Switch output tubes by switching filament voltage?

[Chuck H]

Jeez! Way to get under the ball Juan!

I must admit that I took it for "most likely factual" simply because I read it in R.G.'s post. As such I've relayed the story a few times with the caveat "I read that..." I found it interesting and cool because the idea that people, especially Americans, in their infinite proclivity toward illiteracy (aluninum, cimamon, pascetti or ascetti, expresso when they mean espresso, etc.) simply misheard the word duct for duck and repeated the error unto routine. The most disturbing thing about this behavior to me is that people who make these errors in grammar can repeatedly be corrected and continue to offend regardless. This, to me, is like nails on a chalkboard. The REALLY funny part is that in this era the people who say "duck tape" ARE exhibiting the behavior I outlined above, but they're the ones that are right even though it's an accident of utter ignorance. So the idea that I've been wrong, for the right reasons, all along is particularly funny to me.

[Merlinb]

1) there's no evidence that soldiers called it duct tape, to begin with.

Exactly, nobody knows what they called it!

2) the tape issued to soldiers was adhesive and was called duck tape. Period.

There were indeed non-adhesive materials called 'duck tape' before the war, but no one knows if (what we now call) duct tape also got lumped in with them during WWII. As Jan Freeman said, "if servicemen really transferred the name [duck tape]to the new wartime adhesive tape, they’ve left no trace". Reports from later soldiers mostly call it '100mph tape' (apparently because it was used to fix helicopter blades )

Read it straight at Johnson's and Johnson's official History site.
http://www.kilmerhouse.com/2009/08/d...invented-here/

That's the point: Johnson and Johnson's history cannot be trusted. It's just a commercial website, no actual documents cited. See Freeman' article:
Tale of the tape - The Boston Globe
The whole 'duck's back' thing sounds like a made-up explanation to me. Like the popular explanation for "no room to swing a cat" coming from the cat-o-nine-tails aboard ship (it doesn't, it predates it!).

(This is fun!)

[Justin Thomas]

Whether someone SAYS or WRITES "Duct Tape" or "Duck Tape," I don't really care. I know EXACTLY what to hand them. My only question is Shiny Chrome, Realtree, Hot Pink Cheetah, or Classic Gray?

This isn't the same issue as when a woman says she got Silicon Breast Implants and the guitar player put Silicone Diode Rectifiers in his amp, where it would make a REAL difference! I guess it's okay for the Robot-Chick fetishists and guys who want absolutely zero sag in their power supply.

Justin

[Jazz P Bass]

I don't know what that adhesive is that they use, but have you ever tried to remove it after it's been on a very long time?
It turns into something like a rock.
(I am thinking 'fools that put it on mixers to label the inputs')
Besides the fact that the poly coated fabric tends to turn to dust.

[J M Fahey]

Exactly, nobody knows what they called it!

You are again using a Logical Fallacy.
1) what you are actually saying is "I don't know,and don't know anybody who does"
Maybe somebody does or remembers, why not?
Yet you deny that certain possibility (I guess there still are some WW2 veterans alive )

2) anyway, we can deduce what it was called: the creators and makers (J&J) called it "duck tape", that's already proven ... now tell me which of these 2 possibilities is closer to truth?:

Imagine somebody delivering the first box to soldiers (or Sargents or Corporals or, more probably, to the Quartermaster section).

- Soldier: "what is this?"
- Delivery guy:
a) dunno but the makers call it duck tape.
b) dunno but the makers call it duct tape.

There were indeed non-adhesive materials called 'duck tape' before the war,

so what? we are talking WW2 and what was supplied then to seal ammo cans and such, and that was already proven (by J&J themselves) to be adhesive and called duck tape.

but no one knows if (what we now call) duct tape also got lumped in with them during WWII.

J&J says what adhesive, waterproof tape was called.
Whether/if other kind was "lumped" is both unproven and irrelevant.

As Jan Freeman said, "if servicemen really transferred the name [duck tape]to the new wartime adhesive tape, they’ve left no trace".

Jan who?
The only "authority" backing Jan Freeman is .... Jan Freeman

Reports from later soldiers mostly call it '100mph tape' (apparently because it was used to fix helicopter blades )

Any link?
Anyway, also irrelevant.
"Later soldiers" must refer at least to Korean War or later , first massive use of helicopters in War.
Irrelevant in WW2 .

That's the point: Johnson and Johnson's history cannot be trusted. It's just a commercial website,

Logical Fallacies 101 : Ad Hominem attack.
In this case, Ad Company/Capitalism attack
It can't be true "because an Evil Capitalist Corporation says so" ... gimme a break.
Go hug a tree or save some Dolphins

no actual documents cited.

The J&J page by itself is a document, written by those who should know best.

The Boston Globe article is the one making a contrary statement, they are not related either to J&J (the actual tape makers) nor to WW2 era US military, so it's them who must supply "documents".

As in: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" , based on the statement "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence" by a certain David Hume.

See Freeman' article:

I have and already commented on it.
Any solid proof beyond a newspaper article written by an unqualified reporter?

