:D

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Philips-Channel-Plus-Television-Cable-Converter-No-Remote-CTC6R-/172208192377?hash=item2818687b79:g:U6cAAOSwxfNXOSQ v

Dirty bastid :D

Boo! Hiss!

Can I interest anyone in Chicken Fingers, Buffalo Wings, or perhaps Hen's Teeth?......Of course those may actually come to be, once genetic engineering of animals becomes a reality. :D

Everyone knows that the CTC-6 was never produced because the 21AXCYP22, which combined a glass funnel and a solid metal faceplate, was a sorry failure.

But on paper, it looked like a great cost saving innovation, eliminating the need for a safety glass or bonded on safey panel or tension bands. :D

jr

Everyone knows that the CTC-6 was never produced because the 21AXCYP22, which combined a glass funnel and a solid metal faceplate, was a sorry failure.Actually, I didn't know that, and I was just wondering, "Why no CTC-6?"

I'm trying to picture what a solid metal faceplate would mean. Can you be a little more specific?

Phil Nelson
Phil's Old Radios
http://antiqueradio.org/index.html

Actually, I didn't know that, and I was just wondering, "Why no CTC-6?"

I'm trying to picture what a solid metal faceplate would mean. Can you be a little more specific?

Phil Nelson
Phil's Old Radios
http://antiqueradio.org/index.html

It gave perfect reproduction of any color, as long as it was black. :D

Lmao!

Ha, ha, I get it now. So, why did RCA skip 6 in that model number sequence? Corporate randomness?

Phil Nelson

And yet we have two versions of the CTC-5... perhaps the two ended up being so similar that a new designation was unwarranted? :scratch2:

jr

Ha, ha, I get it now. So, why did RCA skip 6 in that model number sequence? Corporate randomness?

Phil Nelson

Well the CTC-3 was not a receiver chassis, but a convergence chassis for the CTC-2B used in the 21CT55, and the CTC-4 had it's convergence chassis built onto the main chassis...Perhaps the CTC-6 and CTC-8 were the convergence boards/chassis for the respective CTC-5 and CTC-7 chassis.

I think RCA skipped many CTC numbers.

The CTC16 had an X-version - AFTER the CTC17, which also had an X-version, with a controls like the CTC16X, Im getting dizzy :p

Just consider me in the market for a CTC13 and CTC14 :)

Being around this field for a long long time, I thought someone had found a chassis I didn't know existed. They were having enough trouble selling off the CtC5 Series, which then wouldn't make sense to bring out a six series on top of it. Besides the changes that were made to the CTC 7, made it much more practical for homeowners to own.

Being around this field for a long long time, I thought someone had found a chassis I didn't know existed.
Being a lifelong aviation nut, I had a similar reaction to learning about the Douglas DC-5 airliner.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=douglas+dc-5&filters=ufn%3a%22douglas+dc-5%22+sid%3a%224cfecda0-128b-2eaa-6236-8b2e4720a2f6%22&qs=MB&pq=douglas+dc5&sc=8-11&sp=1&cvid=F492D00FF56F47CEBA8BC9C7F3450AF0&FORM=QBLH

Likewise about the absence of Windows 9. I have heard of two possibilities of why this version was skipped.

1. One of Microsoft's significant customers considers the number 9 to be unlucky.
2. Some primitive programs query the operating system to see what version is running. There was some concern that Windows 9 could somehow be confused with Windows 95 or Windows 98. Yes, there are still computers out there which still run in Windows 95 and 98.

Likewise about the absence of Windows 9. I have heard of two possibilities of why this version was skipped.

1. One of Microsoft's significant customers considers the number 9 to be unlucky.
2. Some primitive programs query the operating system to see what version is running. There was some concern that Windows 9 could somehow be confused with Windows 95 or Windows 98. Yes, there are still computers out there which still run in Windows 95 and 98.

2. I hear is the main reason. Web pages also query operating system ID and many major ones use the first digit of the Windows number to ID the system....It is easier to change your OS name before market than make the whole internet learn to figure out, and deal with irate customers and web developers in the mean time...

I think RCA skipped many CTC numbers.

True. Here's a link to the reason why there was never a "lucky" CTC13. From years ago on my site:

http://www.earlytelevision.org/Deksnis/CTC13.html

Pete

Who owns that, do you know?

True. Here's a link to the reason why there was never a "lucky" CTC13. From years ago on my site:

http://www.earlytelevision.org/Deksnis/CTC13.html

Pete

Pete, do I understand this article correctly that RCA developed 90 degree, 21 roundie? Was the neck the size of a 70 degree roundie or the smaller neck of a typical 90 degree rectangular CRT?

Who owns that, do you know?

This guy was located in Pennsylvania about 125 miles from where I lived in NJ, and I had planned to go see the set (and a one-of-a-kind 15-in. color proto chassis he had), but before that happened he backed away. I felt at the time it may have been because I was bringing other collectors into the mix, and he didn't seem okay with that. Who knows...

Anyway, I think I can locate his name and address if you want to pursue this.

Ed Reitan asked at the time whether on not I had actually seen a CTC13 marking the chassis, which I had not, although I still feel the story is true.

Pete

Pete, do I understand this article correctly that RCA developed 90 degree, 21 roundie? Was the neck the size of a 70 degree roundie or the smaller neck of a typical 90 degree rectangular CRT?

It could have been a typo on my part. That is his photo of the CRT in question. Note it is a C74nnn rather than our familiar C73nnn -- further impetus I guess to try to track this guy down.

Pete

Likewise about the absence of Windows 9. I have heard of two possibilities of why this version was skipped.

1. One of Microsoft's significant customers considers the number 9 to be unlucky.


Guess there will be no Windows13... :scratch2:

Please let us know Pete, being a 21" guy I was surprised to hear about the CTC that never came to be.

2. I hear is the main reason. Web pages also query operating system ID and many major ones use the first digit of the Windows number to ID the system...

How then are Windows 95 and 98 not mixed up?

Everyone knows that the CTC-6 was never produced because the 21AXCYP22, which combined a glass funnel and a solid metal faceplate, was a sorry failure.

Sounds like something Earl Muntz might have tried. :D
Kevin

How then are Windows 95 and 98 not mixed up?

Windows 95 and Windows 98 are very similar so the parameters would probably be similar, if not identical.

Windows 95 and Windows 98 are very similar so the parameters would probably be similar, if not identical.

Bingo!