This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I found systematic differences in the value-ranges of the "Mullard-Philips Tube Designation" sheme compared to the equivalent in the German Wikipedia.
Examples:
It seems, there are differences in both name and numbering shemes for the european tube designation in the WP:EN and WP:DE. While English Wikipedia refers to the "Mullard-Philips Tube Designation", the German Wikipedia refers to the "Philips und Telefunken Gemeinschafts-Bezeichnungssystem" or "Europäisches Gemeinschafts-Bezeichnungssystem". While this can be easily explained by different historic development of this technology in Germany and the UK, it is commonly belived, the schemes are identical. I checked the main source to be sure the value-ranges in WP:DE are correct. I am offering my help to correct the value-ranges in WP:EN if incorrect. To be absolutely sure, we do not have a minor, but systematic deviation between Mu/Ph and Tf/Ph designation schemes I am asking for help to check the source for Mullard-Philips tube designation. -- BEG ( talk) 09:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't "Mullard-Philips" be called "Pro Electron" in the title? In the USA, I've seen "Pro Electron" used, but not "Mullard-Philips". Regards, Nikevich ( talk) 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a really serious error and an omission in this article. Consider this sentence: "For example an EF80 manufactured as a special quality tube would be designated 'E80F'." WRONG. The E80F is nothing like the EF80. The former is a random unscreened pentode and the latter is a screened RF pentode. My collection has both, and they don't even look the same. Another example: EL81 vs E81L. The former is a horizontal deflection tube with a top cap and the latter is a small internally screened output pentode for telephone equipment. The physical difference is huge. See respective datasheets.
My point is: Fix the article. The rule is correct (number before tube contents) but a better example would be ECC81 vs. E81CC (I own both types) and mention that the rule does not always hold. Signed, someone who ruined an E80F by sticking it into a socket meant for an EF80. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.209.56 ( talk) 14:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Nikevitch's question above for correcting the title was answered with a plain "no". Still the issue is that the Mullard-Philips tube designation in the pre-pro-electron phase was in fact defined between Philips (with it's local subsidiaries Mullard, Valvo etc.) and Telefunken, who are not mentioned at all here ( just realized, someone with a US-centered view now removed the Philips' subsidiaries Valvo (Germnay) and Dario (France)...). -- Wosch21149 ( talk) 22:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Some kind soul keep changing the reference to CV valves to 'common valve'. This is in fact a common error. I have worked with CV valves all my working career working, as I did for the UK Ministry of Defence since the day I left school. 'CV' is the abbreviation for 'civilian valve' and refers to a device that was designed and developed outside of the military field (usually by a commercial valve company) that has been adopted for military use. Valves that were developed inside the military environment (usually by a government owned R&D establishment were given initially an 'E' designation (for 'experimental') and when perfected, an 'M' designation (for 'military). To add to the confusion, when unified part numbering schemes were adopted such as the A.M. Ref no. scheme (Air Ministry part numbers) and later the NATO stock numbering scheme, the stock number was based on the CV number. Consequently, all in service 'M' designated valves were given a 'CV' number so that they could be incorporated into the numbering schemes.
For example, an rugedised high reliability R.F. pentode was developed by one such government R&D establishment and was given the designation 'M8084'. It was placed for manufacture by the Mullard company, who produced a commercial version of it under the designation 'EF91'. In order to incorporate it into the A.M. ref no. system it had to be given a CV number (mainly because the system insisted that rugedised reliable valves had to have a 4000 series number, but mainly to avoid duplication of numbers from two unrelated schemes). The CV number therefore became CV4014 (the next number off the rank). The valve therefore became 'A.M. REF No. 10CV/4014' and subsequently NATO stock no. '5960-99-000-4014' [1].
Life was made even more bizarre because with the introduction of semiconductor devices, they too were enrolled into the scheme. Thus a CV7010 although having a 'civilian valve' designation, is actually a silicon rectifier (NATO stock No. 5960-99-000-7010: the Air Ministry having long gone the way of many government reorganisations).
[1] For the curious: '5960' means 'Valve, Electronic'. 99 means the code was generated by the U.K. (America uses '01'). '000' is the sub class of which 'Valve, Electronic' has none. And '4014' is the recycled CV number. 109.145.22.224 ( talk) 16:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Removed from article:
The PL84, HL84 and UL84 varied from the EL84 in more than just heater voltage/current; their characteristics were altered to make them more suited to the lower high tension voltages found in typical television sets where series heater chains would be employed (although still giving comparable output power when used as an audio amplifier). Their RETMA type numbers were 15CW5, 30CW5 and 45B5 respectively. The corresponding 6.3V heater and 0.45A series heater versions were the EL86/6CW5 and LL86/10CW5 respectively.
"But isn't the convention that the first letter just differentiates the heater voltage, when the rest of the designation is the same?" Convention hasn't really been established sufficiently for this to be a reliable guide. Usually you're right, but this is an exception (and the DM71 / EM71 is another striking exception, as you point out). As well as different heaters, the EL84, PL84, UL84 have different cathode areas, and probably different grids, for their differing gm's etc. The anode is, as far as I know, the same, so they are a bit difficult to tell apart if the markings get rubbed off."