The whole 'duck's back' thing sounds like a made-up explanation to me.

You are entitled to your personal beliefs.
Won't argue with that

Like the popular explanation for "no room to swing a cat" coming from the cat-o-nine-tails aboard ship (it doesn't, it predates it!).

??????????
Irrelevant to WW2 duck tape discussion.

(This is fun!)

You bet

But this kind of friendly and finger ribbing exchanges are much better around a table, sipping a couple pints of ale, so ... just name the Pub and we'll meet there.

Virtually, of course, although maybe I'll visit GB and Eire in a few months,and then ...........

[g1]

It's called gaff tape.

[Merlinb]

You are again using a Logical Fallacy.
1) what you are actually saying is "I don't know,and don't know anybody who does"
Maybe somebody does or remembers, why not?

It has to be written down. Human memory for names from 70 years ago doesn't cut it.

2) anyway, we can deduce what it was called: the creators and makers (J&J) called it "duck tape", that's already proven

But it isn't proven. The only place that claims this is that one J&J web page, which is quite recent, and even then it's ambigous: "The tape was originally called duck tape" Do they mean by J&J themselves? Or was it colloquial? Or is it just what the student intern assigned to write that page has come up with? They show pictures on that page, but the one thing it needs is a picture of a document backing up that most crucial claim.

It can't be true "because an Evil Capitalist Corporation says so"

No, it cant be taken at face value because a) it's a webpage- the least reliable resource known to man and b) it doesn't back it up in any way.

The J&J page by itself is a document, written by those who should know best.

Now you need to gimme a break! It's the flimsiest of trash popularist 'histories' one could hope to muster. It's a 'document' in the way this forum post is a document; it can claim and endorse anything it likes, but it's not proof of anything.

As in: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" , based on the statement "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence" by a certain David Hume.

Exactly. All we need is a reference to an original document from the era. No document, no dice! (Hmm, what does 'no dice' refer to, anyway?)

[g1]

I think this article would contain the type of documentation you allude to. However, it is missing from the archived article .
Perhaps the wayback machine would have the original article which I hope contains the ad they discuss:
THE WAY WE LIVE NOW - 3-02-03 - ON LANGUAGE - Why A Duck - NYTimes.com

[J M Fahey]

It has to be written down. Human memory for names from 70 years ago doesn't cut it.

Then the Holocaust didn't exist either.
The word was not used, either during WW2 or in years after it.
Any comment on that?
By the way you "analize" things, same thing.

But it isn't proven. The only place that claims this is that one J&J web page, which is quite recent

Your only source, so far, is a newspaper article, which is even newer
And by somebody absoluted unrelated to J&J , who does not provide any kind of proof.
Comparing both, who should I trust?

, and even then it's ambigous: "The tape was originally called duck tape" Do they mean by J&J themselves? Or was it colloquial?

Whatever it is , coming where it comes from, it's far stronger than Jan something's assumption pulled out of thin air.

Or is it just what the student intern assigned to write that page

why do you claim that?
Do you have any proof?
FWIW it's endorsed by J&J or it wouldn't be there.

They show pictures on that page, but the one thing it needs is a picture of a document backing up that most crucial claim.

Since you are making the "extraordinary claim" , it's you who has to provide proof to the contrary.
Their credentials are proven enough, by just proving they are the original Company.
By the way, any doubt about that?

No, it cant be taken at face value because a) it's a webpage- the least reliable resource known to man

In case you didn't notice, your "proof" is a webpage too.
Now comparing 2 webpages, one from the original manufacturer (who should know) and a random newspaper page, with no credentials nor written proof (what you are demanding) , just ask me who should I (or anybody) trust.
Simple, huh?

and b) it doesn't back it up in any way.

Just by saying it, they are backing it.
They are the ones in position to know.

Unfortunately, Jan something is not.

Nor merlinb .

Just as the cherry on the pudding,no we have g-one's find:

The original name of the cloth-backed, waterproof adhesive product was duck tape, developed for the United States Army by the Permacel division of Johnson & Johnson to keep moisture out of ammunition cases. The earliest civilian use I can find is in an advertisement by Gimbels department store in June 1942 (antedating the O.E.D. entry by three decades -- nobody but nobody beats this column), which substitutes our product for the ''ladder tape'' that usually holds together Venetian blinds. For $2.99, Gimbels -- now defunct -- would provide blinds ''in cream with cream tape or in white with duck tape.''


Now you need to gimme a break! It's the flimsiest of trash popularist 'histories' one could hope to muster. It's a 'document' in the way this forum post is a document; it can claim and endorse anything it likes, but it's not proof of anything.

Interestingly, at the bottom of the ad that ran six months after Pearl Harbor is this wartime pitch: ''Get them for the dimout!'' Dimouts were near-blackouts to protect cities in case of air raids; the tape was advertised for defense against World War II bombing raids, just as it is promoted on the eve of gulf war II for protection against gas or germ warfare.

