ITT MX-11769 tube autogated power supply. Also known as a SLG tube. 273348-31

ITT MX-11769 SELA tube S/N 962375  DC 0549  KM 272864-8

Litton M814-1201  Non gated MX-11769. Early MX-11769 tube with Omni II to  III performance.

ITT MX-10160C  (F9800 ) 272692-35 S/N727183 DC0933   autogated tube with metal EMP shielded casing.

L3 M890-DF3 : L3 MX-10160 autogated filmless tube.

ITT F9800K Non autogated  MX-10160 tube

ITT F9800L Non autogated MX-10160 tube

ITT F9800RG autogated MX-10160 tube (Pinnacle)

ITT F9800VG autogated  MX-10160 tube (top of the line Pinnacle)

ITT F9800AG autogated MX-10160 tube (Pinnacle)

ITT F9800WG autogated MX-10160 tube (weapons grade Pinnacle tube with high halo spec)

L3 filmless autogated tube MX-11769  11769UG-NA-C001-18UM

ITT MX-10160C autogated milspec aviation tube.  KM 272692-31

AEO tube with L3 module and L3 pigtails. Pigtails that say 12034 and PN 204D0167 REV D are autogated. The ones that say  12033 PN 204D0167 REV B are not gated. This is for non factory AEO tubes and the information is found on the pigtail.

ITT MX-10160A Envis tube KM 273296-26 SN 1736  DC 0320

ITT MX-11769 Autogated Pinnacle   282867-9-031 S/N 209623 DC0712

Litton MX-10160 export tube. D/C 0106  S/N 1059544  NSN: 6E/5855-99-9216843   FOM limited export tube

Litton MX-10160 export tube D/C 0001 S/N 1049818   NSN: SE/5855-99-9216843  FOM limited export tube sold to Sweden

Photonis Supergen : Those with designation ending with 5 (XX2555) are not autogated. Those ending with 0 (XX2550) are autogated.

ITT MX-11769 NSN 5855-01-444-3916    ID NO. 80063-A3256350  Omni V and not gated. Contract DAAB0701DN413 (L3) or DAAB0701DN414 (ITT) - Both are Omni V. No contract number on milspec tube.

All your image embeds are broken, but I did get a look at the pictures.

Very interesting. Looks like a L3 M890 that someone has removed the label from, potentially to tweak the gain and brightness pots, then repotted them.

Maybe it's a legitimate m890 that's not been toyed with, or maybe it's a dying tube that someone cranked up the gain and brightness.


What's the image look like?

Don't take my word on this, but I feel like that black area at the edge of the screen is just a manufacturing mishap. I don't know / remember the name for that, but I would be more worried if it was on the photocathode side. Seen that in many tubes (in pics only except 1) in varying degrees.

Thanks for your opinions.
I'll try to make some decent photo thru tube.

Here is some photos I already have.

https://ibb.co/jH4qLm
This was taken on shooting range about month ago

https://ibb.co/kcpUD6
This is from my girlfriend's garden (a lot of ambient light was present).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwulZzXMeds     (Sorry, I can't import video url thru post editor...)
Here is video from shooting range.

Thanks

Looks like a good tube to me. There's a lot of people in the US that are jealous of that one's image. Gain looks good, high light resolution looks alright, and it doesn't have much noise.

Was that full moon, or was there some lighting off to the left of the frame? Cool match BTW. I wish there were enough people around here who wanted night matches like that.

I don't remember how much of moon lighting was present, bud I think it was at least 1/2 moon.
And there was some random lighting in back, so that shooting wall was relatively visible even with naked eye.
That garden photo was shot from door site of building, that was lighted pretty lot. (Lighted hanging flower can be seen on top of the image. Building was on the left.)
And finally on the video. Definetly there was some light source on the left (Lots of shadows are visible.), but I don't remember what was it.  I think, that there was some referee tent.
I also love these events and wish more of them.
Thanks a lot for your input.
I'll try to make some better photos and 'll post them.

hi,

any info about this Astroscope tube would be greatly appreciated.
it should be a sub FOM1600 exportable civvy tube,right?



TIA

It's impossible to tell tube specs without actually handling the tube and the correct test equipment. Probably an export tube, because the N means non-autogated. DoS has long been denying autogated tubes for export.

The model number is right there, f9800SELN, so that should be easy to look up in your favourite search engine. Looks like mx1060 form-factor.

Hello folks.
Here are promised photos and video.
It was made with old camera, so video is crappy, but it shows edges of tube picture, to determine what actually is that black flat area that is also visible on screen side of tube on the photo few posts above.
Lighting conditions was full moon with overcast, so there was pretty good ambient light, but not as much as it is with clear sky.
Thanks a lot for any opinions. (Tube performance, that black area, etc...)

https://imgur.com/a/6ohuy

https://imgur.com/a/9G2lX

https://imgur.com/a/ur2Kw

https://imgur.com/a/bPUnj

https://youtu.be/dyH7bO9l1dE

@10mmillie , did you ever find out anything about this tube?

No I never found out anything else.

Heres one i just got in to rebuild for a customer. I know what it is, but im curious as to hiw well known this tube is. Who can identify this one?

<a href="http://s1361.photobucket.com/user/dts-blackout25/media/20171121_125837_zpsskmlkh2p.jpg.html"></a>

<a href="http://s1361.photobucket.com/user/dts-blackout25/media/20171121_125956_zpsdm1c5pob.jpg.html"></a>

<a href="http://s1361.photobucket.com/user/dts-blackout25/media/20171121_125901_zpsgssc1iq9.jpg.html"></a>

ITT, and DC says it's non-autogating... Other than that, nope, totally outside of my wheel house.

