Six 1940 Philco tv's giveaway

[tubesrule]

Originally Posted by decojoe67

I would like to add further from an article by Jack Davis in A.R.C. Here is an excerpt:
".....the 630TS was the first set to use a 13 channel turret tuner. The video IF's were stagger tuned to give a video bandwith of 4 MC and the horizontal sync was automatic frequency controlled allowing the set to lock-in on a signal as weak as 50 microvolts, thus expanding reception to so-called "fringe" areas. The 10BP4 picture tube, designed for the 630TS, operated with an anode voltage of 9,000 volts, developed through the now familiar fly-back method, doing away with the lethal 60 cycle power supplies that were used in the pre-war sets. The high definition picture that was produced was about sixty foot lamberts, almost ten times brighter than the TRK's. In addition, the area contrast of a maximum of 90 to 1 was the best ever. The set was simple to operate because of the drift-free circuitry...."
Also from Ray Bintliff, from an article about the 630TS in A.R.C.:
"....it is apparent that the 630TS was vastly superior to the TRK-12. It's picture size was slightly smaller, by about roughly one inch in width and height, but it produced better quality pictures and sound...."
I may also add of the addition of the ion-trap on the 630TS to prevent ion burn that plagued the pre-war CRT.
Joe

Joe,
The 630TS was a well designed chassis. I have not argued that point. My original post was in response to your assertion that pre-war receivers suffered from interference and poor designs that were improved by technological advances during the war. I have yet to see anything to support this assertion. Flybacks, ion traps, staggered IF's... had nothing to do with technologies developed during the war and were all known before the war. The RR359 used staggered IF's, the pre-war Philco's used ion traps, the Telefunken E1 used a flyback... The 630TS is simply the culmination of value engineering to create a smaller, well performing receiver. While many innovations certainly were in the works and came over the following years, my point was the technology advances of the war did not result in immediate advances to the underlying design of receivers.

While I never had the pleasure to meet Mr Davis, I believe the excerpt you posted is simply his opinion and not in any way a technical evaluation of the two sets. My 630TS has sat next to my TRK12 for 15 years, and in my subjective opinion, they both produce images of excellent quality (being fed directly from a modulator), are equally easy to operate, and neither one requires any readjustments do to drift. The TRK12 has a strong, original crt and is nearly as bright as the 630TS. There is simply no technical reason the 10BP4 at 9KV would be 10 times brighter than the 12AP4 at 7KV.
In my engineering opinion, while there are certainly parts of the design that make the 630TS superior to the TRK12, the TRK12 is not inferior due to a lack of knowledge by the pre-war engineers, or by the "advances" made during the war.

Intercarrier sound was developed post-war and is one of those technological advances that is double edged as David pointed out. From an engineering standpoint, it's great as it simplifies the design (cost) and offers better drift performance (tangible benefit to the user), but can cause problems of it's own.

The original topic I was replying to was technologic advances created directly or indirectly by advances during the war, yet no instances of such advances have been presented.

Darryl