Talk:Pentagrid converter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

July 2006 rewrite[edit]

I have extensively rewritten this article. I have included the Hexode, and Octode into the story as there is not really enought to justify a separate article. I have endeavoured to keep the content that some contributors felt was valuable enough to put in the article. Sadly some, I couldn't really work in without disturbing the flow - If you can work it back in without upsetting the flow, then feel free.

I particular, I have removed the lists of valve (tube) types that were used in the All American Five. These are better documented in that article, and it seemed rather pointless to duplicate the information.

There is also a fetish for adding links to valve or tube numbers. There really is no point unless you supply the linked to article as well, otherwise there remains rafts of broken links.

I know that Cmacd123 is awaiting this rewrite. I should be interested to hear your observations. I took the liberty of removing your discussion points as they do not relate to the new article (and some had bee addressed anyway).

This week I am: 16:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mullard not pentagrid[edit]

I don't want to start an edit war. What reference do you have that the Pentagrid converter was in any way invented outside north america? The Mullard design you quote was NOT a pentagrid.

BTW I am NOT american

cmacd 13:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Octode and world info[edit]

I have cleaned the garmmar a bit, and added an link to the Octode. If you have some data on the Octode, PLEASE write an article there, and feel free to compair and contrast.

Again, If you know of any British or other "pentagrids" please list them with their dates.

Finaly, The Information on the BVA has been moved to a separate article by that name! It is naturaly incomplete, please add what ever information you have that is relivant to THAT article.

I really want to see the section on Vaccuum tubes reflect the worlds knowledge on the subject.

cmacd 16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've got you wrong. I find it quite surprising how difficult it is to find even fundamental information on electronics in the valve era. The internet in general seems to concentrate on the more modern stuff and even information on technology that is considered 'old hat' but still in use is hard to find even in modern encylopeadias. Wikipedia is slowly developing reference to these old technologies as people contribute. It is nice to see articles on old valve (tube) technology, because this was the era I was brought up in - my electronic apprenticeship was almost all valve with a hint of the then very new transistor. The problem is that much relies on expert knowledge rather than any attributable sources. I can recall going through the BVA era on the development of wireless (as it was then known). I can also recall that the wireless manufacturers were attempting to develop any technique that they could to reduce the valve holder count because not only did they have to pay £1 to the BVA for each valveholder, but the Marconi company wanted 12/6d (62½ pence) per valveholder as well. I also recall that the self oscillating mixer in the form of the pentagrid was one such development. This was either the late 1920's or possibly the beginning of the 1930's.
Not dug up any references yet, but I have found one reference to the MOV company enforcing the BVA cartel rules against one German company (identity lost) who was attempting to import into the UK, radio sets using triode-hexodes as the mixer. Ths enforcement occured in 1932 which predates the date you cited in the article for the US patent - and shows that pentagrids must have been in use even before this date. The MOV company were to repeat the enforcement 2 years later against another company German Company (Lissen). Interestingly, it would also appear that the pentagrid developed in the US was not quite the same as the one developed in Europe. I am on the case further - developments will appear.
I strikes me that reducing a single triode and a single hexode into a single valve (saving £1 12s 6d) was quite an incentive to develop the pentagrid. Whereas there was somewhat less incentive in America where combining a triode and a hexode into a single envelope would not provide a significant cost saving over a pentagrid (though I am aware that the designers of the All American 5 would save a couple of hundredths of cent if they could, but the pentagrid predated that design). Indeed the UK manufacturers dropped the pentagrid (and the octode) just as soon as they were able build triode/hexodes wihout incuring the wrath of the BVA.
The Mullard design you refer to was not contributed by myself. And indeed it has not got 5 grids, being an octode (though the 'K' designation would have been used for a pentagrid whereas 'H' was for a hexode or a heptode that operated like a hexode). Having said that, the octode is a development of the pentagrid and were designed as self oscillating mixers.
I can now only hope that my old text books surface at my loft clear out in the next couple of months and that I can amend the article as necessary.
In case anyone reading this is confused. A hexode is a frequency changer requiring both a signal and an oscilator input. The remaining 2 grids are screen grids. The Heptode added a suppressor grid. The pentagrid, although having 7 electrodes was not regarded as a true heptode as two grids was used as the oscillator, one for the incoming signal and the remaining 2 were screen grids. The octode added the suppressor grid to this design. Thus heptodes are sometimes refered to as 'heptodes of the hexode type' or 'heptodes of the octode type'. The difference being the design parameters and to a lesser extent the way the internal electrodes are sometimes connected together. Since writing this paragraph, it seems that US Pentagrids may differ from UK ones.

