TV development

[oldticktock]

Well they were not far wrong!

It would have been interesting to see how that would have played out should they had pursued the idea long before they became a reality.

[Skywave]

Do you have any knowledge as to who the manufacturer was who developed that prototype? Mullard, possibly?
And do you have any information as to why it went no further (at that point in time)?
Obviously I - and everyone else here - can hazard many guesses & speculate . . . but you might just know . . . .

Just curious.

Al. [Skywave]

[oldticktock]

Hi Al,

I too wish the answers that you seek were mentioned.

Others with far greater knowledge than I shall surely know, the likes of HKS,MurphyV310 and pppenguin

Why it went no further is the burning one for me, it would likely have changed the course of TV 30 years in advance

[Sideband]

There really is nothing new is there? I can't remember when the first plasma TV with separate control box appeared. I sometime wonder where tv would be now if flat displays had been viable 50 years ago.



SB

[oldticktock]

My boss bought one very early 90's cost over 40k

[Red to black]

Hi, No nothing new at all.

re:By SB

There really is nothing new is there?

I can remember reading an article many years ago about the miniaturization of valves to the size of peas, then along came the transistor and blew the whole concept out of the water.

Often the 'concept' has been there long beforehand just waiting for technology to catch up, just for example the design of a digital watch, the idea and the circuit was available many years beforehand, just not the technology to make it 'practical'.

The next 'technological breakthrough' will no doubt make something that is possible but just not practicable today to become reality tomorrow, it is always the 'unforseen' technological step that changes the whole landscape.

Anyway OT rant over
Happy New Year to all,
Baz

[Heatercathodeshort]

The end result of this is just a slimmer T.V. but at what cost? Most people liked to position their receivers across a room corner so there was little point in producing a very slim receiver, probably very expensive, poor reliability and maybe an inferior picture.
The idea of mounting a television on the wall may have looked good in 'Vogue' magazine back in the 50's but in the little back parlour in Manchester or Newcastle, it may have looked a bit out of place. [As they still do!] It was probably costed and thrown out the back door. J.

[Welsh Anorak]

Hi
" the receiver proper could then be housed in a remote part of the house". A great idea - and one that never took off. Look at a typical modern installation with a flat panel TV - on a bulky glass stand with a Sky box, DVD, freeview decoder - none of which need to be seen - all stacked in a great tangle of wires below it! It's like putting your CD player and amplifier under a speaker...
Glyn

[Duke_Nukem]

This work had been ongoing for sometime. The way this article from 1956 reads sounds like Dr Gabor had at least some form of working prototype?

TTFN,
Jon

[oldticktock]

Another article from Sept 57 was complaining about TV cabinets being too deep and to quote "The attempt to hide the length of the tube by allowing it to project into a bulbous extension at the back of the receiver is clumsy" and that a redesign of CRT's was long overdue. They were envious of the American market already having 110-degree tubes with the UK lagging behind.

I suppose with the GEC 3XX and the likes emerging they were the slimline of the day and as John points out this was probably more in keeping the mindset of the time.

[Hybrid tellies]

I think the increase to 110 degree deflect was quite a leap in technology and required greater scanning power from the line and frame output stages. By the time colour came along in 1967 all mono sets used 110 degree deflection but because of the greater power requirements the colour tubes had to go back to 90 degrees. If there was any truth in that storey of a 3" deep crt back in 1959 I would love to have seen the circuit diagrams for the line and frame output circuits.

[murphyv310]

The article talks about 70 degree tubes being the first, this of course is not the case 57 degrees was a common deflection angle too and some prewar tubes had other low angles. Projection sets of course could be remote from the screen and they could be hung on a wall (Decca 1000).
Tube technology was still being pursued into the naughties with Samsungs 130 degree and of course the similar Philips tube.

[murphyv310]

Mullard had designed a CRT with the gun bent back toward the cone area there was an overall saving of a few inches. I believe this was in the late 50's.
I am sure I have an article about it somewhere.

[oldticktock]

Hi Trevor,

keeping within the bounds of the topic, I understood that from about 1946 angles went from 52 - 65 - 85 - 90 -110. I was not aware of the 57. my interest goes once the devils work as Duke_nukem puts it takes over (colour)

I'm in the dark with regards to exact dates but the 65 was around 1949, the 85 around 1952 and 90 in 1953 are these correct-ish?

As for pre war I have no idea it's all a mystery to me and mains EHT Yikes!

[tubesrule]

At the bottom of this page is the shortest color crt I know of, and as described, it never actually worked.

http://www.earlytelevision.org/color_crts.html

Darryl

[oldticktock]

Hi Darryl,

wow! that is shallow, shame that the little gun spoilt the slim profile. They should have sussed how to have the gun on the side with some clever jiggery-pokery. All part of history now.

[murphyv310]

The CRM91 is 64 degrees, 92/93/121/122/123 are all 57 degrees the CRM152 & 153 are 67 degrees.
The little MW6-2 was from memory only about 45 degrees. The 70 degree MW36-24 & the 17 inch versions were early 50's but take up was slow.
The 90 degree MW43-80 appeared mid 50's again take up was slow as the setmakers had to improve the scanning circuits, the 110 degree tubes followed on quite quickly after that. Some 110 degree CRT's were actually 114 degrees, for example the Brimar C19AH.

[Skywave]

Originally Posted by murphyv310

Mullard had designed a CRT with the gun bent back toward the cone area there was an overall saving of a few inches. I believe this was in the late 50's.
I am sure I have an article about it somewhere.

Yes - I remember that too! I believe the article appeared in Practical TV or possibly Wireless World. I'll have a look through my archives . . . . .

Al. [Skywave]

[Peter.N.]

I remember servicing some old Cossor TVs, the ones with the radio in the top with a 7M band for the sound, they were 15" which was huge for the time but if I remember rightly the CRT was about three feet long!

Peter

[Duke_Nukem]

Mullard had designed a CRT with the gun bent back toward the cone area...

Yep, picture of it from 1953 here.

I remember rightly the CRT was about three feet long...

Dont exagerate - it was "only" just over 2.5 ft long Scary beast of a tube; the manual recommended removing the tube when working on the radio in case a screw or washer or something might drop on the tube.

TTFN,
Jon