Re: [neonixie-l] Re: Nixie Clock vs Raytheon CK1916 tubes

2012-04-09 Thread Matthew
Thank you all for your replies! Dieter, thank you both for providing the original datasheet, and for your suggestion - increasing the voltage seems to have done the trick. Jonas's kit suggests using 160v which has worked fine for all the Russian tubes (rated at 170v), but at 190v I seem to get

Re: [neonixie-l] Re: Nixie Clock vs Raytheon CK1916 tubes

2012-04-09 Thread Dieter Waechter
Nixie Clock vs Raytheon CK1916 tubes Interesting - Have you seen this with NL840-class tubes? Nick On Monday, 9 April 2012 11:11:55 UTC+1, Nocrotec wrote: It's a well known problem with the 1916's. I have about 500 NIB, and most of them show that problem. Most need a high firing voltag

Re: [neonixie-l] Re: Nixie Clock vs Raytheon CK1916 tubes

2012-04-09 Thread Nick
Interesting - Have you seen this with NL840-class tubes? Nick On Monday, 9 April 2012 11:11:55 UTC+1, Nocrotec wrote: > > It's a well known problem with the 1916's. > I have about 500 NIB, and most of them show that problem. > Most need a high firing voltage (200 V and up) and some are completel

Re: [neonixie-l] Re: Nixie Clock vs Raytheon CK1916 tubes

2012-04-09 Thread Dieter Waechter
It's a well known problem with the 1916's. I have about 500 NIB, and most of them show that problem. Most need a high firing voltage (200 V and up) and some are completely dead. The only thing I can imagine is gas leakage. I have experienced that problem on some other American made tubes, but oddly

[neonixie-l] Re: Nixie Clock vs Raytheon CK1916 tubes

2012-04-09 Thread Nick
The CK1916 is equivalent to an NL841 and is indeed a nice tube - it has a left hand DP - the NL840 differers only in having no DP. This tubes should (probably) work fine - there is (probably) something else wrong... Have you checked you've still got HT at about 180V? Nick On Monday, 9 April 20