British pentagrids[edit]

Hi there 86.113 ....

I must admit that I have not really heard of any British Pentagrids before I started looking for references. When I first asked amoung the folks who are on the international tube collectors list, They had not heard of any either. After Ludwell Sibley - President of tube collectors and the follow who stores the archives of two american tube plants at his house for the antique Wireles association, came up with the Feranti one. (I guess Feranti counts as local to me, did'ent Mitel buy them, or was that Plessy....

I am slowly collating information. It looks like it is going to be muliple sourced. 13:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I do know that the european method was the separate triode section, often coded with a european Number Starting with ECH or xCH depending on the filament. I have an old Hi-fi with a 6AJ8/Ech81 in it. American designed TV sets used a dual triode for the converter, often a 6BQ7. Of course almost all AM radios in North america were based on the AA5 so they had a 12SA7 or 12BE6

I really don't know WHY they prefered that method. I will guess that Philips had some patents to do it that way, and so it because the style in Europe, (and Mullard although suposidly a british company was like Rogers-Majestic after the 1950's a Philips company.

Mullard was owned by Philips long before 1950. In fact it dates from as long ago as the 1920's. The ECH81 is a triode/heptode (of the hexode type). This is a hexode but with the addition of a suppressor grid to combat secondary emission. 13:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would not want to try to tell you what to do, but My sugestions.

1) The BVA was an interesting group, Here I know very little about them, they seem to have fulfilled the same function as "canadian Radio patents" but were a much stonger cartel, which would likly have faced Anti-Trust proceedings if they were on this side of the pond. I have exactly one New in box BRIMAR tube, and the side of the carton FORBIDS a dealer to sell it for less than Full list Price. That would not stand up in North america for more than 5 minutes.

I did take the former parts about the BVA and START an article about them. In a month I hape to have some new pictures of some tube boxes and I will try to upload that Blurb from the Brimar Box I have.

In the UK we used to have something called 'Retail Price Maintenance' This meant that a retailer could only sell something for the price dictated by the manufacturer. In the case of valves (tubes) this right was ceded to the BVA. The BVA was a price fixing cartel that would be illegal under current European law. 13:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

2) the triode hexode (ech series) are not explained, and the history is lacking. Perhaps you could find some good references on that side of the pond to write the article for those.

I could also add articles on the Hexode, Heptode and Octode, but until someone starts an edit I am not able to add articles. I am unable to register because of observations on another article where there are security implications. Maybe you could start the edit bu just stating that they are 6 (7,8) electrode tubes or something. 13:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I am not sure that there's enough to fill out an article on each of the types - it might tend to look like a stub. I'm giving serious thought to combining the whole lot under this article as, from whay I'm gathering, it would be a nice history on the development of self oscillating mixers. If I don't like it or it looks wrong, it can always be separated out afterwards without too much difficulty.

3) I will be looking for the Book Lud referenced, but you may be able to find it quicker on that side of teh atlantic. It looks like it would fill out articles on several of teh radio related topics.

Will have a look20.133.0.14 13:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My plan when I get a time to play with this agaian is ot fill out teh technical explantion of how the 12SA7 family works.

I have dug up some info on this type of tube - watch this space. 13:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

ALso offtopic, I just got a "OSRAM EMPIRE" 2B7 from a colector in Australia, it was made here in canada. - it is a dual diode triode of the same era as the 2A7/6A7.

Hmm. ITYWF that it is in fact an indirectly heated Double Diode *Pentode* also manufactured by RCA, Sylvania and a few others. Equivalent to a 6B7 (though the later had a 6.3 volt heater instead of a 2.5 volt heater). The pentode is suitable as either an RF amplifier or an AF amplifier. It was made (AFAICT) from the early 30's until after the war. 13:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way if you use 4 Tilde charachers, it will sign you posts in talk,

Let's see. 13:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

cmacd 02:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

PENTA is Latin for 5[edit]

I can understand that the idea is that perhaps a full article on Superhetrodine conversion is what one was tring to do, but A pentagrid converter IS a tube with 5 GRIDS used for superhertodine conversion.

