On Jun 27, 4:34=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Ron Hubbard wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 6:21 am, John Larkin
> > <jjlar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:08:39 -0700 (PDT), Ron Hubbard <r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> I bought =A0a bunch of vacuum tubes from a surplus electronics store
> >>> that was going out of business, so many of them weren't marked as to
> >>> what tubes they were-- but they were cheap. One in particular is a
> >>> large eight inch tube that has four pins at the bottom and two
> >>> connectors for electrode caps, one at the top and another one
stickin=
g
> >>> off to the side in an "L" shaped arrangement.
> >>> It's obvious it's a power tube of some sort, but does anybody have
an=
y
> >>> idea what kind? Diode or triode? I don't know if it's a tube number,
> >>> but marked at the base by the filaments is the number 35049... Any
> >>> help indentifying this tube would be appreciated.
> >>> Ron
> >> Could be any of a number of parts. Can you post a pic?
>
> > Sigh... =A0No; 'fraid not. For some inexplicable reason I can never
kee=
p
> > a scanner working for more than ywo or three days at the most, then
> > they go dead on me. Why, I don't know, but I have the remains of four
> > scanners lying about just waiting for the garbage dump. =A0;-(
>
> > Ron
>
> Perhaps you're trying to shut the lid all the way when you try to scan a
> tube?
>
> I'd think you'd diagnose the problem after breaking a few tubes, but if
> you have to break the scanner glass...
LOL. No, I don't do that.... I scan only paper pages and on rare
occasions, a few photos, and within a day or two after turning pages
into .jpeg files or whatever, I usually have a dead scanner; go
figure.
So now I quit buying scanners.; it's much cheaper that way.
Ron
|
