
The following users thanked this post: amyk, Zbig, TimNJ, apis, ANTALIFE, newbrain, Technobabble_

Offline TerraHertz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3958
  • Country: au
  • Why shouldn't we question everything?
    • It's not really a Blog
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2019, 06:29:42 am »
That's fun.

I'm surprised there were no references to statistics of semiconductor users as a percentage of lunatic asylum inmates. And abnormalities of their brain structures postmortem.
Collecting old scopes, logic analyzers, and unfinished projects. http://everist.org
 

Offline Nusa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2416
  • Country: us
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2019, 07:57:40 am »
Interesting old doc from a tube/valve manufacturer trying to dissuade people from using those new-fangled transistor things.

http://www.rcaselectron.com/TNT.html

Actually, I think it's pretty fair comparison of the reality in 1960, when that booklet was written. Transistors were not yet as reliable or refined as the product we can buy today, while still being more expensive and less available than their tube equivalents. For products that did not benefit hugely from miniaturization, the price was not yet worth it. Remember how early this was for non-military applications...transistor radios had only been available for five years, and were still an expensive purchase.

For bonus points, name the device that virtually every household has that uses a vacuum tube. Not counting those old tube TVs or monitors you might still have lying around.
 

Offline glarsson

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 814
  • Country: se
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2019, 08:28:36 am »
Video of audio equipment with vacuum flouroscent display tubes?
Microwave ovens?
 

Offline Nusa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2416
  • Country: us
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2019, 09:11:59 am »
Video of audio equipment with vacuum flouroscent display tubes?
Microwave ovens?

The Microwave is more universal, but yes a lot of people will have VFD displays.

The device that generates the microwaves is called a magnetron. It's somewhat hidden from obvious view behind the radiator and metal box it's generally built inside of, but it's still vacuum tube technology.
 

Online Kleinstein

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14079
  • Country: de
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2019, 09:52:32 am »
At that time silicon transistors where still relatively new and likely expensive. Germanium transistors has quite some reliability issues, e.g. with tin whiskers and just aging by diffusion at elevated temperature. Those old days germanium transistors where generally not that good in performance. For the miniaturization they somehow ignored the effect of lower power - that allowed parts to be placed closer together.

It's funny that in the prospect for future transistor development they already mention integrated circuits.
 

Offline TimNJ

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1649
  • Country: us
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2019, 11:16:17 pm »
Man, i just love the styling of old journals, magazines, documents, etc. Simple, yet extremely well thought out. Most impressed by old-time illustrations.

Thanks for sharing.
 

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: 00
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2019, 01:06:21 am »
20 years after this book, RCA folded.
 

Offline xrunner

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
  • Country: us
  • hp>Agilent>Keysight>???
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2019, 01:28:38 am »
LOL great read, looks like they didn't win out though ...  :clap:
I told my friends I could teach them to be funny, but they all just laughed at me.
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5173
  • Country: us
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2019, 01:35:07 am »
I agree with Nusa, it is mostly a pretty even handed evaluation.  Things they missed include the declining investment in vacuum tube technology which mostly stopped the progress they were projecting and the rapid elimination of many of the reliability issues that plagued early transistors. 

Designers today are so enmeshed in the transistor that they have trouble even seeing the limitations that solid state devices put on tube designers.  They aren't necessarily application limitations in most cases, but they did require abandoning old ways of thinking.  A good analogy for not quite so old timers is the move from dual voltage supplies at +/- 10 or more volts for analog work to the current single supply at less than 5 volts.  There is no arguing that dynamic range potential has been reduced, but by close attention to reducing noise an adequate amount has been retained.

RCA folded, but not due to commitment to tubes.  Many bad decisions.  They got into transistors as well and were arguably the ones who developed CMOS into commercial reality.  Some good bets that didn't pay off in the end (silicon on sapphire as an example).  And possibly some contribution to the hangover from sunk capital in the old tube technology.
 
The following users thanked this post: ANTALIFE

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7661
  • Country: ca
 

Offline free_electron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8515
  • Country: us
    • SiliconValleyGarage
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2019, 05:44:49 am »
A panic reaction of an industry only interested in preserving the status quo...

The tube makers knew their costs would be gigantic to switch to semiconductors manufacturing. Rebuilding their plants, assembly lines, AND reschooling all their developers  and catching up to nimble organisations that could do rapid-pace development.

The same has happened with the mobile phones.
one could have written a booklet ' clamshell phone or iphone ?
The phone dinosaurs (Alcatel, Ericsson, Nokia, Siemens , Motorola) all have fallen. they reacted too slow and ran campaigns to show that this newfangled stuff was never going to catch on...

The same is happening with cars now.



Professional Electron Wrangler.
Any comments, or points of view expressed, are my own and not endorsed , induced or compensated by my employer(s).
 

