Anything new on the Burroughs / Haydu yet?
/Martin
On Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:35:28 UTC+1, Jens Boos wrote:
>
> > IN either case they may use the bought companies brand, phase it out
> > or even sell the rights to the brand. if they discontinue the brand
> > it will appear as a footno
IN either case they may use the bought companies brand, phase it out
or even sell the rights to the brand. if they discontinue the brand
it will appear as a footnote under "goodwill" in the annual report.
(all the interesting stuff is in the footnotes in accountant speak so
they can show th
On 10-11-22 02:03 AM, Jens Boos wrote:
Also interesting within the 1954 Annual Report - Thus, Burroughs is moving
into growing fields outside
that of office equipment. Haydu Brothers, for example, acquired in
1954, manufactures cathode ray television tubes and other precision
components for th
Hmm sorry I was a bit slow on responses. I am a little confused about
all these codes, basically I have never heard of these before, and I
have no clue where to search for them.
As I understand it, these codes were used to indicate in which
equipment the respective component (here: our Inditron) w
On Nov 18, 5:41 pm, Charles MacDonald wrote:
> Interestingly a search for that NATO number turns up a picture or two
> from an Italian E-bay
> Auction..http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160484115941
It's not an Italian auction; for whatever reason your search hit
picked up the
On Nov 18, 7:03 am, Accutron wrote:
> The Martin boxes are still important though, because they
> prove the Inditron was actually *used* in something. Based on what
> Martin was doing at the time, the best guess is an aircraft display or
> some piece of equipment that was part of Project Vanguar
On 10-11-18 08:41 PM, Charles MacDonald wrote:
On 10-11-18 06:20 AM, Dekatron42 wrote:
Nick,
Here is some information which does not match the GI-21 but atleast
shows that the "SM-C-2092" number is used for other parts in the US
military, http://www.wbparts.com/nsndetail.cfm?NIIN=006429929 - th
On 10-11-18 06:20 AM, Dekatron42 wrote:
Nick,
Here is some information which does not match the GI-21 but atleast
shows that the "SM-C-2092" number is used for other parts in the US
military, http://www.wbparts.com/nsndetail.cfm?NIIN=006429929 - this
also shows that the 5960 number is used for
On Nov 18, 3:03 pm, Accutron wrote:
> Patent #2769939 is *not* the GI-10 patent. Dieter incorrectly has that
> patent up on his site as the GI-10 patent, but the GI-10 patent is
> actually #2756366. The Northrop patent is not related to the GI-10,
> other than it's another gas discharge display
On 17 Nov, 23:34, jb-electronics wrote:
> > I would like to mention pro-forma that GI-21 does have an anode. It is
> > not a front grid but it is there.
> It does? This is new information for me. When I made the pictures for
> the GI-21 site
OK, I took my GI-21 out of its box and ran tests:
GI-2
Patent #2769939 is *not* the GI-10 patent. Dieter incorrectly has that
patent up on his site as the GI-10 patent, but the GI-10 patent is
actually #2756366. The Northrop patent is not related to the GI-10,
other than it's another gas discharge display design.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/27563
Nick,
Here is some information which does not match the GI-21 but atleast
shows that the "SM-C-2092" number is used for other parts in the US
military, http://www.wbparts.com/nsndetail.cfm?NIIN=006429929 - this
also shows that the 5960 number is used for these parts, although I
did not find any r
On Nov 18, 7:32 am, Accutron wrote:
> The Martin Company was an aircraft manufacturer - the same Martin that
> would end up as part of Lockheed Martin. They also produced missiles
> and other military stuff. The tubes are probably replacement parts for
> a Martin aircraft display, or were possibly
The Martin Company was an aircraft manufacturer - the same Martin that
would end up as part of Lockheed Martin. They also produced missiles
and other military stuff. The tubes are probably replacement parts for
a Martin aircraft display, or were possibly used as part of the
Project Vanguard rocket
On 10-11-17 05:34 PM, jb-electronics wrote:
"The Martin company" is found on several Inditron cartons. I guess
Micahs theory is correct and possible the "Martin company" was some kind
of reseller for pre-manufactured National Union Inditrons, or a licensed
producer with no own product line of th
I would like to mention pro-forma that GI-21 does have an anode. It is
not a front grid but it is there.
It does? This is new information for me. When I made the pictures for
the GI-21 site
(http://www.jb-electronics.de/html/elektronik/nixies/n_gi21.htm?lang=en)
I had to change my "anode" w
On 17 Nov, 15:14, Accutron wrote:
> In all likelihood, the GI-10 does not have an anode because they had
> not yet managed to invent an anode configuration..
I would like to mention pro-forma that GI-21 does have an anode. It is
not a front grid but it is there.
