Thought some of y'all might dig this as much as I do. Bryan Lockey is a vibrant being, judging from his writing, who worked at GEC at Gateshead and Hammersmith 1955-61, right in the middle of all kinds of tube making adventures, starting as a teenager in an advanced electronics apprenticeship. He says he loved it. He's been gracious enough to correspond repeatedly and address lots of my pesky questions about valves and valve making there during that prime time, from an eye witness and participant perspective. I've copied some of our correspondence below; afraid it's in reverse chronological order. He specifically said he doesn't mind at all if I put it up on Marstran for your consideration and enjoyment!
JEFF
To: jawket@hotmail.com
Subject: MOV/GEC/Osram codes and more
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:21:23 +0000
Thanks, Jeff, for your reply.
Now, where was I, part 3!
The Gateshead factory only produced "miniatures" on the B7G, B9A and their wire and clip versions, The wires were all military (CV)versions of the domestic types. I saw some in the RAF Hendon Museum in some serious ordnance. The clips were used by our "General Post Office"--at the time, (it was a national telecomms company, like ATT, only it had no competitors).
However, we did also make 3 sub-miniatures for proximity fuses for anti-aircraft shells. Tetrode amplifier, triode amplifier/oscillator, gas- filled triode fire-atron! I remember blasting them with compressed air down a steel tube at 100psi, mounted in a "steel bullet" into a lead disc, 150mm diameter; penetration had to be no less than 6mm, and the little beggars had to test within 10% of original parameters! (CV122 and CV123, and CV61). George Adamson, the production manager, (on these subminiatures, and the X78,and X79), a real nice guy, was always furiously one year behind becoming a member of the Institute of Production Engineers, as they raised the qualification levels every year.
Many M-O V types were RCA derived. Hence, they were not to be sold in North America.
All M-O V tubes, at Hammersmith, and Gateshead, were tested 100% on the production line.
Date Codes
These were etched into the glass immediately after the visual inspection test. Hydrofluoric acid and a white pigment were used. It was almost impossible to remove. Yep, several boxes of Z77s became L77s. These were rescued by sticking the GEC or Osram label over the error, and re-stamping them.
Bought in Tubes
This must have happened. Don't know of it happening while I was at Hammersmith. Certainly it happened later, as I saw Osram/GEC TV valves with that small coding Mullard used to date and factory identify. The M-O V sharp square date/type/factory marking was kosher, but there were loads of markings which looked dodgy; but were genuine. I handled a huge pile of returns at one point in my career, all were GEC/Osram manufacture, but the etching would have failed visual inspection at Gateshead, and looked like a kid with a white pen had drawn them!
Matching
This was done elsewhere when I was at Hammersmith. There was no time during production. It may have been done by Hirst at Wembley, where life testing was done, or by the Dev. Lab.
The production lines ran, on average, I guess, at 15seconds per tube. The Z77/6AM6/EF91/, for example, was running at one every 7seconds on each of three pumps, 24 hours a day at its height of production at Gateshead, as well as at Hammersmith. I ran U78, N 78, X78, X79, B309, B729, B739 and Z77 for almost a year before we were shut down. (not all at the same time!) Bigger tubes took a little longer to pump, up to 20 seconds a position.
Hammersmith ran about 10hours a day maximum around 1957-1960, for all production.
One of your links to the KT66 showed a KT66 with a KB/L label. Now, what can I say about that? If the date stamp shows it to be after 1951, KB/L was CSF France! CSF probably made KT66s for M-O V, too, as M-O V had a strong link with CSF, as well as RCA. In 1957 I was in the Drawing Office at Hammersmith, and was working on converting drawings for CSF Carcinotrons to the M-O V house standard. (CSF CV6124 BWO).
Colloidal Graphite/Aqueos carbon/ Dag80.
