[personal] **JUNK** Re: WTB: DEC PC04 Paper Tape Reader/Punch

[Mike Hatch]

> The thing that is fishy
> about it is that it seems to be a 12V bulb.  The drawings clearly show
> the bulb being driven from +5V, so it seems that a 12V bulb would have
> been serious overkill for that application.

>From my reccolection they were seriousley under run and very rarely 
replaced, they were not "bright" as you would expect a lamp to be.

Mike
Web - www.soemtron.org
Email - mike at soemtron.org

Looking for a PDP-7 (some hope!)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vincent Slyngstad" <vrs at msn.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" 
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:45 AM
Subject: [personal] **JUNK** Re: WTB: DEC PC04 Paper Tape Reader/Punch


> From: "Ethan Dicks" <ethan.dicks at usap.gov>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:55:14AM -0700, Vincent Slyngstad wrote:
>>> Isn't it basically exactly an old-school 6V automotive dome light?
>>
>> It was a dome light, but I'm not certain about the voltage right now.
>>
>> It's entirely possible it's a 6V bulb derated to 5V, but I'm not sure.
>
> I did check that it's being run from +5V through a 2 ohm 10W 
> potentiometer.
> So I thought a 6V automotive dome light would be about right.
>
>> The best I recall is finding an Osram part number _somewhere_, but
>> not being able to find that bulb in their modern catalog and no
>> crossreference.
>
>>
>>> If it's DEC part number 12-04903, then that's available here:
>>> http://www.atlantalightbulbs.com/ecart/nw012104/PHILIPS6411LAMP10W12V.htm
>
> If you have the Osram part number, we can check that it is or is not the
> 12-04903, which is Osram #6411.  That's the lowest voltage Osram bulb I
> found referenced in the 9/1/70 version of the DEC Spare Parts Reference, 
> Volume II, section 12 (purchased vendor items).  The thing that is fishy
> about it is that it seems to be a 12V bulb.  The drawings clearly show
> the bulb being driven from +5V, so it seems that a 12V bulb would have
> been serious overkill for that application.  Maybe that's why they
> thought they'd never need replacement :-).
>
>    Vince
>
>