Some considerations on the previous discussions:
1 â In no way the E80F and the E81L tubes are SQ versions of the EF80 or EL81 tubes, respectively. They differ too much in their characteristics, their maximum ratings, their pinouts and the purposes they've been designed for. Even in their visual approach theyâre very different, e.g. by comparison of photos of a typical EL81 ( http://www.mif.pg.gda.pl/homepages/frank/images/Mul/e/EL81_MUL_HM.jpg) and a also typical E81L ( http://www.mif.pg.gda.pl/homepages/frank/images/Phi/e/E81L_Phi_IMG_8198_FP.jpg).
2 â Decreasing maximum ratings might have been a manner to obtain longer life for SQ tubes. The Russians often did so. But this, by far, cannot be considered as a general rule. The E84L ( http://www.mif.pg.gda.pl/homepages/frank/sheets/009/e/E84L.pdf), e.g., which indeed is a SQ version of the EL84 ( http://www.mif.pg.gda.pl/homepages/frank/sheets/010/e/EL84.pdf), has extended ratings for all three mean parameters, as of plate voltage, plate dissipation and cathode current.
3 â Besides their heaters, the EL84 on one hand and the PL84 and UL84 on the other are, especially by comparison of their plate curves, different tubes! Youâre simply not (W)right here! How else could you explain the obvious fact that one tube (PL84, UL84) reads, at the same plate and control grid voltages, but at a lower screen voltage of 200V vs. 250V, very much higher plate currents than the other one (EL84), other than both are electronically very different? At least in Europe, from the early beginnings (e.g. CL4 vs. AL4) series heater output tubes for radio sets have been developed contemporaneously to their parallel heated versions with the same maximum plate dissipation. They were given, in comparison to their parallel companions, a lower internal resistance and a lower screen-to-grid amplification factor (Âľg2g1). Thus they could cope more easily with the usually lower plate voltages in transformerless AC/DC radios, providing sufficient output power even at 100V plate/screen voltage. This applies to all series heated valves for radios that were developed simultaneously to the parallel heated variants (CL4 vs. AL4, UL12 vs. EL12, UL41 vs. EL41, UL84 vs. EL84 etc.). So we can say that EL84 vs. PL84 and UL84 share nothing else than three characters within their numbers and the maximum plate dissipation. Also the look of their internal structure differs significantly, PL84 and UL84 being more slim than an EL84 from the same manufacturer.
But there are exceptions as well: ECL82, ECL86, EL36 and EL81, e.g., indeed are electronically identical to their series heated P versions. And there are much more examples, especially in tubes for TV sets.
Conclusion: I dare to claim that two tubes having different numbers in fact have to be considered as two different tubes. Similarities can occur, but sometimes are not more than accidentally. For closer information on each tube we have to carefully read the data sheets, especially the plate curves. -- Menrathu ( talk) 18:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This article on the Mullard-Philips naming scheme needs to be able to be read in conjunction with similar articles such as on other naming schemes (e.g. RETMA tube designation and especially Pro Electron) and to some extent mesh in with the List of vacuum tubes because that duplicates some of what is said here and because it is sensible to use examples to illustrate the naming conventions. I think all of these articles could be tidier, have less duplication, be easier to read, and follow more consistent formatting patterns.
So to kick off some discussion on this (and it is obviously better to get some agreement before mucking around with things) I will suggest a few thoughts here, and then look to get some talk going for other articles. (Which ones? That needs discussion too).
ECC81 / \ \\__ last digits give serial number / \ \__ first digit(s) indicate base (3=octal, 8 or 18 or 80=Noval ( B9A), 9=7-pin( B7G). / \___ one letter per valve in the tube: D=0.5-1.5v A=single-diode (low power) E=6.3v* B=double-diode (usually shared cathode, but not always) P=300mA C=triode U=100mA F=pentode (low power) L=pentode (high power) Y=Single-phase rectifier Z=Full-wave rectifier * Note: some 6.3 Volt heater types have a split heater allowing series (12.6Volt; the default for Noval pins 4 to 5) or parallel (6.3Volt) operation.
Further thoughts, anyone? Maitchy ( talk) 20:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The differences over time (and especially when moving from Mullard-Philips to Pro Electron) that I and IB Wright mentioned above should be made clear to the reader, but what is the best way? I already started with subsections based on the number of digits (a back-door method of slicing the rules up by era). That might be better done using tables... but rather than muck around with the main article page I'll put something below for comments first.
Also to consider: having a succession of sets of rules might be no more help than one big, complicated rule set if the reader is coming to Wikipedia with the aim of finding out what some type number (e.g. ABC345) means. Well, the first response to that might validly be "it isn't a good idea to read through the various articles on naming schemes until you find one that mentions a naming pattern that matches the type you are interested in!", but I suspect we can still go some way to clarifying the facts for such a reader.