Oh dear! This caused many early grey hairs. After I migrated to London, I got a copy of the McGraw-Hill/MIT book on Tube manufacture. It was hindsight. In the Gateshead factory, we worked on reports from Hirst Research Centre for help if we had excessive failure rates. (above 3%). We used Dag80 at Gateshead on a number of trials on different types that needed rf screening or heat dissapation(disappation?). N78/108, HN/LN309 spring to mind, and also the wonderful Z77(6AM6). There was no doubt that for heat disappation, it was the best thing, if it didn't scrape off and then contaminate the cathode coating when the electrode assembly was pushed up into the bulb. and the Z319 secondary emission pentode used it, too.
That KT66 link also shows a bulb with the grooves/scrapes where the locating micas contacted the glass.
There's a price for everything. A quick splurge with a spray gun--you have an envelope carbon coated from here to eternity. Dead cheap to do. Then life test reports come in. So you now nask/scrape off the coating on the top end of the bulb . Better, says Hirst Labs. Then you scrape off at the bottom of the bulb. Not bad, says Hirst. Then they say, stuff the coating, try this carbon-coated nickel-iron or carbon-coated Ali.nickel stuff for the anodes. Yo! Eureka! Then, 6 months later, ---this nickel-iron stuff is s--t, needs more outgassing(time on the pumps) -- , maybe put the carbon back?
The carbon scraped off when the assembly is pushed in, is loose in the bulb, most falls out on the assembly line. During pumping some of it gets on to the cathode. The carbonates of strontium, barium do not like this. Two things can happen- the simple one is the loose blackstuff lowers the effective cathode temperature, and chemically, when combined with the rare-earth oxides a lowering of emissivity happens. Prevention? A more expensive base glue in the Aquadag to make it scrapeproof, but not degas/degrade at high temperature. So, costs versus life expectancy! Yuo pays your money---.
So, KT66s can have carbon coatings of various lengths in the bulb. Some have none, using better heat radiating anode material. Different bulb shapes were usually based on economics. It was cheaper to use one shape that was consistent with the types being made in the factory.
At the time I was at Hammersmith, the 66 was on line, as well as the 77 and 88. The A1834/6080 was also happening. sometimes in the KT66 or KT88 style bulbs, but the 6080 went back to straight tubular glass when it wouldn't fit into some Marconi TV Camera power supplies ('cos they were mounted too close together!).
The U19 rectifier used a top cap anode similar bulb to the KT88. 2 production technicians, into amateur radio, thought that the 1930's M-O V KT8C was a crap version of the 807, and that the fat-bastard KT88 with its low interelectrode capacitances would be the bees knees with a top cap anode as a TX tube, and so we got the girls on the U19 and KT88 production lines to sneak through 6 KT88s assemblies with top-cap anodes. The U19 line was the only line handling top-cap bulbs at the time. The girls lost some of their hourly productivity rate doing this. Us teenagers had to pay a high price! (4 dates and 4 cinema tickets! My, how we suffered!) Aged/burned in, (not just the tubes!) we took them to the Dev. Lab. Say no more, Pat Cundy et al took over, and that was the gestation of the TT21 and its sisters. Mike and I were both moved immediately to different sections. Me to DET24s, then magnetrons and pulse radar thyratrons/ hv rectifiers. They're not so nice to listen to. But they do light up fluorescent tubes at 10feet.
Getters
These are fired by rf induction during the very last stages of pumping. They clear up any remaining gases in the envelope vacuum. We are already down to 10 to the minus6 mmHg here, unless you're having a bad day. The shapes and sizes and numbers are a reflection of life-testing showing up production problems. A single getter may look rinky-dink compared with a fat cup, or two Ds, two rings or two squares. After its first job of getting the vacuum down to f-all of a mmHg, it stays active chemically, ad/absorbing?, whatever, soaking up any gases released when you cook the screen grid/anode 'cos you've turned the wick up too high. Don't forget, manufacturing costs could make two getters cheaper than one big one, and squares and Ds were all the same to 25kW of 454kc/s rf in the induction coils. The firm that made them is just out of reach of my memory-- ( it was a liquid/unlikely name, like GM making pizzas! (oops, maybe they will be!) Just recalled, Union Carbide.