It was CLARLY Ivented by a dude working for RCA in the States. (I wish it was some Canadian) I had the actuall patent number there,

I'm not saying RCA didn't invent it. What it appears, is that it was independently invented here as well, and patented. As I said, the UK version was implemented differently. You are right in one respect: I inadvertantly dropped the patent number - I shall put it back. Rember that Alexander G Bell is credited with invention of the telephone, but someone completely independantly invented it and turned up at the patent office just a few hours after Bell (and firmly believd that Bell stole it). It happens. It happens a lot! 17:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to revert and take all your effort out but...

The stuff about the OTHER converters belongs somewhere else...

There really isn't enough to justify articles in their own right. I think a better solution would be to make the pentagrid article more general on frequency changers (which was my intent (except I don't know how to change the title and adjust all the links, so a bit of help here would be useful)). 17:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

cmacd 01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the pentagrid converter, and that means the pentagrid principle, not the pentagrid tube. Separate lemmas could only maybe mention their use in digital coincidence circuits.

BTW, "πέντε" is Greek for 5. The Latin term would be "quinque". --Mkratz (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Lot scomes out when you look hard.[edit]

I have been looking at how best to clarify this article..

1) The pentagrid certianly belongs by itself, owing to the great numbers of radios in North america that used this tehcnology between 1930 and 1970. (40 year Span)

I'm not so sure. I think it should be a more general article on mixers. The pentagrid has a section to itself. A fair number of the other types are pentagrid type devices in that they operate in a similar way, even if the electrode count isn't exactly 5. North America isn't the only place on the planet. 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
'frequncy conversion' does require a article... Much of the material that has been added on other types and methods of conversion should be moved into that article. The existing material on "power conversion" should be redirected to the existing articles on the subject. That would also be the place to discuss various methods used in solid state devices to change frequencies of signals.
The Pentagrid is a separate item of technology, notable because of the masive deployment in millions of radio receivers around the world. cmacd 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
There does appear to be a consensus in this direction. I will naturally bow to the majority. You suggest further down that you are already advanced on a rehash. Is this the case? If so I will wait and see what you come up with. 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

2) The US designs - acording to the "radiotron designers handbook - written in australia were actually two different designs, over the years. The decription in the article really does not quite corespond to eitehr type. The grids in some are actually just the support wires with no actual grid windings, they extract signal for the osc, without affecting the electron beam in any major way.

What are we talking about here? 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone has tried to include geo-politics and attempted to separate the uses different tipes of pentagrids as being from differnt geogrphical areas. The elctrons don't know where the tube was made or is operating.cmacd 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree.

3) The 6K8 while shown as two separate sections actually has them coaxialy mounted. The European types that are simalar like the ECH81 are probaly the same.

The only photographs that I have of a (Sylvania) 6K8 show a metal enveloped tube, and it is not possible to see the interior. The photos of the RCA 6K8G, and the Raytheon 6K8GT show what at first glance, appears to be a single (but large) electrode structure. But yes the triode must be in there somewhere. Are you saying that the triode is actually inside the hexode? 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am refering to the diagrams the the "radiotron designers handbook" third and fourth edition which show the constuction of many types of tubes used in frequency conversion. The 6K8G and GT both have a large built in shield which would make examining the stucture rather difficult.cmacd 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have acces to a copy of that.
The European devices (and certainly the ECH81) use two distinctly visible structures mounted side by side. I can see the advantage of a coaxial arrangement if only to reduce the inductance of the coupling between the devices and hence improve the frequency response. 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The ECH81 also has a large perforated shield, at least on the german and hungraian examples in my collection.cmacd 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, but on the early Mullard/Philips examples, the shield is semi see through and the two structures are visible.
Have a look at . The lower illustration shows the structure. In this particular example, the triode section is located above the heptode section on the common cathode.
The yellow writing gives the referenced example away as a late manufactured device dating from around the 1970's. The concentric structure makes sense as the cathode is common to the two sections of the valve. However, many common cathode dual structures are built side to side for some reason. I B Wright 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

4) looking at "freqency converter", it curently talks about conversion fo power frequencies, while that would be the logical title for the discusion of hetrodyne conversion in general, and as well as the less common variants. The information that is curently there would have to move to a better place, or be a sub-article.