It also raises the question: how do we know that such-and-such a type number was made under this or that naming scheme? Just because it has letters followed by digits isn't enough to say it is Mullard-Philips. We could list exceptions (the KT example is in quite a few different articles on vacuum tubes and their names! e.g. in Vacuum tube#Beam power tubes and again in Vacuum tube#Names; in List of vacuum tubes#Other letter followed by numerals and List of vacuum tubes#KT as well as in this article: Mullard-Philips tube designation#Double-digit numerical sequences).
Single-digit numerical sequences
e.g. : K 1st Letter |
F 2nd/subsequent letters |
4 number |
G optional letters |
---|---|---|---|
(Filament or Heater Ratings) | (type classification) | (serial number) | (variant) |
A: 4Vh AC B: 180mA DC C: 200mA AC/DC D: up to 1.4Vf battery E: 6.3Vh heater K: 2Vf battery type |
A: Single Diode B: Twin diode C: Triode (low power) D: Popwer Diode E: Tetrode F: Pentode (low power) H: Hexode or Heptode K: Octode L: Power Pentode M: Tuning Indicator X: Gas-filled Rectifier Z: Full-wave High-vacuum Rectifier |
Pinch type construction valves fitted with European 5-pin (V base) or 8-pin (P base) side contact bases or international octal bases with European basing connection sequences. Single-digit numbers imply some 1930's European pre-octal base such as B5 or Ct8. |
blank: early European bases G: Glass Octal version A,B,C: other variants X: no top-cap |
Double-digit numerical sequences Table with heater options A/B/C removed (as they were obsolete around then) plus new ones like "P" that only ever had 2-digit sequences or longer. The number column would then have a list like:
etc...
but...
Have one big table with all the heater letters ever allocated, all the different uses of the type classification letters, all the number ranges of 1,2,3 (and 4?) digits (i.e. pretty similar to what we have now in the article, and repeated with a few errors in List of vacuum tubes#European designation (with American equivalents), but in tabular form as above)... but.... use something like different background colours to indicate the eras in which they were used.
Background colours are not always a good idea - not everyone can see them. There are probably other ways of marking groups of letters/digits as belonging to an era (e.g. I used asterisks) but it is messy to go too far with adding detail that way.
Make little attempt in the tables (perhaps still have 3 historical ones?) but handle the "invalid combinations" by listing what type numbers were allocated. This allows us to stick closer to official references in defining the standard, and the examples aid in highlighting where they bend the rules in practice, and most of all, it could help readers that wish to know about specific types to see what is relevant.
A very primitive example (with errors, but hopefully enough to show the idea):
Directly Heated | Parallel (Voltage-Source) Indirectly Heated | Other | Series (Current-Supplied) Indirectly Heated | No Heater | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Diagram | up to 1.4V DC | 2V | 4 Vh | 6.3Vh (or 12.6Vh with centre-tap) | Vh/Ih | 600mA Series | 450mA Series | 300mA Series | 200mA Series | 150mA Series | 100mA Series | Cold Cathode | |
single diode | B7G | DA90 DA101 | EA960 [1] EA961 EA962 | ||||||||||
Rimlock | EA40 | ||||||||||||
other | DA50 | EA41 EA50 EA52 EA53 EA71 EA76 EA111 EA766 |
GA560 SA100 SA102 | ||||||||||
Single Triode | B7G | DC90 DC93 DC96 DC193 |
EC91 EC92 EC93 EC94 EC95 EC96 EC97 EC98 EC900 EC903 |
XC95 | YC95 LC900 |
PC92 PC93 PC95 PC96 PC97 PC900 |
UC96 | ||||||
Rimlock | EC40 EC41 | ||||||||||||
Loctal | DC25 | ||||||||||||
B9A | DC80 | EC80 EC81 EC84 EC86 EC86C EC88 EC806S EC866 EC8010 EC8020 |
XC88 | YC88 | PC80 PC86 PC88 | UC88 | |||||||
IO | KC3 | EC31 EC360 EC362 EC55 (coaxial) |
|||||||||||
other | DC11 DC51 DC70 DC760 DC761 DC762 | KC1 KC3 KC4 KC50 KC51 |
AC2 AC50 AC100 AC101 AC102 AC104 AC701 AC761 |
EC2 EC50 EC52 EC53 EC54 EC56 EC57 EC70 EC71 EC157 EC162 EC561 EC760 | CC1 CC2 | ||||||||
Double Triode | B7G | DCC90 | ECC90 ECC91 ECC91W ECC99 ECC900 ECC960 ECC962 | ||||||||||
B8A | ECC40 | ||||||||||||
B9A | ECC81 ECC82 ECC83 ECC84 ECC85 ECC86 ECC87 ECC88 ECC89 ECC180 ECC186 ECC189 ECC282 ECC801 ECC802 ECC803 ECC804 ECC805S ECC807 ECC808 ECC812 ECC813 ECC863 ECC865 ECC8100 |
XCC82 XCC89 XCC189 | LCC189 YCC89 YCC189 | PCC186 PCC805 | HCC85 | UCC84 UCC89 | |||||||
IO | ECC31 ECC32 ECC33 ECC34 ECC35 | ||||||||||||
other | ECC171 ECC230 ECC70 | ||||||||||||
Triode plus Pentode | B9A | ECF80 ECF801 ECF802 ECF804 ECF805 ECF82 ECF83 ECF86 | LCF80 LCF802 LCF86 | ||||||||||
IO | KCF30 | ||||||||||||
other | DCF60 | ECF1 ECF174 ECF200 ECF201 | LCF201 | ||||||||||
Triode plus Hexode or Heptode | B8A | ECH113 ECH41 ECH42 ECH43 | UCH41 UCH42 UCH43 | ||||||||||
B8G | DCH22 DCH25 | ECH22 ECH71 | UCH71 | ||||||||||
B9A | ECH80 ECH81 ECH83 ECH84 | HCH81 | UCH81 | ||||||||||
IO | DCH31 | ECH32 ECH33 ECH35 ECH3G | CCH35 | ||||||||||
other | DCH1 DCH11 | KCH1 | ACH1 ACH1C | ECH171 ECH200 ECH3 ECH3F | BCH1 | CCH1 | UCH5 | ||||||
