“By pursuing these experiments it is probable that new and interesting discoveries may be made respecting the properties of this wonderful substance, light….but want of leisure obliges me to quit the subject for the present… ” David Rittenhouse in a letter to Francis Hopkinson (1786).
“Want of leisure?” That is certainly understandable! Rittenhouse was the Treasurer of Pennsylvania and had other duties in the newly-formed USA. He would become the first Director of the US Mint in 1792. Hopkinson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, caused Rittenhouse’s temporary loss of leisure when he sent him the initial letter (March 16, 1785) describing what he saw (diffraction) while looking through a silk handkerchief. But should Rittenhouse have taken the time off from his work on diffraction gratings?
“It is difficult to point to another single device that has brought more important experimental information to every field of science than the diffraction grating. The physicist, the astronomer, the chemist, the biologist, the metallurgist, all use it as a routine tool of unsurpassed accuracy and precision, as a detector of atomic species to determine the characteristics of heavenly bodies and the presence of atmospheres in the planets, to study the structures of molecules and atoms, and to obtain a thousand and one items of information without which modern science would be greatly handicapped.” (J. Strong, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 50 (1148-1152), quoting G. R. Harrison), from Diffraction Grating Handbook, 5th edition, Christopher Palmer, Thermo RGL.
It’s tough to say who discovered/invented the diffraction grating. Isaac Newton wrote in Opticks about “scratches made in polished plates of glass.” A contemporary of Newton, James Gregory, studied diffraction patterns produced by bird feathers. However, it looks like Rittenhouse in 1785/86 was the first to build and use a diffraction grating to make spectral measurements. Rittenhouse said, “…I made a square of parallel hairs about half an inch each way. And to have them nearly parallel and equidistant, I got a watchmaker to cut a very fine screw on two pieces of small brass wire. In the threads of these screws, 106 of which made one inch, the hairs were laid 50 or 60 in number…” That was one year before Fraunhofer’s birth and three decades before his experiments. But Fraunhofer did not take leisure; he finished the job!
For an excellent summary of Rittenhouse’s experiments and results, see I. D. Bagbaya, “On the History of the Diffraction Grating,” Soviet Physics Uspekhi Vol. 15 No. 5, p. 660-661, March-April 1973.
The 4.5-inch M-8 rocket of World War II traveled at about 1,000 ft/s near its terminus. A traditional fuze on board the rocket would be set to go off at a predetermined time during the trajectory. Given the rate of engagement, fixed-time fuzes would not perform well. A similar problem existed with artillery shells that used contact fuzes. If the shells could be exploded in air above their targets (or rockets exploded when they got close to targets), they would be much more effective than simply ramming the shell into the ground.
The fuze problem was obvious and engineers around the world were busy trying to solve it.(1) British and American radio engineers had designed an RF proximity fuze, which was based on CW Doppler radar. The fuze included a miniaturized vacuum-tube radio transmitter, receiver, antenna, trigger, and power source. As an armed rocket or artillery shell approached a target, the reflected radio signal from the target increased and interfered with the transmitted signal to produce a low-frequency beat signal, which was then filtered and thresholded. If the amplitude of this beat reached a predetermined value, then a target is said to be within range and a thyratron trigger was fired to initiate the explosive charge. The RF proximity fuze was a closely held Allied secret. The fuzes included a self-destruct sequence to help keep unexploded ordnance from falling into enemy hands. It has been said that the atomic bomb ended the war, but radar and the proximity fuze won the war.
While it was decided to put most all of the effort behind the RF proximity fuze in October 1943, other fuze technologies were developed (e.g. electrostatic, acoustic). There were many more radio engineers around than optical engineers, however, there was a significant effort directed towards the development of a photoelectric optical proximity fuze.
“Photoelectric fuzes were designed to be used against airborne targets. The optical system of the T-4 fuze was designed to see a ring of sky about 5 degrees wide and 20 to 25 degrees forward of the equatorial plane of the projectile. This width was about equal to the minimum angular width of the target at the lethal range of the shell, and the direction was determined by the expected fragmentation cone of the M-8 rocket. The optical system consisted of a toroidal lens set in the outer case of the fuze and a ring slit surrounding a photocell (936 phototube) at the axis of the fuze.
The lenses were made of Lucite or Plexiglas and formed either by machining a plate of Lucite to the required shape or by molding the plastic and machining only the optical surfaces.