> On the subject of the Inditron'
On the subject of the Inditron's apparently long lifespan as a
product...if any military contractor used the Inditron in any sort of
equipment, NU would've been obligated to maintain production for many
years after the last Inditron-using equipment was no longer being
produced. If they only used th
In all likelihood, the GI-10 does not have an anode because they had
not yet managed to invent an anode configuration which did not
infringe on the Boswau patent or the Northrop patent or any of the
other early gas discharge patents. The Burroughs Nixie is the earliest
known production tube with a
Just found a load of NIB GI-21s - Though the tubes are marked NU
GI-21, they are in Mil-spec boxes from "The Martin Company" with a
variety of marks, one of which I think is a date stamp of 6/60 (June
1960). No anode mesh.
IS it possible to scan the box? or a take a closeup digital photo?
Oft
Am 16.11.2010 19:25, schrieb Marcin Adamski:
On 16/11/2010 16:36, Jens Boos wrote:
My GI-10 tubes that I have here are from 1962, so quite late as well.
My GI-10s are from 65. Doesn't it mean that they were a rather
successful product being made for approx. 15 years? ;)
Only because they are
On 16/11/2010 16:36, Jens Boos wrote:
My GI-10 tubes that I have here are from 1962, so quite late as well.
My GI-10s are from 65. Doesn't it mean that they were a rather
successful product being made for approx. 15 years? ;)
Another thing which bother me - the lack of an anode in GI-10. Was i
My GI-10 tubes that I have here are from 1962, so quite late as well.
OK, first one to catch a GI-30 or any of the other Inditrons alive
will be given Nixie-knighthood^^
Jens
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"neonixie-l" group.
To post to this group,
On Nov 16, 3:14 pm, Nick wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2:56 pm, Accutron wrote:
> ...
>
> > Even the GI-10 itself was only manufactured in small production
> > quantities, yet we've managed to collect several fistfuls of them over
> > the years.
>
> Its weird that so many are around - I have one, NIB and 3
Hi Nick,
I also have several GI-10 and GI-21 tubes all NIB, but I have NEVER seen
any of those on the promo sheet.
The GI-30 was described as similar to the GI-21 but slightly larger. So
this description fits, I guess. Mr Barbour from TCA gave me that
information. He said he donated his GI-3
On Nov 10, 2:56 pm, Accutron wrote:
...
> Even the GI-10 itself was only manufactured in small production
> quantities, yet we've managed to collect several fistfuls of them over
> the years.
Its weird that so many are around - I have one, NIB and 3 others
(unused but not in original box).
Fan
Hi Steve,
I think Micah agreed on giving the Wikipedia article another shot.
I will be writing an article on this soon, and I will include "our"
version as well as the "other" version. But I will point out that the
"other" theory needs historical proof and is thus merely conjecture
for now. I am
As a complete and utter novice reading this thread; there is some
seriously great knowledge, and true expert opinion bouncing back and
forth.
As a group, can we not overcome the he-said-she-said differences and
capture this to Wikipedia? From the perspective of a novice,
Wikipedia's voice speaks l
Hi again,
some other question regarding the Nixie tube history: When did
Burroughs actually register "Nixie" as their trademark? There is
contradictory information on the net. I checked using the TESS system
from upsto.gov.uk, and here is what I found:
Word Mark NIXIE
Goods and Services
On 10-11-10 06:31 PM, Erick Anderson wrote:
If you have better information, please don't keep it to yourself. I
keep an eye on the article from time to time, but I don't have much to
contribute to it besides taking photos of my own stuff.
The trick/problem with Wikipedia is that the have some f
If you have better information, please don't keep it to yourself. I
keep an eye on the article from time to time, but I don't have much to
contribute to it besides taking photos of my own stuff.
On Nov 9, 9:37 am, Accutron wrote:
> I used to try to edit Wiki pages; now I just tell them they're st
I'm not even going to entertain the possibility of Telefunken Nixies
in the 1940s. You might as well tell me the Germans developed a
functional atomic bomb in the 1930s but never patented it or used it
because they didn't want to infringe on US atomic bomb patents that
would later be filed in th
On Nov 10, 2:57 am, jb-electronics
wrote:
> and he insists that NU made Inditrons around 1940. I would love to see a
> proof, but until now I did not get any responses.
Don't hold your breath. If he can show you proof of a production Nixie/
Inditron/glowing-neon-number-thing in the 1940s, what y
How about a question to the TCA group then ?
john K
Hello John,
oh yes, I am a member there, too, but Mr Barbour is very dominant there
and he insists that NU made Inditrons around 1940. I would love to see a
proof, but until now I did not get any responses.
Jens
--
You received this me
- Original Message -
From: "jb-electronics"
clip...>
> Hmm there have to be some archives dealing with the National Union
> history. (Like the CBI for Burroughs). Anyone have an idea where to
> start looking for National Union information?
>
> Jens
>
How about a question to t
Okay, I suppose I'll give it a shot.
Great news.