Triode plus Output Pentode | B8A | ECL113 | |||||||||||
B9A | ECL80 ECL802 ECL805 ECL81 ECL82 ECL83 ECL84 ECL85 ECL86 | XCL82 XCL84 XCL86 | LCL84 LCL85 YCL82 YCL84 YCL86 | PCL80 PCL81 PCL82 PCL85 PCL86 PCL801 PCL802 PCL805 PCL88 | UCL81 UCL82 UCL86 | ||||||||
other | ECL200 | VCL11 |
How do the sources handle the description of the Mullard-Phillips designations? And surely we could leave the ProElectron descriptions to that article. Is it necessary to spend a lot of effort here to describe what is fundamentally a list of part numbers assigned by the manufacturer for their convenience? Give the gist of the scheme, warn that it evolved over time, warn that there are quirks and exceptions, list any of these quirks that are particularly notable...there's your article. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 15:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
That said, the division of the information into tables for 1-digit serial numbers, 2-digit serial numbers, etc up to either 4-digit or whatever Philips go up to by the time the system became Pro-Electron can be easy to find what you want and relates to the historical progression in a reasonably useful way.
The question of what the sources had opens up a can of worms: no one source covers the entire system properly; I have quite a few that display the system with either lots of information missing because that part of the system came later, or has comments like "The use of letters A(4V), B(180mA),... has been discontinued" and may still can miss some details of the scheme other versions had. From my point of view, it isn't helpful to have one big table with all possible heater letters, all possible 2nd/etc letter options and all base/serial number options, because some combinations never occurred together, and because the table would be uncomfortably big (although maybe not?), and because our synthesized conglomeration takes us a long way from the original source data.
I am thinking of (and still playing around with what it might look like before presenting it for discussion, but...) an approach that addresses the needs of somebody approaching this with a question like "what is an XYZ123?" but also is good for encyclopedic treatment of the topic. It also tackles the duplication of material between this article and the list of tubes. Basically what I am suggesting is to have one article listing tubes by name in a table with links to articles on the naming schemes where appropriate, meaning subsection names within this article and the RETMA, Mazda, etc tube designation articles should follow a pattern (not very much different to the present situation though), and people looking for information should be able to find it easily (at present I feel the reader has to pretty much know the answer already to know where to look!). I will follow up with examples for discussion (before actually changing articles) as soon as I can. Maitchy ( talk) 23:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
What's the source for this information? The German RTT tube vademecum says special-quality tubes were issued four-digit numbers, the first digit of which denoting the base, after the function/base swapping ceased. I see this holds for the 8000's, while 1000's normally have wires.
Examples: EC1000/1030/1031, EC8010/8020, ECC2000, ECH8000, ED8000, EF5000, EL3010, EL5070/8608
I've never heard of a thermionic or cold-cathode tube with a Pro-Electron designation. Can't describe tube functionality with Pro-Electron letters, too, so I wonder what the tubes part in the Pro Electron article is all about. "1st letters A, B, C, F, T, U were out of fashion in M-P and reallocated; 2nd letters A, C, D, F, L, Y are descendants from the M-P system" could establish historic precedence as well.
Or is Pro-Electron just the authority that issues MP designations? Then I think infos about them belong here. - Mkratz ( talk) 23:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
In the paragraph "Nomenclature systems" we have an example to explain the difference between SQ tubes and non-SQ tubes: "for example the E80F was more suitable for audio and electrometer applications, lacking the RF screening of the EF80, with anode and screen grid power ratings roughly half the EF80". An IP repeatedly asks for citation, because he does see a "screen" in the E80F as well ("Reference shows the valve with a screen despite claim that it has not."). I think this is a simple misunderstanding. "Screening" means a special testing (in this case suitability for RF-use), while the "screen" is one of the grids. Of course, both tubes have this "screen", but only the "commercial" version underwent a "screening" for fulfilling special RF requirements. This was not needed for the LF applications of the E80F. Or am I (a non-native English speaker) wrong with this interpretation? -- Wosch21149 ( talk) 14:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I found systematic differences in the value-ranges of the "Mullard-Philips Tube Designation" sheme compared to the equivalent in the German Wikipedia.
