| Jeffhs |
01-03-2021 12:18 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electronic M
(Post 3230139)
If you're ever near Milwaukee I have a spare 16GP4 that opperated well enough to make a picture in my Zenith Porthole...I don't ship though so don't ask.
IColor CRTs waste ~%80 of their emission on the shadow mask (the rest hitting the phosphor and making light), monochrome CRTs waste almost no emission with virtually all emission striking the phosphor....The good-bad emission scale of basically all testers designed to test color CRTs is calibrated for color CRTs....So on a tester that can test color CRTs if a monochrome tests midway up the bad scale it should produce a watchable picture in a working set.
|
Until I read your post a few moments ago, I didn't know color CRTs wasted most of their electrons going to the shadow mask, with only about 20 percent actually reaching the CRT phosphors. This makes me wonder why color CRTs are that inefficient. I would think color tubes would be much more efficient than what you mentioned. Since color TVs were much more expensive than b&w sets, I would also think the former would be designed to make a picture at least as bright as the latter, if not brighter. It was probably a good thing, IMHO, that this was never mentioned (in laymans' terms, of course) in color TV advertising; if it had been, I don't think color TV would have been the huge success it was in the US and Canada.
BTW, I had two old color TVs, both Sears Silvertone (Warwick), that made excellent pictures despite their ages (they had been made some time in the 1970s, IIRC). I would never have guessed they both had electron-wasting CRTs. Again, why on earth were color tubes designed to produce much dimmer pictures than b&w ones? Given the prices of color TVs, I would think most people would complain to high heaven if they knew this: "Hey! Why is my color TV picture so much dimmer than my b&w set?"
|