If the getter patch on the bulb is silvery, that's very good. Some slight browning is fine, too, it's doing its job. When it's browny black, it's done its job. The bigger the better. If it is tiny, isn't there, or its white-- get another one!
Just remembered; if the tube failed on test because of "backlash" ie negative grid current(ions, rather than electrons) , they were given a 2nd. blast of rf induction across the getter to clear up the gas. Many a ring finger was burned, many a watch-wearer found the hairspring a silver ball rolling around the face! These gave a getter patch that was both silvery and brownish. But they were fine, life tests came back with no problem.
A re-cap on Dag-80-- M-O V exclusively used magnesium to coat the bulbs of Z77/6AM6s. This was fired like a getter, and provided some rf screening, and a reduction in secondary emission. It has a very open construction, the cathode "seeing" a huge amount of the glass. The cheaper Dag-80 carbon coating was tried, and was a disaster; production line failure rate was huge, and life was reduced. A blue coating (can't remember its name) was also tried, but was not successful.
12AU7, 12AT7, 12AX7
Yes , we made these at Gateshead. We made B309(12AT7), B709, B319, B329(12AU7), B339(12AX7). The B319 was a vhf/uhf tv tuner type. I see B329, B729 and B739 are given as equivalents to the 12AU7 in some references. All three would have been different, in some way. And B339, B759 as 12AX7. I think that they may be bought in from another maker, and numbered slightly differently from the M-O V types.
We also made the Z729/EF86/6267 pre-amp valve.
Octal Bases
These developed/improved over the years. Costs played an important part. With octal bases being used for AF and HF there were times when the more costly HF types were "cheaper" than the AF ones. Materials were variations of Bakelite and resin plastics. Metal shells were stronger, but costly. used on KT88 and TT21 types with their higher anode dissapation. I guess they helped screening, too, at RF. There was no discernable differences on test.
E3375
I see in a past post I thought that it was similar to an EL36/360, but looking again at the size of the anode, I feel that the suggestion it is "an EL38 equivalent" is right. I'm surprised that an E-type is available in commercial quantities, as it would have been given the prefix A when it went into production. 1974 looks like the manufacture date on the pictures I've seen.
KT88 Amplifiers
One web page shows several KT88 amps, including one using 10 in the output stage. I saw the prototype of this in the Dev Lab at Hammersmith, built on the proverbial "breadboard". It was used for the factory PA system for years, until "it sounds a bit distorted"--no wonder, only 2valves on one side were functioning, and 3 on the other!
I also obtained a copy of the original Williamson design brief and circuit, in its original blue duplicated form. (Gestetner?) Long gone now, after several house moves, and a divorce!
Cheers, Happy Holiday to you and yours.
Bryan
Subject: RE: Re MOV/GEC/Osram codes and more
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:44:43 -0600
Hi Bryan-
Thanks again for writing me back the other day.
Yeah, the idea of the number across from the date codes (within the box printed on the glass) as indicating factory was just a hypothesis, in part because the started putting “Z” there in just that position in 1959, and that code clearly could be seen as a factory designator.
I have seen “3” and “9” (the latter for Gateshead, I take it) , maybe others, on other GEC valve types, but I don’t recall those on KT66 and not on any of the ‘40s –‘50s ones I have at hand from accumulating over the years.
In addition to Hammersmith, I know that (older bottle style) KT66s were made at Shaw during WWII per Vyse & Jessop (2000), there’s even a photo of one from wartime Shaw display (p290). I have felt confident that post-WWII KT66s were indeed manufactured at Dover facility as well for awhile, on the basis of having seen several with British mil acceptance coding, i.e., pieces marked “KB/DZ”. There’s an example here: https://www.tubeworld.com/kt66gen.jpg The “LJ” indicates 9/55 for the acceptance date on that one, so manufacture would have been at least a bit earlier.