Examples:
It seems, there are differences in both name and numbering shemes for the european tube designation in the WP:EN and WP:DE. While English Wikipedia refers to the "Mullard-Philips Tube Designation", the German Wikipedia refers to the "Philips und Telefunken Gemeinschafts-Bezeichnungssystem" or "Europäisches Gemeinschafts-Bezeichnungssystem". While this can be easily explained by different historic development of this technology in Germany and the UK, it is commonly belived, the schemes are identical. I checked the main source to be sure the value-ranges in WP:DE are correct. I am offering my help to correct the value-ranges in WP:EN if incorrect. To be absolutely sure, we do not have a minor, but systematic deviation between Mu/Ph and Tf/Ph designation schemes I am asking for help to check the source for Mullard-Philips tube designation. -- BEG ( talk) 09:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't "Mullard-Philips" be called "Pro Electron" in the title? In the USA, I've seen "Pro Electron" used, but not "Mullard-Philips". Regards, Nikevich ( talk) 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a really serious error and an omission in this article. Consider this sentence: "For example an EF80 manufactured as a special quality tube would be designated 'E80F'." WRONG. The E80F is nothing like the EF80. The former is a random unscreened pentode and the latter is a screened RF pentode. My collection has both, and they don't even look the same. Another example: EL81 vs E81L. The former is a horizontal deflection tube with a top cap and the latter is a small internally screened output pentode for telephone equipment. The physical difference is huge. See respective datasheets.
My point is: Fix the article. The rule is correct (number before tube contents) but a better example would be ECC81 vs. E81CC (I own both types) and mention that the rule does not always hold. Signed, someone who ruined an E80F by sticking it into a socket meant for an EF80. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.209.56 ( talk) 14:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Nikevitch's question above for correcting the title was answered with a plain "no". Still the issue is that the Mullard-Philips tube designation in the pre-pro-electron phase was in fact defined between Philips (with it's local subsidiaries Mullard, Valvo etc.) and Telefunken, who are not mentioned at all here ( just realized, someone with a US-centered view now removed the Philips' subsidiaries Valvo (Germnay) and Dario (France)...). -- Wosch21149 ( talk) 22:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Some kind soul keep changing the reference to CV valves to 'common valve'. This is in fact a common error. I have worked with CV valves all my working career working, as I did for the UK Ministry of Defence since the day I left school. 'CV' is the abbreviation for 'civilian valve' and refers to a device that was designed and developed outside of the military field (usually by a commercial valve company) that has been adopted for military use. Valves that were developed inside the military environment (usually by a government owned R&D establishment were given initially an 'E' designation (for 'experimental') and when perfected, an 'M' designation (for 'military). To add to the confusion, when unified part numbering schemes were adopted such as the A.M. Ref no. scheme (Air Ministry part numbers) and later the NATO stock numbering scheme, the stock number was based on the CV number. Consequently, all in service 'M' designated valves were given a 'CV' number so that they could be incorporated into the numbering schemes.
For example, an rugedised high reliability R.F. pentode was developed by one such government R&D establishment and was given the designation 'M8084'. It was placed for manufacture by the Mullard company, who produced a commercial version of it under the designation 'EF91'. In order to incorporate it into the A.M. ref no. system it had to be given a CV number (mainly because the system insisted that rugedised reliable valves had to have a 4000 series number, but mainly to avoid duplication of numbers from two unrelated schemes). The CV number therefore became CV4014 (the next number off the rank). The valve therefore became 'A.M. REF No. 10CV/4014' and subsequently NATO stock no. '5960-99-000-4014' [1].
Life was made even more bizarre because with the introduction of semiconductor devices, they too were enrolled into the scheme. Thus a CV7010 although having a 'civilian valve' designation, is actually a silicon rectifier (NATO stock No. 5960-99-000-7010: the Air Ministry having long gone the way of many government reorganisations).
[1] For the curious: '5960' means 'Valve, Electronic'. 99 means the code was generated by the U.K. (America uses '01'). '000' is the sub class of which 'Valve, Electronic' has none. And '4014' is the recycled CV number. 109.145.22.224 ( talk) 16:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Removed from article:
The PL84, HL84 and UL84 varied from the EL84 in more than just heater voltage/current; their characteristics were altered to make them more suited to the lower high tension voltages found in typical television sets where series heater chains would be employed (although still giving comparable output power when used as an audio amplifier). Their RETMA type numbers were 15CW5, 30CW5 and 45B5 respectively. The corresponding 6.3V heater and 0.45A series heater versions were the EL86/6CW5 and LL86/10CW5 respectively.
"But isn't the convention that the first letter just differentiates the heater voltage, when the rest of the designation is the same?" Convention hasn't really been established sufficiently for this to be a reliable guide. Usually you're right, but this is an exception (and the DM71 / EM71 is another striking exception, as you point out). As well as different heaters, the EL84, PL84, UL84 have different cathode areas, and probably different grids, for their differing gm's etc. The anode is, as far as I know, the same, so they are a bit difficult to tell apart if the markings get rubbed off."