Jens: on the subject of Inditrons in the 1940s, that's just wrong. We
were once given bad information as to the Inditron's age, and had a
date estimate of 1940s up on our site for some time. We have since
corrected that information, but it's
On 11/9/2010 1:49 PM, Accutron wrote:
On Nov 9, 2:25 pm, David Forbes wrote:
By the way, I have a Haydu Brothers box with a defective 6700 tube in it. It has
little stickers that say, "A subsidiary of Burroughs Corp." stuck on every side
of the box. Naturally, it was a gift from Tom Jennings.
On Nov 9, 2:25 pm, David Forbes wrote:
> By the way, I have a Haydu Brothers box with a defective 6700 tube in it. It
> has
> little stickers that say, "A subsidiary of Burroughs Corp." stuck on every
> side
> of the box. Naturally, it was a gift from Tom Jennings.
>
> It includes a data sheet.
Hello,
[...] Mr. Ciardiello had [...] had regurgitated the same incorrect Haydu origin
mantra. He subsequently
edited the content of this article enough that it is vaguely-not-
incorrect, but he doesn't actually admit that I was right all along.
The Haydu Vs. Burroughs article is basically usel
On Nov 9, 2:44 pm, Accutron wrote:
...
> The Wikipedia Nixie tube page is horrible and wrong on many issues,
> and should be ignored by all thinking individuals.
...
Please - do us all a favour and update it. Some of us have had a go at
bits (I did the citations and some other parts about lifespa
On Nov 9, 2:25 pm, David Forbes wrote:
> Thanks for the ad scans. They are historically interesting. Have you ever
> seen a
> real Vari-Count module?
I've never seen anything made by Haydu in person, other than the
orange-label 6700. I've never even seen a photo of a Vari-Count
module. They migh
Hello again,
Here are the three early advertisements I know about. They were
published in Electronics magazine between May and December 1955...
[...]
Oh yes, the article from Mr Ciardiello, see it here:
http://www.radiomuseum.org/forum/nixie_and_trochotron_haydu_vs_burroughs.html
How do you
On 11/9/2010 12:09 PM, Accutron wrote:
Here are the three early advertisements I know about. They were
published in Electronics magazine between May and December 1955...
http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/users/6435/vm_tubes/magnetron/Haydu1.jpg
http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/users/6435
On Nov 9, 1:48 pm, jb-electronics wrote:
> Hello Micah,
(snipped)
Here are the three early advertisements I know about. They were
published in Electronics magazine between May and December 1955...
http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/users/6435/vm_tubes/magnetron/Haydu1.jpg
http://www.radiomuse
Hello Micah,
The patent, official datasheet and press release for the GI-10
Inditron are all dated 1954. Here's the original datasheet, dated May
1954...
How embarassing - I never noticed the small "issued May 1954", even
though I have had this datasheet a long time. Good that this is a
keyb
On Nov 9, 11:21 am, jb-electronics
wrote:
> Hello Micah,
(snipped)
The patent, official datasheet and press release for the GI-10
Inditron are all dated 1954. Here's the original datasheet, dated May
1954...
http://www.decadecounter.com/vta/pict5/inditrongi10.jpg
The GI-10 patent (US2756366) w
Hello Micah,
National Union released the Inditron in 1954.
Do you have an add or a press release for that? That would be amazing. I
only have the snippet from "Popular Science", 1954, that you also have
on your VTA website.
Haydu was bought by Burroughs in 1954.
OK, that is also what
On Nov 9, 10:02 am, Unmitigated Fool
wrote:
> Micah, You should edit the article so it's accurate. That's how a Wiki
> should work.
That may be how they *should* work, but what actually happens is that
a small group of despots take over the page, and any unsanctioned
changes are reverted. I use
On Nov 8, 12:12 pm, jb-electronics
wrote:
> Hmm I have historical proof that Haydu Bros already were a Burroughs
> subsidiary when they advertised the Nixie tube, see
> here:http://www.jb-electronics.de/html/elektronik/nixies/n_hb106.htmNow that
> was 1955, so quite early.
>
> But sadly, I do not
Micah, You should edit the article so it's accurate. That's how a Wiki
should work.
Accutron wrote:
The Wikipedia Nixie tube page is horrible and wrong on many issues,
and should be ignored by all thinking individuals.
Micah Mabelitini
http://www.decadecounter.com/
--
You received
Hi,
I, personally, can't be of any help. But while you're at it, the wiki
article takes issue with the Haydu brothers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nixie_tube
It mentions, Burroughs buying the Haydu brothers out for their tube
manufacturing abilities, and that the nixie was developed 'in-
> Hello folks,
>
> I am doing some research on the beginnings of the Nixie tube.
> Wikipedia lists these sources: [list]
>
> Can someone help out with these?
>
> Many thanks,
> Jens
I, personally, can't be of any help. But while you're at it, the wiki
article takes issue with the Haydu brothers:
52 matches
Mail list logo