I had the idea that the link for 'frequency converter' could link to this article since power frequency conversion is irrelevant. I don't know how to carry out such mammoth changes. 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page on that article, you will see there is a consensus to make the changes. seeTalk:Frequency_converter I would sugest that Rotary converter and Motor-generator might also need some refactoring. but that is outside my area of primary interest. I only got into this because I saw someone saying that the Pentagrid converter was a british invention taht never caught on because of british politics, while I was looking for other inacuracies in teh various artiles in the vaccuum tube catagory.cmacd 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The pentagrid did catch on in Britain - at least for a while. The triode-hexode supplanted it, but it remained popular in battery designs where the extra drain of a separate oscillator was undesireable, though this was more often an octode (but the pentagrid principle was preserved.

5) I discovered that Sylvania actually published tech buletin on AutoDyne converters using 12AU6 tubes in the late 50's.. I am waiting to obtain a copy of the article.

The Autodyne Converter predated the pentagrid converter. For example: Airzone Ltd produced a number of radio designs in the early to mid 1930's. Their models 500, 505 and 515 used an autodyne mixer section (and yes: I did forget this important development from the article). Their design notes refer to problems with early versions in that the oscillator was a little reluctant to oscillate. This was solved by decreasing the inductance of the first IF transformer and increasing the capacitance. The sets used a pentode mixer (57) followed by pentode IF amplifier (58), then a pentode (anode bend) detector (57) and a tetrode output stage (2A5). A double diode rectifier (80) completed the line up. The volume control was achieved by altering the detector's biasing. The reason I settled on this example is that the 500 model had an upgrade to a 500P at some point changing the mixer to a 2A7 pentagrid converter. Airzone refer to this as being "... much more reliable ..." 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Acording to Sylvania, the conflict was that AVC would throw off the operation of the occilator, and thus it was not posible to use avc on an early triode autodyne. The P5 could take AVC without problem because of the separate occilator grids. (hence explaining your example) Later a method was developed to allow AVC by using a separate diode, but of course that would have been generaly more expensive unless their was a half a 6H6 unused. Later, using a 12AU6 pentode as an autodyne was posible for receivers to be sold in urban areas, as AVC was not a serious problem when listening to local stations and the higher gain from effectily having the same tube amplify the signal twice, once as RF and once at IF allowed a 4 tube receiver by cutting out an IF stage.cmacd 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Airzone couldn't work out how to include AVC, so they didn't bother. The lack of AVC survived into the 500P model.

6) The need for a converter for superhetrodyne receivers only began after Armstrong invented the superhet.

You don't say. They were around before hand though for other purposes. 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

7) The superhet article nees to be checked as acording to RDHandbook converters running at the lower frequency were popular for shortwave applications.

8) It is still clear in my mind that the device was invented by a dude from RCA.

As I said, he may indeed have independently invented it. It is clear that a pentagrid existed in the Ferranti design department before he filed his patent. This technically would be enough to render the patent invalid if it were to be challenged - similarly the UK patent would have been equally invalid because of the RCA device. The UK patent office would have refused to issue the patent had the US patent been known of. The US patent office, on the other hand, have always been notorious for granting almost any patent application and letting the claimants argue it out in the courts. 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

cmacd 17:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am no fan of the USPTO, I only know what radios I grew up with, and they generaly had a 12SA7 or 12BE6, except for my first clock radio at age 10, with the mysterious 12AU6, which I now have an explantion of how its works.cmacd 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What was mysterious about the 6AU6 (12AU6) apart from it's unavailability in Europe. It is a miniature RF high slope pentode. Probably not too different from our EF91, of which I have 3 examples in service here.
The 6AU6/ef94 and 12AU6/hf94 are sharp cutoff pentodes often found as Limiters in FM and TV sound, preamps, as well as in autodyne converter circuts. They can be overdriven to remove the AM component from an FM signal before a 6BN6 (ef80?) fm detector. (another good one for an article just because of the effort made to sidestep RCA patents - it looks like a pentode but really is not) The ef91/6AM6 is fairly rare in Canada, I think the only examples I have are UK brands, I have not seen a radio that uses it.cmacd 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
All the literature that I can find describes the 6AU6 is simply a 'pentode', nothing more. The only data sheet that I have is in French (EF94), and does not describe it as any special type of pentode, but generally most non variable-mu signal pentodes tend to be high slope types. The 6BN6 is not an equivalent for an EF80. They are not even the same type of valve. The EF80 is a regular high slope RF pentode. The 6NB6 is a strange device known as a 'gated beam' tube, having deflector plates and two anodes. The 6JH8 is a more complex example, but described as 'sheet beam' tube.
It was not designed to circumvent the pentode patent, but was designed to be a demodulator for synchronous and quadrature signals. It found use for a number of tasks in radar work but in particular, in colour demodulator circuits in US TV sets. It also turned up in early Ampex video recorders. Its main advantage was that the gain of the device to the two anodes remained fixed (being largely determined by the common cathode and grid geometry). If two separate valves were employed, the gain between the two would not be constant, due to uneven wear. They were not uncountered in Europe in TV applications. The construction is interesting as the electrode structure is not concentric. Some manufacturers seem to have published data sheets where the pin out in the data sheeet does not match the actual valve having included a diagram of a regular pentode with only one anode (presumably an error as the 6BN6 most definitely has two anodes - clearly visible through the glass). However, the only data sheets that I have to hand are from Tung-Sol and General Electric - both containing the error.
The web site at acts as an index to most of the valve colections in the UK. The entry for the 6NB6 at gives some limited information on this valve including a photo. It is interesting that in light of the comments by the above contributor, they too mention the disparity between the published literature and the valve in their possession. 20:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