Since the smaller radius of curvature of the toroid was small compared with the larger radius, the focal properties of the toroid were approximately those of a cylindrical plano-convex lens. The image of a distant point of light was a line in the case of a cylindrical lens, and for the toroid it was roughly the arc of a circle of radius equal to the larger radius of the toroid.
To find the radius of curvature, it was convenient first to compute the focal length of a lens of unit radius and of the proper relative width and thickness for refractive index 1.49. The required radius of curvature was then the desired focal length divided by the focal length for unit radius. The lens was made as wide as possible without introducing serious aberrations. This width was approximately 1.2 times the radius of curvature. The optimum focal length of such a lens was less than that of a narrow lens. For a narrow lens of unit radius and of thickness equal to the radius, the unit focal length was 2.37 cm, whereas for the wide lens it was 2.20 cm.
The slit, which was placed at the principal focus of the lens, was made in a number of ways. One method was to bring the light to a focus at the surface of the lens block or the photocell wall. The lens surface or photocell wall was then painted black and the paint cut away to form the slit. An alternate method made use of opaque sleeves placed over opposite ends of the photocell and so spaced as to form a slit.
The position of the slit along the axis of the fuze controlled the look-forward angle of the fuze, and the slit width controlled the angular width of the ring of sky seen by the fuze.
The earlier models of the photoelectric fuze utilized photocells with conical cathodes, whereas the later models used photocells with flat cathodes. The flat cathode enabled light from the area seen by the fuze to spread evenly over the entire cathode surface. This smoothed out inequalities in the emission from various parts of the cathode and provided a more uniform response to light from various directions.”(1)
There were problems with the optical fuze; sunblinding and sunfiring were significant. Solutions existed, including the development of active optical sensors and the dual-channel arrangement shown in the patent above, but the RF proximity fuze won the war-time race.
Millions of proximity fuzes were made for the war. “Manufacture of the battery-powered fuzes (both radio and photoelectric) was started in the latter part of 1942 by Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, Philco Radio and Television Corporation, General Electric Company, Emerson Radio and Phonograph Corporation, Julien P. Friez and Sons, Western Electric Company, and Rudolph Wurlitzer Company….a later generator-powered type were produced by Westinghouse, Emerson, Philco, General Electric, and Zenith Radio Corporation. (2)
As an aside, there were related articles appearing in consumer magazines before the war. E&M was new and attracted lots of attention. Here is short note in Popular Mechanics, August 1936.(3)
Phototubes were used in airplane locators, rapatronic cameras, supersonic rocket fuzes, and talking pictures. They were versatile devices.
As we saw in a previous post, phototubes (1), which date from around 1890, were used in rapatronic cameras to detect photons from nuclear blasts. Here is some background from RCA’s 1940 Phototubes Form PT-20R1:
“A phototube consists of two electrodes in an evacuated glass envelope. The cathode emits electrons when its sensitized surface is exposed to light. These electrons are drawn to the anode because it’s operated at a positive potential. The number of electrons emitted by the cathode depends on the wavelength and the amount of radiant energy falling on it. The phototube thus provides an electric current whose magnitude can be controlled by light.” “There are gas types and high-vacuum types of phototubes. A small amount of inert gas in the phototube increases the sensitivity since the presence of gas increases the amount of current passed for a given amount of cathode illumination.”
The phototube’s cathode is photosensitized and it is specified by a spectral sensitivity characteristic. For example, the “S1” photosurface has a peak sensitivity around 750nm and an “S2” photosurface peaks around 800nm. S1 photocathodes can be made to work within the range of wavelengths from about 500nm-900nm and S2 photocathodes from about 500nm-1,000nm. (For comparison, the human eye responds to photons in the range from about 400nm-700nm, peaking at around 550nm in daylight.) S3-S11 photosurfaces have their own characteristics, which makes them suitable for applications in colorimetry and measurement circuits.
A common example is a gas-type phototube, the 927 (with S1 photosurface). The 927 uses a 3-pin socket (e.g. Amphenol 78-PCG3). The sockets are somewhat rare and in a pinch, the 927 pins accept solder nicely.
Before a simple demonstration, it’s interesting to recall an important application of phototubes and an inventor. Theodore Case was born in Auburn NY and studied light-sensitive vacuum tubes in the 1910’s. (The Cayuga Museum and Case Research Lab are still open to visitors). Case became interested in telephonic circuits and began working on a sound-on-film process in the early 1920’s. Case’s subsequent relationship with de Forest gave rise to significant inventions in “optical sound” and “talkies” in addition to plenty of business intrigue (2-3).