Some considerations on the previous discussions:
1 â In no way the E80F and the E81L tubes are SQ versions of the EF80 or EL81 tubes, respectively. They differ too much in their characteristics, their maximum ratings, their pinouts and the purposes they've been designed for. Even in their visual approach theyâre very different, e.g. by comparison of photos of a typical EL81 ( http://www.mif.pg.gda.pl/homepages/frank/images/Mul/e/EL81_MUL_HM.jpg) and a also typical E81L ( http://www.mif.pg.gda.pl/homepages/frank/images/Phi/e/E81L_Phi_IMG_8198_FP.jpg).
2 â Decreasing maximum ratings might have been a manner to obtain longer life for SQ tubes. The Russians often did so. But this, by far, cannot be considered as a general rule. The E84L ( http://www.mif.pg.gda.pl/homepages/frank/sheets/009/e/E84L.pdf), e.g., which indeed is a SQ version of the EL84 ( http://www.mif.pg.gda.pl/homepages/frank/sheets/010/e/EL84.pdf), has extended ratings for all three mean parameters, as of plate voltage, plate dissipation and cathode current.
3 â Besides their heaters, the EL84 on one hand and the PL84 and UL84 on the other are, especially by comparison of their plate curves, different tubes! Youâre simply not (W)right here! How else could you explain the obvious fact that one tube (PL84, UL84) reads, at the same plate and control grid voltages, but at a lower screen voltage of 200V vs. 250V, very much higher plate currents than the other one (EL84), other than both are electronically very different? At least in Europe, from the early beginnings (e.g. CL4 vs. AL4) series heater output tubes for radio sets have been developed contemporaneously to their parallel heated versions with the same maximum plate dissipation. They were given, in comparison to their parallel companions, a lower internal resistance and a lower screen-to-grid amplification factor (Âľg2g1). Thus they could cope more easily with the usually lower plate voltages in transformerless AC/DC radios, providing sufficient output power even at 100V plate/screen voltage. This applies to all series heated valves for radios that were developed simultaneously to the parallel heated variants (CL4 vs. AL4, UL12 vs. EL12, UL41 vs. EL41, UL84 vs. EL84 etc.). So we can say that EL84 vs. PL84 and UL84 share nothing else than three characters within their numbers and the maximum plate dissipation. Also the look of their internal structure differs significantly, PL84 and UL84 being more slim than an EL84 from the same manufacturer.
But there are exceptions as well: ECL82, ECL86, EL36 and EL81, e.g., indeed are electronically identical to their series heated P versions. And there are much more examples, especially in tubes for TV sets.
Conclusion: I dare to claim that two tubes having different numbers in fact have to be considered as two different tubes. Similarities can occur, but sometimes are not more than accidentally. For closer information on each tube we have to carefully read the data sheets, especially the plate curves. -- Menrathu ( talk) 18:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This article on the Mullard-Philips naming scheme needs to be able to be read in conjunction with similar articles such as on other naming schemes (e.g. RETMA tube designation and especially Pro Electron) and to some extent mesh in with the List of vacuum tubes because that duplicates some of what is said here and because it is sensible to use examples to illustrate the naming conventions. I think all of these articles could be tidier, have less duplication, be easier to read, and follow more consistent formatting patterns.
So to kick off some discussion on this (and it is obviously better to get some agreement before mucking around with things) I will suggest a few thoughts here, and then look to get some talk going for other articles. (Which ones? That needs discussion too).
ECC81 / \ \\__ last digits give serial number / \ \__ first digit(s) indicate base (3=octal, 8 or 18 or 80=Noval ( B9A), 9=7-pin( B7G). / \___ one letter per valve in the tube: D=0.5-1.5v A=single-diode (low power) E=6.3v* B=double-diode (usually shared cathode, but not always) P=300mA C=triode U=100mA F=pentode (low power) L=pentode (high power) Y=Single-phase rectifier Z=Full-wave rectifier * Note: some 6.3 Volt heater types have a split heater allowing series (12.6Volt; the default for Noval pins 4 to 5) or parallel (6.3Volt) operation.
Further thoughts, anyone? Maitchy ( talk) 20:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The differences over time (and especially when moving from Mullard-Philips to Pro Electron) that I and IB Wright mentioned above should be made clear to the reader, but what is the best way? I already started with subsections based on the number of digits (a back-door method of slicing the rules up by era). That might be better done using tables... but rather than muck around with the main article page I'll put something below for comments first.
Also to consider: having a succession of sets of rules might be no more help than one big, complicated rule set if the reader is coming to Wikipedia with the aim of finding out what some type number (e.g. ABC345) means. Well, the first response to that might validly be "it isn't a good idea to read through the various articles on naming schemes until you find one that mentions a naming pattern that matches the type you are interested in!", but I suspect we can still go some way to clarifying the facts for such a reader.
