|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tube socket article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- This article would be improved by a section on socket base materials. Such as why some use ceramic and others use plastics, etc. HumanJHawkins (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- There need to be more photos and drawings of sockets. Maitchy (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- It would help to have more sockets as easily-linked-to subsections Maitchy (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I have inserted a table that sets out many (not quite all, at the moment) of the tube socket types mentioned above it in the article, plus several other important ones (but f-a-r from all of them!). At this stage there are probably still typos, and missing data that could easily be fixed, and I'd love to see photos and proper figures added (there is a column in readiness for that), but I think it is very helpful as it stands. I mentioned (I think) 3 reference books - actually used more than that. Still missing accurate date information... often is available indirectly (e.g. when B4 and B5 sockets were used corresponds to the pre-1935 naming system - but when was the first use? One reference said 1914 - but that probably is a precursor design (Telefunken?), not a real "British" 4).
Note that the "official" data has some contradictions, e.g. Decal and dekal (often said to be the same, but good references evenly split as to whether it is B10B or B10C). Similarly references disagree on the standard name for the Compactron. Something to sort out. Maitchy (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think some of the confusion over the Compactron name comes from the difference between a socket and a combination of envelope and base; similar problem exists with distinguishing "lighthouse" and other coaxials from octals (even if they do have an octal base, they need something said about them to distinguish them). Further thinking about the best way to handle these details still needed.
I notice some references disagree on the exact dimensions and layout of the circle/array/whatever of pins. The IEC-defined ones seem consistent, but some of the others differ a bit in different sources... especially sources that give metric measurements for what were probably fractions of an inch in the first place. Thanks to the person who corrected some of my mistakes (and I definitely made some), but there are some I am simply not sure about (even ones where I have examples of tubes with these bases to measure, since the differences are tiny. I wonder if there are two conventions in operation here: one to quote the diameter to the middle of each pin while others quote the diameter to the outside of the pins?? Maitchy (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)