“Talking pictures” were made by encoding sound-on-film as a modulation of optical density in a region of the film adjacent to the “motion picture.” In this manner, the sound could be synchronized to the frame. Figure 1 below gives a summary of the system (1). Devices were invented to record sound as variation in the developed film’s optical density and suitable playback systems were created.
At playback, a light source illuminates the sound track on the movie film. The photons transmitted through the film are directed to the phototube’s sensitized cathode. These photons liberate photoelectrons, which become anode current that is proportional to sound. Using a suitable audio amplifier and loudspeaker, the modulated optical density is decoded and reproduced as sound for all to enjoy.
While designing an Antique Wireless AssociationRadio Fab Lab youth workshop on RF communications, I thought that the children might be interested in communicating information (e.g. music) between two distant points using a modulated light source propagating in free space. The children loved it (!) and they built their own transmitting and receiving circuits using modulated LEDs and solar cells. A couple of us wanted to see what could be done with modulated light bulb filaments and phototubes.
Figure 2 is a picture of the first transmitter, which is based on the schematic shown in Fig. 3 (below). An audio signal was fed into the low-voltage side of a 6.3v/6A filament transformer (Stancor P-4089). The filament transformer’s primary is placed in series with a DC power supply (Triad N-68X power transformer, <325ma through the primary, and a filtered full wave bridge) and light bulb. I used a 60w incandescent bulb and a 50w spotlight (as shown in Fig. 2). The DC voltage was limited to about 60v, to avoid abusing the P-4089. The input audio signal was generated using a sine-wave signal generator or MP3 music player to drive an 8w/8ohm audio amplifier, whose output was connected to the secondary of the P-4089. In this fashion, the light bulb photons dance to the music.
The light receiver was designed to eliminate the need for high voltage and operate at only 12vDC and is shown in Fig. 4 and its schematic is shown in Fig. 5. It’s based on a similar phototube circuit that was used in 16mm film projectors to read and demodulate the sound track. This version uses a 927 phototube, a 12BA6 preamp, and an audio amp to power loudspeakers so we can hear the encoded sound. Voltage gain is about 8 and is flat from 80Hz-25kHz. Half voltage gain extends from 20Hz-100kHz. Output is tens of millivolts to hundreds of millivolts, depending on the level of incident illumination.
The initial tests of the photon transmitter shown in Fig. 2 were to investigate the frequency response of the light bulbs. It was found that the 60w incandescent bulb and the 50w spotlight performed from <10Hz to 10kHz! To old ears, that is nearly HiFi using the modulation of big and heavy filaments. I also tried a small 4w incandescent bulb like that found in small flashlights and nightlights and it worked well too. After these tests, I used the transmitter/receiver pair as a line-of-sight free-space broadcaster to pipe music around the lab with great results.
To inch out of the 1930’s into the space age, I built the LED photon transmitter shown in Fig. 6. I used a bright ~30ma white LED (V=5vDC, R=220ohms, C=1uf) driven by the MP3 music player. Wiggling the light from an LED is much less fun, but it is closer to HiFi and it works well when coupled with the low-voltage 927-based receiver shown in Fig. 4. The phototube experiments were well worth the time.
Phototubes remained relevant into the 1950’s when they were eventually replaced by solid-state photodetectors. Photomultiplier tubes are still in use today, although their remaining days are numbered.
1. A. Schure, “Phototubes,” Library of Congress 59-8632, 1959.
2. S. Przybylek, “Breaking the Silence on Film: The History of the Case Research Lab,” ISBN 0-9673366-1-9, 1999.
3. A. K. Colella and L. P. Colella, “Now We’re Talking: The Story of Theodore W. Case and Sound-on-Film,” ISBN 1-4107-9515-2, 2003.
For background music in the lab, I’ve been listening to 1940’s-50’s atomic energy videos on Youtube. I was curious about the origins of the blast pictures. A quick search revealed Harold ‘Doc’ Edgerton’s (AKA Papa Flash) rapatronic (“rapid action electronic”) shutter.
After the war, the US wanted to acquire single gated pictures of large explosions. They wanted to know the diameter of the expanding fireball at certain times in addition to a host of other properties. The diameter as a function of time gave them a measure of yield.