It also raises the question: how do we know that such-and-such a type number was made under this or that naming scheme? Just because it has letters followed by digits isn't enough to say it is Mullard-Philips. We could list exceptions (the KT example is in quite a few different articles on vacuum tubes and their names! e.g. in Vacuum tube#Beam power tubes and again in Vacuum tube#Names; in List of vacuum tubes#Other letter followed by numerals and List of vacuum tubes#KT as well as in this article: Mullard-Philips tube designation#Double-digit numerical sequences).
Single-digit numerical sequences
e.g. : K 1st Letter |
F 2nd/subsequent letters |
4 number |
G optional letters |
---|---|---|---|
(Filament or Heater Ratings) | (type classification) | (serial number) | (variant) |
A: 4Vh AC B: 180mA DC C: 200mA AC/DC D: up to 1.4Vf battery E: 6.3Vh heater K: 2Vf battery type |
A: Single Diode B: Twin diode C: Triode (low power) D: Popwer Diode E: Tetrode F: Pentode (low power) H: Hexode or Heptode K: Octode L: Power Pentode M: Tuning Indicator X: Gas-filled Rectifier Z: Full-wave High-vacuum Rectifier |
Pinch type construction valves fitted with European 5-pin (V base) or 8-pin (P base) side contact bases or international octal bases with European basing connection sequences. Single-digit numbers imply some 1930's European pre-octal base such as B5 or Ct8. |
blank: early European bases G: Glass Octal version A,B,C: other variants X: no top-cap |
Double-digit numerical sequences Table with heater options A/B/C removed (as they were obsolete around then) plus new ones like "P" that only ever had 2-digit sequences or longer. The number column would then have a list like:
etc...
but...
Have one big table with all the heater letters ever allocated, all the different uses of the type classification letters, all the number ranges of 1,2,3 (and 4?) digits (i.e. pretty similar to what we have now in the article, and repeated with a few errors in List of vacuum tubes#European designation (with American equivalents), but in tabular form as above)... but.... use something like different background colours to indicate the eras in which they were used.
Background colours are not always a good idea - not everyone can see them. There are probably other ways of marking groups of letters/digits as belonging to an era (e.g. I used asterisks) but it is messy to go too far with adding detail that way.
Make little attempt in the tables (perhaps still have 3 historical ones?) but handle the "invalid combinations" by listing what type numbers were allocated. This allows us to stick closer to official references in defining the standard, and the examples aid in highlighting where they bend the rules in practice, and most of all, it could help readers that wish to know about specific types to see what is relevant.
A very primitive example (with errors, but hopefully enough to show the idea):
Directly Heated | Parallel (Voltage-Source) Indirectly Heated | Other | Series (Current-Supplied) Indirectly Heated | No Heater | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Diagram | up to 1.4V DC | 2V | 4 Vh | 6.3Vh (or 12.6Vh with centre-tap) | Vh/Ih | 600mA Series | 450mA Series | 300mA Series | 200mA Series | 150mA Series | 100mA Series | Cold Cathode | |
single diode | B7G | DA90 DA101 | EA960 [1] EA961 EA962 | ||||||||||
Rimlock | EA40 | ||||||||||||
other | DA50 | EA41 EA50 EA52 EA53 EA71 EA76 EA111 EA766 |
GA560 SA100 SA102 | ||||||||||
Single Triode | B7G | DC90 DC93 DC96 DC193 |
EC91 EC92 EC93 EC94 EC95 EC96 EC97 EC98 EC900 EC903 |
XC95 | YC95 LC900 |
PC92 PC93 PC95 PC96 PC97 PC900 |
UC96 | ||||||
Rimlock | EC40 EC41 | ||||||||||||
Loctal | DC25 | ||||||||||||
B9A | DC80 | EC80 EC81 EC84 EC86 EC86C EC88 EC806S EC866 EC8010 EC8020 |
XC88 | YC88 | PC80 PC86 PC88 | UC88 | |||||||
IO | KC3 | EC31 EC360 EC362 EC55 (coaxial) |
|||||||||||
other | DC11 DC51 DC70 DC760 DC761 DC762 | KC1 KC3 KC4 KC50 KC51 |
AC2 AC50 AC100 AC101 AC102 AC104 AC701 AC761 |
EC2 EC50 EC52 EC53 EC54 EC56 EC57 EC70 EC71 EC157 EC162 EC561 EC760 | CC1 CC2 | ||||||||
Double Triode | B7G | DCC90 | ECC90 ECC91 ECC91W ECC99 ECC900 ECC960 ECC962 | ||||||||||
B8A | ECC40 | ||||||||||||
B9A | ECC81 ECC82 ECC83 ECC84 ECC85 ECC86 ECC87 ECC88 ECC89 ECC180 ECC186 ECC189 ECC282 ECC801 ECC802 ECC803 ECC804 ECC805S ECC807 ECC808 ECC812 ECC813 ECC863 ECC865 ECC8100 |
XCC82 XCC89 XCC189 | LCC189 YCC89 YCC189 | PCC186 PCC805 | HCC85 | UCC84 UCC89 | |||||||
IO | ECC31 ECC32 ECC33 ECC34 ECC35 | ||||||||||||
other | ECC171 ECC230 ECC70 | ||||||||||||
Triode plus Pentode | B9A | ECF80 ECF801 ECF802 ECF804 ECF805 ECF82 ECF83 ECF86 | LCF80 LCF802 LCF86 | ||||||||||
IO | KCF30 | ||||||||||||
other | DCF60 | ECF1 ECF174 ECF200 ECF201 | LCF201 | ||||||||||
Triode plus Hexode or Heptode | B8A | ECH113 ECH41 ECH42 ECH43 | UCH41 UCH42 UCH43 | ||||||||||
B8G | DCH22 DCH25 | ECH22 ECH71 | UCH71 | ||||||||||
B9A | ECH80 ECH81 ECH83 ECH84 | HCH81 | UCH81 | ||||||||||
IO | DCH31 | ECH32 ECH33 ECH35 ECH3G | CCH35 | ||||||||||