In case you don't realize it (I guess you don't), an adhesive tape is useful to apply "dimout" (black paper or cloth) covering windows, which you can not do with non adhesive cotton tape, so it clearly refers rto the adhesive tape ... and calls it "duck tape".

What's going on here?
You want to save face by endless arguing, no matter what?
It would have served you far better just saying "oh, didn't think it was that way, who would have figured?" or plain disappearing and letting the thread die ... but you keep adding gasoline to the fire.

Maybe you don't notice it, but you're becoming closer and closer to Jamphel Yeshi , who was also playing with gasoline and matches:

[Merlinb]

Then the Holocaust didn't exist either.

That's not really the same thing, now is it. Besides, those events do appear in documents.

Your only source, so far, is a newspaper article, which is even newer
And by somebody absoluted unrelated to J&J , who does not provide any kind of proof.

Proof of what? I'm not the one making the claim. I'm skeptical of of the claim, because of the total absence of written evidence (and the implausible convenience of the duck's back explanation).

Since you are making the "extraordinary claim"

Again, no claim here. Indeed, I think it is likely that someone, somewhere, probably did call it duck tape, because it resembled the non-adhesive cotton duck ribbon. But whether 'most' people did, and whether that later morphed into duct tape, remains to be seen. I've not seen any reliable reference or evidence for the early duck tape name claimed by J&J, and they're the ones who ought to provide it if anyone does.

In case you don't realize it (I guess you don't), an adhesive tape is useful to apply "dimout" (black paper or cloth) covering windows, which you can not do with non adhesive cotton tape, so it clearly refers rto the adhesive tape ... and calls it "duck tape".

The dimeout ad is referring to the Venetian blinds, not the tape (at least that's what the description implies, since I can't see the original). The Boston article mentions this "From the ’40s into the ’60s, the popularity of Venetian blinds — with their vertical “ladder tapes” made of cotton duck — brings “duck tape” into print more often." The description of the Gimbels ad is frustratingly ambiguous; are they saying the ad was for the definitely-J&J-adhesive-tape, or was it just an ad for 'something' called duck tape? I mean, one roll of ribbon looks much like another in old black-and-white hand-drawn adverts.

[J M Fahey]

That's not really the same thing, now is it. Besides, those events do appear in documents.

No documents on gas chambers.
No documents on cremation ovens capable to turn millions (or hundred thousands for that matter) corpses into ashes.
No USAF or RAF aerial reconaissance pictures showing "black plumes of smoke belching out of chimneys".
Just saying, for you who "insist on documents"
You are turning a minor quibble into a very large one.
And for what?
For nothing.
Unless for some unknown reason you want to discredit RG .
Is that so?

Proof of what? I'm not the one making the claim.

Oh yes you are making a claim.
Two in fact:
a) J&J is a mischievous lying Company
b) RG quotes nonsense.

I'm skeptical of of the claim, because of the total absence of written evidence (and the implausible convenience of the duck's back explanation).

J&J are stating their claims in writing (in this case a Web page authored and signed by them) ; your Jan something too.
Under identical statements, which one is to be believed?

Oh, I get it, anything is trustier than a lying Big Capital Company.
Because your arguments and "proof" reduce to that, and nothing else.

Again, no claim here. Indeed, I think it is likely that someone, somewhere, probably did call it duck tape,

Does your admission include WW2?
Or does it explicitely exclude it?
If so, please offer proof, not prejudice.
You wrote enough of the latter already.

But whether 'most' people did, and whether that later morphed into duct tape, remains to be seen.

J&J claims so, and they are the ones in position to know.
Do you have better proof against?
Post it, we're all ears.

I've not seen any reliable reference or evidence for the early duck tape name claimed by J&J, and they're the ones who ought to provide it if anyone does.

Just by stating it and being the ones who should know best, is proof enough.
If anything, you should provide proof against.

Acceptable proof would be any (proven) WW2 vintage written material (since you insist on it) calling such tape "duct tape".

I'm waiting, but won't hold my breath .


The dimeout ad is referring to the Venetian blinds, not the tape. Blinds are (were) sewn together with real cotton duck tape, not the adhesive stuff that we know as duck tape.

[cyclone]

I want to do it simply to have spare output tubes in my amp. I was going to use 6v6's because I have a bunch. I want to switch the filaments to prevent wear of the unused tubes. I don 't expect much change in tone. Not something that would be worthwhile in general, just something I'd like to try. Thanks for the info, duc(k)(t) tape notwithstanding

[loudthud]

Yer both wrong: Duck Dynasty Duck brand Duct Tape 1.88 in x 10 yds

[Tom Phillips]

I want to do it simply to have spare output tubes in my amp...I want to switch the filaments to prevent wear of the unused tubes...

Keep in mind that the shock and vibration that the tubes in a guitar amp are exposed to while the amp is played and while it is transported are significant life reducing mechanisms. Your spare tubes, if installed in the amp, will be exposed to that. Another factor to think about.
Cheers,
Tom

[Jazz P Bass]

That one threw me.
"Spare tubes".

Put them in bubble wrap & box em up.