The plan is to move a decription of the various types of converter tubes out if the pentagrid article, and explain all of them in Frequency converter. That will leave the Pentagrid article talking about that device in relation to its importance as the major way that radios were built many places from the 1930 to 1975 era. I started several weeks ago just to corect a few minor errors in the article as it existed then... It has been a lot of work...


I will document the material on the Autodyne in the other page, one item I have to find is the use of autodyne circuts in Solid state receivers. I have seen some references of the "in passing" kind that indicate that they are very common in xister sets.

Indeed they were. Most broadcast receivers used them, but some did run to a separate oscillator. A quick shufty at some circuit diagrams (schematics to you) makes this abundantly clear.

Then i have to clean up All American Five, where someone said it was "all costs removed" they have not seen some of the 4 tube specials over the years, in comparison a AA5 is a delux product. cmacd 19:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I used the term 'every expense spared' which was its design goal and therefore an apposite description. But, as you note, that didn't get in the way of someone sparing even more expense.

Literary style -v- Discussion[edit]

I have noted a little edit war where a few individuals have objected to what appears to be an editor's note. While it has to be recognised that there is no editor as such, it has been justified on the grounds of literery style. To try and offer some balance, I would suggest that those individuals who have been continually editing out the offending section, are acting somewhat childishly. At the same time the author of the phrase, I B Wright, (I assume he or she wrote it) is being rather obstinate.

It is disturbing that the individuals who keep removing it have not had the ability or intelligence to contribute something better. It is always easy to critisise, it is far less easy to improve. I have made a few modest contributions, but always feel I have improved on what is available. I believe I understood the point that the author was trying to convey, and have added what I think may have been what what was meant. 23:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I find your change quite good. I actually suggested I B Wright to rephrase that sentence into something similar but I didn't do it myself, as I have absolutely no knowledge on pentodes myself. So I didn't want to risk replacing bad style with wrong information. But I think, everyone should be fine with the current state, even I B Wright. — N-true 23:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments removed by User:[edit]