Offline Tom45

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 555
  • Country: us
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2019, 06:20:48 am »
"Today, we know that neither tubes nor transistors will take over the market this year, or even five years from now"

Five years after this was published I was an EE major in college. The only exposure we had to tubes was a single lab using Nuvistors. And, I suppose but don't remember, perhaps an hour of discussion in class.

Tube devices were still being built, but the people being taught to design things in the future had already left tubes in the rear view mirror.
 

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: 00
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2019, 06:52:36 am »
RCA folded, but not due to commitment to tubes.

It was their biggest mistake, though. It made them irrelevant. They took a whole industry that gravitated around them together to the tomb.

AT&T and IBM attended at the funeral. And the gravediggers were the Japanese.
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5173
  • Country: us
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2019, 05:24:10 pm »
So what contribution do you think these mistakes by RCA made?

1.  Competing with IBM with the Spectra series of computers (transistors by the way)
2.  Trying to get into the home video world with the CED video disk system (also transistors)
3.  Trying to get into the home video game market. (transistors)
4.  Eight track audio tapes (need I say it transistors)
5.  Frozen foods (no transistors here, but no tubes either.)

Transistor takeover from vacuum tubes was gradual, and though it was well started in 1960, the final victory still hasn't occurred as they are still used in microwave ovens and similar high power high frequency applications.  I don't count kitch applications like Nixie clocks and tube audio amps as real even those those go on to this day.  And I still don't think RCA commitment to tubes was their death knell.  They weren't that commited.  I cut my teeth on transistors using RCAs excellent transistor application manuals from the early 60s. And used RCA transistors in both small signal and power applications.  I do agree that large organizations have trouble dealing with sudden technology shifts as mentioned in the cell phone example.  But some major tube makers survived the transition.  Good luck, good decisions I don't know, but it happened.  Raytheon, Sylvania and Phillips are some that come to mind.  I am sure there are others.

Rough timeline by my memory of when transistors took over.

Late 50s to early sixties - Small signal portable equipment - radios, meters, signal generators and the like.
Early sixties - large scale signal systems - computers and measurement systems.
Late sixties - home consumer electronics -TVs and radios.
Mid seventies - displays (Nixie to LED and the like.  CC displays remained competitive for another decade or more)
Late seventies - high voltage (CRT power) and rf power
Eighties - higher power and frequency rf.
Late nineties to early 2000s- video displays.
 

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5980
  • Country: us
  • Eternally curious
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2019, 06:28:08 pm »
And I still don't think RCA commitment to tubes was their death knell.  They weren't that commited.  I cut my teeth on transistors using RCAs excellent transistor application manuals from the early 60s. And used RCA transistors in both small signal and power applications.  I do agree that large organizations have trouble dealing with sudden technology shifts as mentioned in the cell phone example.  But some major tube makers survived the transition.  Good luck, good decisions I don't know, but it happened.  Raytheon, Sylvania and Phillips are some that come to mind.  I am sure there are others.
That is my experience as well - despite I came to electronics a bit later than you, RCA transistors were still widely available in the wild, although mostly re-badges of common models.

Interesting story from the very early development of transistors at RCA. It seems they were well vested into the new devices, but the transition to Si was the parting point.
https://sites.google.com/site/transistorhistory/Home/us-semiconductor-manufacturers/rca-history

That could suggest that RCA was trying to undermine the Si transistors, but glancing at the very first paragraphs of the document indicates to me the considerations are very well balanced (I didn't yet read it entirely).

I am not saying this is the case, but IME there is a tendency to re-write history under the guise of conspiratorial theories.
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Offline free_electron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8515
  • Country: us
    • SiliconValleyGarage
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2019, 10:20:57 pm »
the final victory still hasn't occurred
doesn't need to be. there will always be specialty applications.
For me the vacuum tube died when TV's and radio and computers stopped using them. The picture tube itself was doomed event though it hung on for a long time. But when everything in a tv, apart from the picture tube, was using transistors : by that time most other stuff like radios , computers, telephones etc had already converted. That was the point of no return.
TV tubes had their dying gasp with plasma but that got buried fast as well.

Lightbulbs are also going the way of the dodo.
Professional Electron Wrangler.
Any comments, or points of view expressed, are my own and not endorsed , induced or compensated by my employer(s).
 

Offline jmelson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2758
  • Country: us
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2019, 11:58:22 pm »

RCA folded, but not due to commitment to tubes.
Yes, RCA was a MAJOR manufacturer of transistors in the mid 60's.  I remember the 2n404 was used a LOT of places, sort of like the 2N2222, a general all-purpose transistor.  But, the 60's were a time of HUGE upheaval in the electronics industry.

Jon
 

Offline schmitt trigger

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2205
  • Country: mx
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2019, 01:37:36 am »
Don’t you love GE’s motto in the ad?
“Progress is our most important product”

Talk about an  Oxymoron.


Speaking about RCA itself:
I still have both of RCA’s Receiving Tube Manual and Solid State Manual.