At a given test tower at some distance from ground zero, they would mount an array of special cameras triggered at appropriate times after t=0. Eastman Kodak of Rochester, NY (http://www.kodak.com) developed an ingenious camera system called the multiple aperture focal plane scanner but it needed an appropriate shutter technology. Each shutter needs to open and close at specific times with low jitter. Doc advanced an idea based on a Faraday cell with no moving parts and did the early work at EG&G (Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier). Charles Wyckoff, a student of Edgerton’s from the late 30’s at MIT, was working on an alternative shutter based on ammonium dihydrogen phosphate (ADP), but it was not working out and the decision was made for him to re-join with Edgerton and focus on the Faraday shutter.
The schematic above shows the “subject”, which illuminates a phototube. (The phototube found widespread use in “talking movies,” but we’ll leave that for another post.) In this application, the phototube produces a photocurrent and that signal fires the gap and actuates the magneto-optical shutter. The shutter then remained open for some predetermined microseconds and the photographic film was exposed to the blast.
Kodak had to develop a new type of film for the complex camera and it had to endure the conditions of the test. Below is a picture of a rapatronic camera subassembly.
A microsecond is an eternity today. But in the immediate post-war period, all they had were phototubes, thyratrons, vacuum-tube timing circuits, and mostly passive optical elements. Studying equipment from that period gives one a great appreciation for the work involved and helps place our work in perspective.
Speaking of perspective, while Doc’s rapatronic cameras were imaging megaton fireballs, he was generating beautiful images for the public.
The contrast of the times is very interesting. Below is a picture from The Oscars, 1952, followed by a view over the pacific ocean taken around the same time. Technology was advancing at an amazing pace. It must have been an exciting time to be an engineer.
I’d like to know more about the team at Kodak that developed the camera system.
“The picture is too small!” Pre-war television had its share of critics. RCA scientists I. G. Maloff and D. W. Epstein developed an interesting optical system to help address the image-size problem in 1940. It was based on the earlier work of G. A. H. Kellner and B. W. Schmidt.
A typical pre-war television display measured about 7″x10″ and had a viewing distance of about 30″. The experimental RCA “Large-Screen Receiver” had a 16″x21″ display and extended the viewing distance to ~10′. Later versions extended both display size and viewing distance.
The optical system depicted below was the key ingredient. Notice the design progression in the RCA technical marketing literature, starting with film projection and ending with a corrected reflecting system.
From Radio News, September 1947: “The RCA reflective optical system for television projection is a development evolved from the reflection principles of optical apparatus devised by (G. A. H.) Kellner and by (B. W.) Schmidt. Forty years ago, an American lens designer, Kellner, patented a reflective optical system for light transmission by searchlight or by the headlights of an automobile (Bausch & Lomb Optical Company, Rochester, NY). Twenty-five years later or fifteen years ago, a German optician, Schmidt, invented a camera with a reflective optical system which provided a large aperture ratio and a wide field of view, and was widely used in astronomy.”
A significant innovation in these early projection televisions was the implementation of low-cost optical manufacturing techniques, particularly the large molded asphere.
As an aside to the home systems, by 1947, RCA had reported on projection systems, which placed 70kV on the picture tube and used 30″ diameter reflectors and 22.5″ diameter glass aspheres. The projection screen was 15′ x 20′ and the application was theater television.
There is more to say about aspheres-in-the-home. And for further reading, see:
G. A. H. Kellner, “Projecting Lamp,” US Patent 969,785, September 13, 1910.
A. J. Timoney, “Motion Picture Projection Device,” US Patent 1,753,222, April 8, 1930.
C. H. Fetter, “Photgraphic Projection Device,” US Patent 2,216,512, October 1, 1940.
V. K. Zworykin, “Color Television,” US Patent 2,566,713, September 4, 1951.
J. H. O. Harries et al, “Facetted Correction Lens for Minimizing Keystoning of Off-Axis Projectors,” US Patent 2,999,126, September 5, 1961.
At Christmas 2016, I started volunteering at the Antique Wireless Association, where I develop hands-on workshops and content for the Museum’s educational programs. Founded in 1952, its collection of early wireless, radio, TV and communications technologies is outstanding.
Given all that has been done around the world to preserve the history of RF and microwaves, it seemed like a good idea in 2018 to contribute to the preservation of history surrounding electromagnetic waves of higher frequency.
Currently, my interest is centered on 20th-century hardware and its impact. These informal and unordered pages will be used to highlight people and items in optics, imaging, lasers, and photonics. Some will receive rigorous treatment, but the vast majority will be snapshots that interest me.