In view of the original contributor's contention that his choice of phrase conveyed information about the device, I would suggest that as you clearly state that you have no knowledge of the subject, you were wholly in the wrong to just remove the phrase that you didn't like. The correct course of action should have been to have added a note to this discussion page, solicit others' opinions and allow someone more knowledgeable to rewrite the offending phrase. Who knows, with a bit of sensible discussion, the original contriutor might have done it himself. I think I can symathise with his frustration that some self appointed Wikipedia policeman, just deletes content that they disagree with. It has happened to me on a couple of occassions. 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if he does not understand the hint "No inline-discussion on the article page", then I can't help it either. He was stubborn enough to just keeping readding the phrase instead of thinking of a valid alternative of including the statement. Plus, he was the one who claimed things about a non-existing Wiki polince (quote: "cogniscienti", "moderators", etc. and he lied about reporting someone as vandal), not me or the others. He simply started to insult us on our talk pages instead of asking what he did wrong (which everyone told him, of cause.). Whatever. Don't want to go on about this matter. — N-true 14:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do note that the original contributor was given polite advice by numerous editors on how to go about making the point he wanted to make, and that he responded with abusive comments. I still say that a specific source for an assertion that something seems unlikely is important, to avoid the impression that Wikipedia is making that editorial judgement. I would personally say that such an unsourced assertion is damaging to the encyclopedia, regardless of phrasing. However, the rest of this article is in similarly shaky shape; the current wording is at least no worse than the rest of the article. -- Jonel | Speak 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the issues, that last comment has no place here. Personally, I can see nothing wrong with article as it stands (except perhaps the observation that not all of it obviously belongs under the heading - but that is explained above). The last sentence should be interpreted as a personal attack, and that is not permitted. BTW, how would you know he lied about reporting you as a vandal - these reports are not visible to users. Sorry it was N-true that seems to have been reported. 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
When discussing the quality of articles is seen as a personal attack, we might as well abolish talk pages altogether because they are there for, you know, exactly that. Referring to other editors as "children" or "wet behind the ears student[s]" is a personal attack, saying that an article's quality is not great is not a personal attack.
I have no desire to get drawn into the underlying issue. I merely found a personal attack on an aticle discussion page. They are not permitted. I have not seen the comments in your last sentence here so I cannot comment. 13:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As for what specifically is wrong with the article: it is barely accessible to the layperson, due primarily to a lead that is short and assumes too much knowledge; it doesn't specifically what the significance of the pentagrid converter is; the article is chock full of weasel words ("seem to have been developed", etc.); it refers to the "writer" (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references); it often slips into a dialectic style ("it may come as a surprise", "this discussion would not be complete", "the reader is referred to"); it uses colloquialisms ("tough as an old boot"). And that's beyond the headline style, minor grammatical issues, and the fact that the article's scope doesn't match its title. This article needs work, though that's ok because there are over 1.6 million articles that need work to some degree or other.
As I said below, there is nothing wrong with a discussion of style, but it was by its very context a personal attack. I believe that you may be continuing, albeit disguised as genuine critism, that attack, to try and justify your unacceptable actions. Don't have a go at me, I am just trying to remind you as to what constitutes acceptable discussion in an article talk page for the benefit of all users - this does not. AFAIC, I have done that and this discussion is closed. 13:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I never said anything about any supposed reporting of vandalism. That was someone else. But if I were to say something, I would note that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism are the most common places to report vandals, with the WikiEN-L mailing list also getting quite a few such reports. All of those are visible to everyone, and no report has been made to any of them. -- Jonel | Speak 00:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't comment further except to observe that discussion of this subject is not appropriate to this page - it has nothing to do with the article. 13:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion after removal[edit]

Reinserting constructive criticism originally posted by Jonel: "As for what specifically is wrong with the article: it is barely accessible to the layperson, due primarily to a lead that is short and assumes too much knowledge; it doesn't specifically what the significance of the pentagrid converter is; the article is chock full of weasel words ("seem to have been developed", etc.); it refers to the "writer" (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references); it often slips into a dialectic style ("it may come as a surprise", "this discussion would not be complete", "the reader is referred to"); it uses colloquialisms ("tough as an old boot"). And that's beyond the headline style, minor grammatical issues, and the fact that the article's scope doesn't match its title. This article needs work, though that's ok because there are over 1.6 million articles that need work to some degree or other. -- Jonel | Speak 00:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" --Romanski 11:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As a stand alone crtisism, what you say is probably fine. It was however, the context in which it was made, that it was clearly an unacceptable personal attack on an author. I note that your quoted reinsertion has been edited to remove that context to give the false impression that it was not the purpose.
Unfortunately with the huge editing potential of Wikipedia, it is inevitable that most, if not all, articles are going to deteriorate into a mixture of styles. This article is no exception. I note that the article had what seems to be a complete rewrite in July of 2006, but it incorporates much from the original version (which was fairly poor to begin with), so not everything is down to the person who rewrote it (an anonymous author). It has had a modest amount of editing since by various contributors. As a result this article is on a par with the average wikipedia content, and somewhat better than some. 12:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kindly leave this warning in for the present, for the attention of all the guilty parties.

Article talk pages must not be used for discussion about authors or for attacks on them.

