RCA 'tubes vs. Transistors' booklet - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2019, 08:39:59 pm
content: 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

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2019, 06:29:42 am
content: 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.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2019, 07:57:40 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on February 14, 2019, 08:39:59 pmActually, 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.

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2019, 08:28:36 am
content: Video of audio equipment with vacuum flouroscent display tubes?Microwave ovens?

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2019, 09:11:59 am
content: Quote from: glarsson on February 15, 2019, 08:28:36 amThe 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.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2019, 09:52:32 am
content: 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.

author: TimNJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2019, 11:16:17 pm
content: 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.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2019, 01:06:21 am
content: 20 years after this book, RCA folded.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2019, 01:28:38 am
content: LOL great read, looks like they didn't win out though ...

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2019, 01:35:07 am
content: 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.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2019, 04:25:08 am
content: Vacuum electronics might be making a comeback:https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/185027-the-vacuum-tube-strikes-back-nasas-tiny-460ghz-vacuum-transistor-that-could-one-day-replace-silicon-fets

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2019, 05:44:49 am
content: 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.

author: Tom45
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2019, 06:20:48 am
content: "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.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2019, 06:52:36 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on February 20, 2019, 01:35:07 amIt 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.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2019, 05:24:10 pm
content: 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 powerEighties - higher power and frequency rf.Late nineties to early 2000s- video displays.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2019, 06:28:08 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on February 20, 2019, 05:24:10 pmThat 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-historyThat 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.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2019, 10:20:57 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on February 20, 2019, 05:24:10 pmdoesn'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.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2019, 11:58:22 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on February 20, 2019, 01:35:07 amYes, 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

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2019, 01:37:36 am
content: 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.

author: Tomorokoshi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2019, 02:32:11 am
content: Quote from: schmitt trigger on February 21, 2019, 01:37:36 amI 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-NDPage 449, 2N1613:https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=2N1613CS-NDMy 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.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2019, 05:42:07 pm
content: Here they are.The Tube's book is actually in Spanish.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2019, 06:22:38 pm
content: Quote from: schmitt trigger on February 21, 2019, 05:42:07 pmWe 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.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2019, 07:37:27 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on February 20, 2019, 05:24:10 pmTechnical 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.QuoteA 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$500M in losses. Shelved in 1984.QuoteDiversification spelled doom for RCA. All their competitors were focused.QuoteNever 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.QuoteI 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.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2019, 09:48:47 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on February 21, 2019, 07:37:27 pmYes, 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

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2019, 04:12:30 pm
content: 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.

author: ferdieCX
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2019, 05:24:37 pm
content: Competing with IBM was also one of the mistakes that killed DEC.Talking about RCA, I still use the stereo amplifier that I built in the early 70s, a RCA design with RCA transistors. It has never failed.Here are my two manuals, bought in 1976 when I was a student. They have survived several moves, mostly overseas.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2019, 09:28:40 pm
content: Your blue book is exactly the same as mine. Printed in Argentina by Editorial Arbo.Mine, however, is in worse shape than yours.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2019, 12:51:18 am
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on February 21, 2019, 06:22:38 pmhttp://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/components/rca/_dataBooks/1975_SC-16_RCA_Solid-State_Devices_Manual.pdfhttp://www.nj7p.org/Manuals/PDFs/Tubes/RCA-RC-29-1973.pdf

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2019, 01:57:26 am
content: Since we are talking RCA... Here's an ad:Which is part of this 1954 Tube manual:And its arch rival at the time:

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2019, 01:59:57 am
content: Quote from: amyk on February 23, 2019, 12:51:18 amThanks a bunch, Amy!

author: duak
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2019, 03:42:03 am
content: I was thinking that by the 80's there was nothing I could buy that RCA made themselves other than some chips, power MOSFETs and vinyl records. I believe their TVs and VCRs were made by Hitachi and rebadged. I can't think of anything else that had their logo on it - can anyone else?

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2019, 03:34:23 pm
content: You are correct. In the early 80s I had a VHS camcorder, labeled RCA, but the internals had actually a Japanese company logo all over....it could have been Hitachi, but can't recall now.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2019, 03:41:52 pm
content: It was Hitachi.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2019, 07:15:51 pm
content: Quote from: ferdieCX on February 22, 2019, 05:24:37 pmWell, actually, it wasn't just IBM, but the computer market changed dramatically in about 1985 or so. And, I observed with some interest that DEC continued to send out a salesman and a tech guy on every prospective sale. Made good sense when a prospect was talking about buying a $200K VAX 11/780 with a bunch of drives, to make sure they ordered what they wanted. Made NO SENSE when the customer was buying a desktop pizza-box computer for $14K or so.DEC certainly did not reorganize a number of sectors of their organization to accommodate these changes, which were PLAINLY VISIBLE to anyone who looked.Jon

author: ferdieCX
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2019, 09:22:05 pm
content: Quote from: jmelson on February 23, 2019, 07:15:51 pmThey made several things wrong, including failing to provide an usable personal computer.They had quality problems with the DEC Professional 350, supposed to be a personal PDP-11.The Rainbow PC couldn't even read normal PC diskettes.The VAXstation 2000 was not cheap and too underpowered for X-Window

author: duak
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 24, 2019, 07:17:27 pm
content: This paper on DEC's decline & fall echoes what's been said:https://www.sigcis.org/files/Goodwin_paper.pdfIt's a bummer because I worked with DEC equipment & people for a few projects and compared to some other products, the stuff was well designed and worked flawlessly. I remember that DEC was going after IBM, but IBM was also circling the toilet bowl - IBM survived though.I hear that GE is not doing so well. A significant portion of their earnings is from finance rather than manufacturing. BTW, RCA was a spinoff from GE and if memory serves, GE brought them back in to the fold in 1986.An illuminating book on Howard Armstrong, the inventor of the superhet receiver and wideband FM (among others) is "The Man of High Fidelity" by Lessing. It covers his legal battles with RCA over his patents that weren't resolved until after his untimely death. It seems that RCA was well lawyered and also had their reality distorting field on and were not against trying to change perceptions in their favor.

author: MagicSmoker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 24, 2019, 10:27:19 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on February 20, 2019, 10:20:57 pmA shame, because I still think plasma delivers a superior picture to any LCD I've come across, especially in rendering dark colors/black and, especially, motion.I bought the last plasma TV made by Samsung about 5 or 6 years ago and have already gone to the trouble to repair a broken board on it once; I may very well cry when it finally dies...More on topic, another gem from the past chock full of info you can't hardly find anywhere else these days is the GE SCR Manual; I have a very tattered 6th edition from 1979 on my "most used" bookshelf.

author: ferdieCX
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2019, 05:41:33 pm
content: Quote from: schmitt trigger on February 22, 2019, 09:28:40 pmEditorial Arbó published lots of books about electronics in Spanish, including the ones from Everitt and Terman.They also published a magazine, the "Revista Telegráfica, which started in 1912 and lasted IIRC up to about 2000

author: exe
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 07:25:00 pm
content: It's interesting how freely they talk about military applications: missiles, nuclear bombs (may be not directly, but they talk about radiation), etc. I guess nowadays sales people won't dare to highlight such applications. I guess, if one wants to highlight robustness of equipment, "modern" application area with demand for reliability would be automotive (I don't see many aerospace components on sale, so not mentioning this).