[haywireman]

My main interest is antique radios, including military. There was an old thread regarding JAN tube designations, saying JAN-CRC could be shown as JRC, JAN-CRP as JRP, JAN-COZ as JOZ, and so on. Does anyone here have, or can refer me to, an official document that explains this? I have seen some of the military MIL-E-1 documents but did not find it. Any references or comments are welcome. Thanks.

 

[tomb]

My main interest is antique radios, including military. There was an old thread regarding JAN tube designations, saying JAN-CRC could be shown as JRC, JAN-CRP as JRP, JAN-COZ as JOZ, and so on. Does anyone here have, or can refer me to, an official document that explains this? I have seen some of the military MIL-E-1 documents but did not find it. Any references or comments are welcome. Thanks.

This is an interesting question. It took quite a bit of googling, but I came up with this from the radiomuseum.org:
https://www.radiomuseum.org/tubes/tube_jan-.html

It lists the following:
CRC = RCA
CRP = Raytheon
COZ = Sonotone
It doesn't go beyond "C," but maybe you can find out more from there.

 

[haywireman]

This is an interesting question. It took quite a bit of googling, but I came up with this from the radiomuseum.org:
https://www.radiomuseum.org/tubes/tube_jan-.html

It lists the following:
CRC = RCA
CRP = Raytheon
COZ = Sonotone
It doesn't go beyond "C," but maybe you can find out more from there.

Thank you for the link. I believe the letter C was in use since the first World War to indicate either Contractor or Commercial type. Still, it does not explain the process or authorizing document that was used to create the letter assignments. Thanks again.

 

[tomb]

Thank you for the link. I believe the letter C was in use since the first World War to indicate either Contractor or Commercial type. Still, it does not explain the process or authorizing document that was used to create the letter assignments. Thanks again.

You will find in the Google searches that the history of the authorizing document(s!) is quite muddied, even exacerbated by the fact of numerous typos caused by manual typewriters at the time.

 

[haywireman]

You will find in the Google searches that the history of the authorizing document(s!) is quite muddied, even exacerbated by the fact of numerous typos caused by manual typewriters at the time.

That is exactly what I have found, and the reason I am still looking anywhere I can think of for more information. Most of what I find is nothing more than repetition, but practically nothing that is original. Still, I keep looking.