My understanding has been that the factory code in this (mil/postal acceptance) system is supposed to reflect the site where the final pump out was completed.
The “4”, “6”, “10” coding is now perhaps more mysterious to me than ever, based on reexamining some codes since you wrote. I had compiled some lists of KT66 code markings over the years, but not very well organized. When I attempted to do this with some available pieces this week, I notice that the number codes seem to be bunched temporally, at least on these pieces. Here are some examples I can verify first hand:
DH 6 (Aug 1948)
GK 6
HA 6
HL 6
JC 6 (Mar ’53)
KC 10 (Mar ’54)
KK 10
LD 10
LF 10
LL 10
LM 10
MD 10
MF 10
MK 10 (Oct ’56)
NH 4 (Aug ’57)
NL 4
PD 4
PJ 4 (Sept ’58)
QB Z (Feb ’59)
RD Z
Now, I could have sworn that I had seen “overlap”, i.e., different number codes for the same date codes on KT66s, but I’ll be damned if I can find it right here and now with these!
Also, I feel quite certain that I’ve seen these number codes on other valve types (non-KT66) outside of the above time frames, e.g., “4” codes on late ‘40s- early ‘50s U52s, etc., so that may have fueled my assumptions too.
I will say that I have seen specimens with both "PF KB/Z" and "PF 4", FWthatsW.
The date coding is explicated several places online and off, but the following I find to be a useful reference site: http://www.tubecollector.org/cv-valves.htm
Thanks for interesting comments on the coated vs. clear KT66 versions. I had thought about asking you why they “went clear” in my original message, but didn’t want to press my luck! Is that aquadag or equivalent applied to the envelope? Over the years I’ve observed that the change (from coated to clear envelope) appeared quite abruptly with all grey through 1961 and clear starting without exception on 1/62 and all later-coded, at least this holds up over dozens of examples seen. Interestingly, have seen numerous examples dated from second half of 1961 that have a uniquely curtailed coating, all of the top “dome” is clear, everything below is grey. Very different looking, I guess these are “transition” pieces.
Some other observations about the post-WWII KT66s, with the “modern” (1950’s) bulb shape, in all cases dating by the letter date codes:
+The 8/48 one listed above is the oldest I have. I seem to recall on ebay seeing possibly as early as ’46 with this bulb, but not certain.
+Bases seem to be uniformly black in late ‘40s and after through first few months of 1953, then shades of familiar reddish/tannish brown later in 1953 and thereafter.
+The appearance of the “Z” as the third character was approx the beginning of 1959 and thereafter.
+Change from “smoked”/grey/ coated to clear bulb starting in 1/62, per above.
+Single “inverted cup” for the getter throughout the grey era, changed in shape a bit but still just one “cup” at the bottom in first three years of clear versions. Changed to double halo getters (one on each side at the bottom) at end of 1964.
+Earliest “Gold Lion” branded KT66s I have or have seen are early 1960 (several). These of course are grey coated.
+Date codes changed to 4 digits starting 1969, after all letters were run through including “Z” for 1968.
+Latest date code I’ve seen on a KT66 is 1983.
***So that brings up another question I wanted to ask: do you recall just when the letter date codes were applied? I’m assuming it was in the factory, very shortly after manufacture, so they would be very close to a “finishing” date for the particular valve rather than a later shipping or branding date (as on many American EIA date codes) (?).
***Another question: You mentioned every piece was tested, were the “Gold Lions” or “Gold Monarchs” any different from bog standard other than packaging and promotion (and price)?
***Finally, it’s a non-sequitur here but . . . did GEC actually manufacture any ECC83/12AX7 equivalents (as opposed to branding other manufacturer’s pieces)? If so, I reckon that would have been at Gateshead? I hear rumors about early B339s and B759s that were actually M-OV manufacture, not just selected Mullards, etc. . . . *As long as I’m on the topic, any insights into how GEC selected a Mullard (or Matsushita, or BEL) made ECC83 to be relabeled and designated a (much more expensive) B759? Many thanks for even entertaining these queries!