They have stayed with me even after a dozen house moves, including to other countries, for a simple reason: both are excellent reference books. RCA was very good at tubes and semiconductors.

RCA had a very broad semiconductor line.
Transistor, thyristor, analog and digital ICs.
Perhaps only Motorola had a broader portfolio.

To me, my first microcontroller was the COSMAC 1802. Does anyone remember the CA3130, perhaps the first all-CMOS opamp? And of course, the CD40xx logic.

They were leaders.
 

Offline Tomorokoshi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1212
  • Country: us
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2019, 02:32:11 am »
Speaking about RCA itself:
I still have both of RCA’s Receiving Tube Manual and Solid State Manual.

They have stayed with me even after a dozen house moves, including to other countries, for a simple reason: both are excellent reference books. RCA was very good at tubes and semiconductors.

I have those too!

Here are some parts from my April 1971 Transistor Thyristor & Diode Manual, of course by different manufacturers:

Page 353, 2N720A:
https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=2N720AMS-ND

Page 449, 2N1613:
https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=2N1613CS-ND

My Receiving Tube Manual is actually newer, from August 1975.

A big percentage of each book is dedicated to theory, use, and circuits. They aren't just datasheets.
 

Offline schmitt trigger

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2205
  • Country: mx
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2019, 05:42:07 pm »
Here they are.

The Tube's book is actually in Spanish.
 

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5980
  • Country: us
  • Eternally curious
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2019, 06:22:38 pm »
Here they are.

The Tube's book is actually in Spanish.
We had the RCA red book - what a nice throwback! I have a few other vaccuum tube books as well, but mostly in portuguese. These are very hard to get digitized without destroying the book.
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 
The following users thanked this post: schmitt trigger

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: 00
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2019, 07:37:27 pm »
So what contribution do you think these mistakes by RCA made?

Technical achievements have nothing to do with strategical errors. While RCA introduced nuvistors to compete with transistors in 1959, Sony had acquired a licence to produce transistors in 1953 and introduced a transistorized TV in 1959. Sony improved on the patents they acquired from RCA and introduced the Trinitron color CRT in 1968. In 1964, RCA had 42% of market share of color TVs in the US. They also provided tubes and components for the other American manufacturers of color TVs. Together they had 94% of market share. By 1986, RCA was no more. The Japanese had 42% of market share and the American companies combined had 17%.

It was equivalent to trying to develop a more efficient incandescent light to compete with LEDs.

Quote
1.  Competing with IBM with the Spectra series of computers (transistors by the way)

A complete disaster. The Spectra series was never profitable. By 1970, IBM could afford to spend $400M in R&D, almost twice RCA's income on computers. In 1971, RCA's computer division was sold to Sperry Rand for $250M.

Quote
2.  Trying to get into the home video world with the CED video disk system (also transistors)

$500M in losses. Shelved in 1984.

Quote
5.  Frozen foods (no transistors here, but no tubes either.)

Diversification spelled doom for RCA. All their competitors were focused.

Quote
And I still don't think RCA commitment to tubes was their death knell.

Never said that. I said it was their biggest mistake. What really killed them was their attempt to compete with IBM and their lack of focus. This affected the development of the video disc which was their last, although too late, attempt to get back to their forte (apart from entertainment): consumer electronics.

Quote
They weren't that commited. I cut my teeth on transistors using RCAs excellent transistor application manuals from the early 60s. And used RCA transistors in both small signal and power applications.

I still have their Transistor Thyristor and Diode Manual in Spanish, which I bought in the 70s, and two power transistors that I bought in the 80s and were already hard to find (because of that I never used them in any project). I kept them as souvenirs from a bygone era.

« Last Edit: February 21, 2019, 07:45:02 pm by bsfeechannel »
 
The following users thanked this post: schmitt trigger

Offline jmelson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2758
  • Country: us
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2019, 09:48:47 pm »
What really killed them was their attempt to compete with IBM and their lack of focus.
Yes, a LOT of serious companies made the same mistake.  Trying to compete with the "big boys" in computers required massive investment.  You could make semiconductors in a modest factory, and just sell them.  But, computers required a software development effort, a hardware maintenance operation, and a software support organization.  This could be a HUGE drain on resources.  And, competing with IBM was just like going against Goliath.

Jon
 

Offline schmitt trigger

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2205
  • Country: mx
Re: RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2019, 04:12:30 pm »
And massive mechanical engineering effort too.

I once saw a partially disassembled IBM line printer. (Can't remember the model). A medium-sized room was completely cleared away, with several tables set up. The guts were scattered all over, with sticky notes detailing the sub-assembly name and the service manual's page.

Even in this partially disassembled state, the sheer number of distinct and intricate mechanical components was staggering.
Years later, working for an electro-mechanical company, I finally understood that behind every single mechanical component there is always one or more tools, dies, fixtures and gages to produce it.

The required amount of engineering effort was beyond comprehension.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf