Re: Memory Tech you don't see very often

2022-01-06 Thread Eric Smith via cctech
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

Re: Memory Tech you don't see very often

2022-01-06 Thread William Donzelli via cctech
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

Re: Memory Tech you don't see very often

2022-01-06 Thread Chuck Guzis via cctech
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.

Re: Memory Tech you don't see very often

2022-01-06 Thread Brent Hilpert via cctech
ssage -- > From: "pbirkel--- via cctalk" > To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic Posts'" > 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.e

Re: Memory Tech you don't see very often

2022-01-06 Thread Joshua Rice via cctech
of the time. Would be interesting to know how many hours it's got on it -- Original Message -- From: "pbirkel--- via cctalk" To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic Posts'" Sent: Wednesday, 5 Jan, 2022 At 17:35 Subject: Memory Tech you don't see very often Selectro

Memory Tech you don't see very often

2022-01-05 Thread Paul Birkel via cctech
Selectron Vacuum Tube: 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" .