You mentioned Wembley, have you seen this: http://www.berytek.btinternet.co.uk/old/osrams/page1.htm
The archive photos and others are great!
I have a nice original M-OV publication on the KT66 with specs and application data from 1949. Would be happy to send you a good quality hard copy if that’s of any interest.
Sorry for rambling ride here . . .
Take care, have fun, best regards-
Jeff W.
To: jawket@hotmail.com
Subject: Re MOV/GEC/Osram codes
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:27:08 +0000
Hi, Jeff,
I thought this was going to be an easy one to answer! Then I thought I'd check what was on offer on E-bay and other sellers of KT66s, KT88s and then the valves(tubes) I was involved with at the Gateshead factory.
I am sure that MOV/GEC KT66s with a date code later than 1955 could only have been made at Hammersmith. The production lines at Hammersmith were "multi-type" capable; I guess the numbers 4, 6, 10, refer to their order from one end of the factory floor, E3. (East Block, Floor 3). I never noticed the different codes when I was at Hammersmith! Probably because I was trying to keep the failure rate of some radar HV rectifier below 3%. There was a bombing contest in Canada in the late 50s for NATO bombers------. I cocked up magnificently, producing an extreme G-resistant version, (just the job for a dive bomber, yes?), but hadn't realised that while the valve(tube) specification said "no connection to be made" to a certain pin, the RAF had used it. The radar died at the critical moment. It(the shit!) came back directly to me, via those date and factory codes!
I don't believe any other MOV factory produced valves(tubes) after 1956; certainly Gateshead, (factory name E10, stamp code "9"), closed overnight in July 1956, with the loss of 850 workers, not in 1958 as the books claim. MOV's contract with EMI/Marconiphone/HMV had been cancelled because EMI Group would no longer be making TVs, Record players and Radios. Staff were kept on to do an inventory, then offered a job at Ediswan-Mazda, 15 miles away. I went to London, at 17. The factory was taken over temporarily by Ediswan-Mazda, but as they were already supplying Ferguson TV and Radio,(who had bought out EMI/Marconiphone/HMV), with identical types, it was sold off.
The Gateshead and Dover factories were set up after WWII with equipment from the Shaw wartime military "shadow" factory. Shaw produced many types, including the KT66. The Gateshead factory only made "miniature" valves on the B7G and B9A bases, for Radios, TVs, and the military. It also made "proximity" fuse sub-miniatures for 75mm Ack-Ack, too.
The Octal and 4, 5 pin production must have gone to Dover, and Hammersmith, which did everything else demanded that the other two could'nt fit in, along with its own production lines.
Incidentally, the rotary vacuum pumping stations at Gateshead were lend/lease from the RCA Schenactady(?)New York factory when it updated in 1942, via Shaw, and looked OK to go on for ever, when the factory closed. All the grid, anode and cathode making equipment was ex-Shaw, too.
There were also factories at Perivale, and Wembley. the latter the hub for research and development for MOV.
So, the letter date codes are the identifier, anything post 1956 has to be Hammersmith, in my opinion; if earlier, it could be Dover, or, if really old, Shaw. (These would have a VT number, rather than KT66)
Right, now some inside knowledge!
All MOV/GEC valves were individually tested. Not 10% tested like most other makers at that time.
The KT66s with the black carbon coating on the envelope had a longer life span. (cos it got rid of the heat better) BUT those that were clear had a better peak cathode current. (the aqueous-carbon coating vapourises onto the cathode coating and "cools" it down a few degrees). And, for all valves(tubes), the brighter/silveryer the getter patch, the less gas was present when the valve was sealed-off on the vacuum pump. And it should be a good size, otherwise it is trapping released gas, though that's not a bad thing, really, as it's doing its job.
Sorry, got carried away a bit over this reply!
Probably a good idea if I save this and send it to some site looking for old farts/nerds/berks reminiscences!
Regards, Bryan