Admiral lugable - Videokarma.org TV - Video

Electronic M · #1 05-28-2015, 10:25 PM

On Tuesday my folks and I went antiquing. I happened on an Admiral in decent shape for 40$. I don't need more sets now, but I figured what the heck I'll plug it in and see if there is life. I was rewarded with a raster, and decided to try talking them down....Then I noticed everything in the booth was 40% off, and bought it (along with some good LPs).
To sweeten things I powered it up at home, tuned my transmitter and got decent audio and picture.
I sense a vertical stage reap in it's future, and the handle is close to it's end, but otherwise I'm happy with it. Incidentally I now own my own camera (Nikon Coolpix S370), and these are the first batch of pictures from it.

MRX37 · #2 05-28-2015, 10:43 PM

Either that's a very weak tube or your camera doesn't like taking pictures of CRT's

I wouldn't mind seeing that odd little suitcase TV fixed up.

Jeffhs · #3 05-28-2015, 11:10 PM

Your "new" Admiral TV looks an awful lot like the Philco "Briefcase 19"--at least the cabinet and control layout seem similar. I noticed this almost immediately after looking at your pictures of the set, since I once had a Briefcase 19 Philco. Long gone by now, of course (after a move about 40 years ago), but when mine was working, it made an excellent picture.

I agree with the poster who mentioned that your TV may have a very weak CRT, although I'm sure the part about your new digital camera "not liking" taking pictures from CRTs was a joke. (The reason your photos are so dim might be because the flash, if you were using one, was washing out the TV's picture; that or else there was too much ambient light in the room, which can also play heck with photographing a TV screen.) However, any TV as old as your Admiral is bound to have a weak tube, as that set probably dates to the late '50s-early '60s. I'd try a brightener on it if you can find one, although in this age of flat screens, CRT brighteners may be very difficult to find, even used.

Electronic M · #4 05-28-2015, 11:33 PM

It is watchable in daylight, but I've seen brighter. It could be a weak CRT or weak HV or bad gun bias.....I won't know until I pull the back and get going.

Jon A. · #5 05-28-2015, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

CRT brighteners may be very difficult to find, even used.

Actually I see a lot of them on the 'bay. I'd never buy one though.

Anyway, nice little set, hopefully the CRT isn't the problem.

MRX37 · #6 05-29-2015, 12:37 AM

Or the tube's just sat for 40 years unused and needs time to fully wake up

rca2000 · #7 05-29-2015, 12:45 AM

[QUOTE=Electronic M;3134832]It is watchable in daylight, but I've seen brighter. It could be a weak CRT or weak HV or bad gun bias.....I won't know until I pull the back and get going.[/QUOTE
\

And with that much foldover....I would almost say for SURE...you have some bad caps in the vertical and/or Power supply. If the B+ is low...it WILL reduce brightness and pix quality.

I have a whole BOX of brighteners....I recently acquired at an auction for little....BTW. One I am SURE would fit your tube....IF it needs it.

Jeffhs · #8 05-29-2015, 01:27 AM

[QUOTE=rca2000;3134837]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electronic M

It is watchable in daylight, but I've seen brighter. It could be a weak CRT or weak HV or bad gun bias.....I won't know until I pull the back and get going.[/QUOTE
\

And with that much foldover....I would almost say for SURE...you have some bad caps in the vertical and/or Power supply. If the B+ is low...it WILL reduce brightness and pix quality.

I have a whole BOX of brighteners....I recently acquired at an auction for little....BTW. One I am SURE would fit your tube....IF it needs it.

I'm not sure that's foldover in the picture. It could be a 16:9 image on a 4:3 CRT, which of course won't fill the screen. Any TV designed for the old 4:3 aspect ratio would display the same thing. Adjusting the vertical height and linearity controls won't help; all that would do would be to push the black "letterbox" bars behind the CRT mask, but you would still have the same 16:9 image on a 45+-year-old 4:3 tube. Replacing the capacitors in the vertical deflection circuits is a good idea in a TV of this vintage (looks like early to mid sixties), but again, if the video signal being fed to the CRT is 16:9 aspect ratio, it will not fill the screen--even if the vertical circuits are at their peak.

dieseljeep · #9 05-29-2015, 09:26 AM

I worked on a lot of them!
An earlier design with a voltage doubler, made in both 17 & 19 inch models. Yours is probably the earliest model of the run. The seemed to make about three years of them, in both sizes.
CRT is most likely a National Video, so how i'll come back is hard to say.

Electronic M · #10 05-29-2015, 12:10 PM

[QUOTE=Jeffhs;3134839]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rca2000

I'm not sure that's foldover in the picture. It could be a 16:9 image on a 4:3 CRT, which of course won't fill the screen. Any TV designed for the old 4:3 aspect ratio would display the same thing. Adjusting the vertical height and linearity controls won't help; all that would do would be to push the black "letterbox" bars behind the CRT mask, but you would still have the same 16:9 image on a 45+-year-old 4:3 tube. Replacing the capacitors in the vertical deflection circuits is a good idea in a TV of this vintage (looks like early to mid sixties), but again, if the video signal being fed to the CRT is 16:9 aspect ratio, it will not fill the screen--even if the vertical circuits are at their peak.

More like under-scan. Its there with an unoccupied channel of static tuned, and I have not seen the characteristic double image of foldover on it.

I've got a handful of brighteners too, but I tend to refrain from installing them unless the screen is too dim for viewing in normal night time room lighting.

Kevin Kuehn · #11 05-30-2015, 09:08 AM

I have a similar set lurking around here someplace. The cosmetics on mine are pretty ruff, and I think it's a 19 inch. I was saving it for the CRT.

davet753 · #12 05-30-2015, 09:25 AM

I used to use brighteners occasionally, but only as a last resort. I always figured, If a CRT is so far gone that rejuvenating it won't produce a decent picture, what's the harm?

They just buy a little time before replacement is necessary, that's all.

dieseljeep · #13 05-30-2015, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davet753

I used to use brighteners occasionally, but only as a last resort. I always figured, If a CRT is so far gone that rejuvenating it won't produce a decent picture, what's the harm?

They just buy a little time before replacement is necessary, that's all.

IIRC, CRT rejuvenators weren't that common until the mid-50's, when B&K came out with theirs. Anyone know about others, please reply!
I know, Raytronics came out with one earlier, but I never saw anyone use one.
In the 50's, TV techs just installed brightners when the CRT was getting weak.

old_coot88 · #14 05-30-2015, 12:19 PM

When rejuvinators first came out, we learned early on NOT to rejuv a customer's weak CRT in lieu of a brightener. Rejuving made the pic bright as brand new, and the customer happy as a lark. Then two weeks later the jug is flat and the customer screaming bloody murder.
Afterwards we just used a brightener and made sure the customer understood this should extent the tube's useful life a few months, but no guarantee.

In later years, better rejuvinators, Beltrons etc came out and we used them occasionally, but ONLY after the brightener had finished its job, and ONLY with the customer's explicit understanding this was a last-ditch, kill-or-cure measure.