other | DCH1 DCH11 | KCH1 | ACH1 ACH1C | ECH171 ECH200 ECH3 ECH3F | BCH1 | CCH1 | UCH5 | ||||||
Triode plus Output Pentode | B8A | ECL113 | |||||||||||
B9A | ECL80 ECL802 ECL805 ECL81 ECL82 ECL83 ECL84 ECL85 ECL86 | XCL82 XCL84 XCL86 | LCL84 LCL85 YCL82 YCL84 YCL86 | PCL80 PCL81 PCL82 PCL85 PCL86 PCL801 PCL802 PCL805 PCL88 | UCL81 UCL82 UCL86 | ||||||||
other | ECL200 | VCL11 |
How do the sources handle the description of the Mullard-Phillips designations? And surely we could leave the ProElectron descriptions to that article. Is it necessary to spend a lot of effort here to describe what is fundamentally a list of part numbers assigned by the manufacturer for their convenience? Give the gist of the scheme, warn that it evolved over time, warn that there are quirks and exceptions, list any of these quirks that are particularly notable...there's your article. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 15:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
That said, the division of the information into tables for 1-digit serial numbers, 2-digit serial numbers, etc up to either 4-digit or whatever Philips go up to by the time the system became Pro-Electron can be easy to find what you want and relates to the historical progression in a reasonably useful way.
The question of what the sources had opens up a can of worms: no one source covers the entire system properly; I have quite a few that display the system with either lots of information missing because that part of the system came later, or has comments like "The use of letters A(4V), B(180mA),... has been discontinued" and may still can miss some details of the scheme other versions had. From my point of view, it isn't helpful to have one big table with all possible heater letters, all possible 2nd/etc letter options and all base/serial number options, because some combinations never occurred together, and because the table would be uncomfortably big (although maybe not?), and because our synthesized conglomeration takes us a long way from the original source data.
I am thinking of (and still playing around with what it might look like before presenting it for discussion, but...) an approach that addresses the needs of somebody approaching this with a question like "what is an XYZ123?" but also is good for encyclopedic treatment of the topic. It also tackles the duplication of material between this article and the list of tubes. Basically what I am suggesting is to have one article listing tubes by name in a table with links to articles on the naming schemes where appropriate, meaning subsection names within this article and the RETMA, Mazda, etc tube designation articles should follow a pattern (not very much different to the present situation though), and people looking for information should be able to find it easily (at present I feel the reader has to pretty much know the answer already to know where to look!). I will follow up with examples for discussion (before actually changing articles) as soon as I can. Maitchy ( talk) 23:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
What's the source for this information? The German RTT tube vademecum says special-quality tubes were issued four-digit numbers, the first digit of which denoting the base, after the function/base swapping ceased. I see this holds for the 8000's, while 1000's normally have wires.
Examples: EC1000/1030/1031, EC8010/8020, ECC2000, ECH8000, ED8000, EF5000, EL3010, EL5070/8608
I've never heard of a thermionic or cold-cathode tube with a Pro-Electron designation. Can't describe tube functionality with Pro-Electron letters, too, so I wonder what the tubes part in the Pro Electron article is all about. "1st letters A, B, C, F, T, U were out of fashion in M-P and reallocated; 2nd letters A, C, D, F, L, Y are descendants from the M-P system" could establish historic precedence as well.
Or is Pro-Electron just the authority that issues MP designations? Then I think infos about them belong here. - Mkratz ( talk) 23:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
In the paragraph "Nomenclature systems" we have an example to explain the difference between SQ tubes and non-SQ tubes: "for example the E80F was more suitable for audio and electrometer applications, lacking the RF screening of the EF80, with anode and screen grid power ratings roughly half the EF80". An IP repeatedly asks for citation, because he does see a "screen" in the E80F as well ("Reference shows the valve with a screen despite claim that it has not."). I think this is a simple misunderstanding. "Screening" means a special testing (in this case suitability for RF-use), while the "screen" is one of the grids. Of course, both tubes have this "screen", but only the "commercial" version underwent a "screening" for fulfilling special RF requirements. This was not needed for the LF applications of the E80F. Or am I (a non-native English speaker) wrong with this interpretation? -- Wosch21149 ( talk) 14:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)