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 
> the real value.
> Actually, looking them up, doesn't seem they were used in much at all. Seems 
> to have been a bit of a technological dead-end since core memory quickly 
> superseded it with it's (relatively) cheap costs and (relative) ease of 
> manufacturing. I imagine the US gov. probably used them somewhere, since they 
> were a sucker for cutting edge technology of the time.
> Would be interesting to know how many hours it's got on it

"Not cost effective" ?  What does that mean in the arena of valuation of 
historic artifacts?

No, they didn't go anywhere as a product and apparently only saw use in one 

However, the 'pro' side of such a debate is that they were a very early attempt 
to produce a fast digital RAM memory specifically for use in Stored-Program 
Machines, at a time when memory was at the top of the list of problems in 
development of the first SPMs, and actually before any SPMs had been produced, 
and weren't a serial technology like drums and delays lines tortured into 
applicability for the task.

They are wrapped up in the history of John VonN and the IAS machine, one of the 
most significant machines in computing history (arguably the most significant).

There's always opinion and subjective valuation in assessments of history but 
if one is acquainted with what was going on in that period of 46-50, they are a 
very interesting and notable development attempt.

> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "pbirkel--- via cctalk" <cct...@classiccmp.org>
> To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic Posts'" <cctech@classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 Jan, 2022 At 17:35
> Subject: Memory Tech you don't see very often
> Selectron Vacuum Tube: https://www.ebay.com/itm/174977901251 
> <https://www.ebay.com/itm/174977901251>
> Really nice photo-shoot! I wonder what the back-story to this particular
> tube might be.
> I don't think that $16.18 shipping would be, um, adequate protection by any
> measure.
> Cheap, but not so sure about "cost-effective" .

Reply via email to