See: Wikipedia:Talk page 10:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Links Gone Bad[edit]

Listed at the end under Valve Manuals are

   * General Electric Essential Characteristics, 1970
   * Sylvania Technical Manual, 1958

Niether is a valve manual any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean that the contents of those publications has mysteriously changed while sitting on the book shelf? I can't speak for the first, but the second still has details of many valves (vacuum tubes) and I can atest that they have not mysteriously fallen out of the manual. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Article scope and notability.[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Apteva (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Pentagrid converterSelf oscillating mixers – Octode devices, though operating on the pentagrid principle are actually hexagrids. A more appropriate title is needed. (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the "pentagrid converter", the title even says so. It also includes material on the triod-hexode mixer and a triode-pentode mixer, neither of which operate on the pentagrid principle. The article also includes material on octode devices which although not pentagrids (in that they do not have five grids, but six) still work on the same principle as the true pentagrid converter. In my view the article should be renamed Self oscillating mixers an accurate title which encompasses both heptode and octode mixers. The triode-hexode and triode-pentode should be separated out into their own article.

The article has aquired many 'significant types' that are not significant at all (the entire DK series for example). An list of significant types should only include significant milestones in the development of pentagrid type converters (See WP:NOTABILITY. WP:ISNOT a parts catalogue, we have - well - parts catalogue's for that. (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The rule "WP is not a parts catalogue" doesn't exist. WP:NOTCATALOG refers explicitly only to sales catalogs with product prices, so it definitely doesn't apply to parts that belong to an obsolete technology and are nowhere on sale with few exceptions. Furthermore, relying on individual tube pages is risky, as they may always go 410. -- (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The plural title is not appropriate, and no evidence has been presented that the more generic descriptive term is particularly common. The term pentagrid converter is traditional. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The pentagrid converter is an instance of a larger class of converters. There should be a separate article that broadly covers those converters (self-oscillating mixer does not strike me as the common term). WP has the idea in several places, but not a separate article yet (unless it's hidden under some other name). Converter is the general term, but some times autodyne mixer is used. Glrx (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The issue here is that the article despite being entitled 'Pentagrid converter' discusses a converter that works the same way but has six grids. Further, the article also discusses converter stages that are in no way connected to the pentagrid in either construction or operation. I am unconvinced that there is enough material to hive them off to a separate article without some well intentioned user proposing that it be merged back. I think a change of article name is required, but not the current proposal. This would then allow the article to track the history of radio mixer circuits of which the pentagrid is but one such development. How about Frequency changer (radio)? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Failed move request[edit]

Wow, that was a fast decision. Actually, I wonder. is certainly right about the inconsistency; I understand the term "Pentagrid" is defined as a coincidence mixer with an electron-coupled oscillator; that'd throw T/H mixers out.

Under the top lemma Frequency mixer we have:

Looks like we still have nothing about nonlinear VHF/UHF mixers, neither triode nor transistor. Where would that go? I too doubt T/H, Beam deflection and VHF/UHF nonlinear lemmas will ever reach Start-Class.--Mkratz (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Pentagrid converterFrequency changer (radio) – Per my comment above: the article includes references to many types of frequency changer that do not fall into the category of 'pentagrid' type frequency changers. A name change is required to make the implied scope of the article match its actual scope. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose – who calls it that? Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Who doesn't? It's a common enough term. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
It's even used by the valve manufacturers. For example see [1]. (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
But that usage is in the general sense of frequency changer/mixer. This article is about a particular archaic vacuum tube frequency changer/mixer; it says nothing about diode or transistor mixers. Glrx (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The pentagrid is a significant topic in its own right. Terman 1942 pp 569–573; section names "Special Converter (or Mixer) Tubes" and "Gain of Converter Systems"; the sections also include the (integrated) triode–hexode oscillator/mixer). (Terman also supplies references such as IRE 24 p 207, 1936.) Terman distinguishes between a pentagrid mixer (figure 41) and a pentagrid converter (figure 42). Pentagrid may be a better WP:COMMONNAME. I'm happy with an article about the pentagrid; it is a significant topic. It is, however, a specialized mixer whose details probably do not belong in a general article on frequency mixers. Most low-level signal vacuum tubes are history now, so their details do not belong in a general article about mixers; there could be wikilinks or {{main}} to the pentagrid in articles about autodyne mixers and all american five receivers. The pentagrid article could reasonably cover some even more involved, less common, non-5 grid converters that operate on the same principle; redirects could take those converter names to headings in this article. A different way to look at it is the article could be about the pentagrid tube and its uses; mention of other tubes is appropriate in a compare and contrast. Glrx (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pentagrid converter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)