Someone with more commercial NV knowledge want to step in?

ETA: Is this what a fat anvis looks like?

Well i think i may end up having to just reveal what it is as i dont think many will know. But i will keep letting people try to identify for a while just in case someone does know. I dont want to cave in so soon as that ruins the fun. Heres a hint, it is an aviation tube and it isnt commercial. Ed repairs the units these are utilized in and got permission from the Air Force Captain, who is in charge of inventory and maintenancing of these devices, to send me any tubes he finds that are bad for rebuilding. The tubes are rare even for the military. I was just curious if there was anyone around here that may have seen one these before, most likely someone who was active duty AF within the last 7-8 years. . there must be someone who has at least seen a oicture of one. I know its rsre but im trying to guage how rare.

Fat ANVIS tubes were not an oem production tube actually. They were contracted to be built by a larger well known company that potted tubes at time and actually still pot tubes today. The fat ANVIS was a 10160 module custom fitted and mated to an mx-10130 power supply and potted in a modified 10130 boot with flying leads coming out of the boot to to connect to the batery circuit in the pvs-5. If you think about it it kind of makes sense when you realize that you have never heard the tube reffered to by any military nomenclature. It only is known reallu by fat ANVIS snd thats because as far as i have been able to tell there is no other nomenclature thst was ever given to the tube. I think its Kinda funny that it wasnt called something other than Fat ANVIS.

Ahhhh, ok. Now I think I know what it is. Where are the other three? I know Ed tells people who are authorized those -10s to up their MTOE to as much as their higher HQ will allow, since they're almost impossible to get parts for and you have to cannibalize.

Good to know on the fat anvis, I've never actually seen one, and now it makes sense why, and why I've never seen any official nomenclature too.

ETA: My bad, I just looked them up in FEDLOG, they're no longer supported, and nobody makes parts anymore, at all.

Yes you deffinitly know what they are. Nice. And yes they must be cannibalized for replacement parts although Ed did tell me the other day he could order the power supplies new from ITT/Harris. Maybe he was mistaken or maybe they have a surplus of new old stock that they sell of when they are requested for purchase, which i doubt is very often. I dont know for sure but Ed and i trust each other 100% so i believe what he told me when he said that i am am the only one who is working on these tubes at this time. So i just wanted to see if i could find anyone else who knew what the tubes are and what device they are used in. And the other 3 are still with Ed in one of the devices he is working on. This was the only bad one this time in the lot of -10's he was sent to repair.

ETA: I forgot to add that these tubes are 16mm and not the normal 18mm. Also the tube modules are about half the size of the 10160/11769 modules. It looks rather funny when you set them next to each other to compare as the 16mm module is so much smaller than the 18mm module yet they use power supplies that are about the same size as L-3's 10160/11769's use but tge 16mm tube power supplies have a smaller through hole due to the smaller circumference of the FO inverter and the area where the module rests on the PS has three raised nubs that the module seats on and leaves an void underneath between the power supply top surface and the bottom of the module so that the potting material can fill into that area. Also the power supply has an extra wire coming out of it that connects to a second contact pad to to the right of the positive contact and is also isolated from the rest of the metal housing, which is the negative contact. This extra contact pad is for the brightness adjustment control that is integrated into the -10 the housings. Ed told me that the adjustments are for matching the tubes brightness so they are the same, which would be neccesarry for aviation.

<a href="http://s1361.photobucket.com/user/dts-blackout25/media/20171127_001930_zpscnm2izig.jpg.html"></a>

<a href="http://s1361.photobucket.com/user/dts-blackout25/media/20171127_001825_zpsekae5irs.jpg.html"></a>

I got brave and removed the ocular. The power supply is a KM 272069-8 date 04 16. What kind of tube do I have?

Civilian thin-filmed F9800N, Select Alpha.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/tube_id/18-378870/

Thanks for the info, is this a pretty decent tube and can it handle 5.56 recoil?

ITT F9815K
Serial: 4027XXX

Has anyone seen an Exelis NV5050A-X7C tube before? I can't find any information on it on the internet, and would love some information before I try to buy it.
It's hard to see but it may read SN 1602 90 411
and the other number below is 1158101

Picture: https://imgur.com/a/3Pn9b

Thanks!

Thats an ITT/Exelis Everest tube. Thin filmed tube with autogated Everest power supply

Any idea what I can expect for specs on this?  Do they have manual gain or is it autogain?

I have an older version of this tube. I found the same information you stated but Would mine be Autogated as well? Very happy with this one btw.

MX-11769/UV
ID NO 80063-A3297310
NSN 5855-01-504-4590
CAGE 55311
CONTR DAAB07-02-C-J010
CAD 06/19
WAR EXP. Jul 09

Its hard to say what a tube will perform like without actually seeing it with your own eyes, but i would say specs on this one to be roughly omni 8 equivalent. that one is a manual gain 11769 format Everest. There are also 10160 format Everest tubes as well as 10130 format Everest tubes. 10160 and 10130 formats will be automatic gain models.

Any idea on this tube?

That is another Everest tube. Harris is basically ITT.

dts-blackout25, do you know when ITT started using the Everest power supply?

i cant recall off the top of my head, but im sure i have an approximate time frame somewhere in the notes i keep. Ill look thru them and see if i can find it. I want to say that they have been around since around 2010-11 but i am not positive without checking my notes.

Last I saw one of those, offset with one side shaved, it was an ITT special build, in 2013, and I think was a 16mm tube from a aviation quad-eye.

But I could be wrong. They had one in the trailer and were showing it to people.

David.

You got it pretty much. F9821UG. Theres also an F9821AG. They are 16mm tube used in the ANVIS 10 aviation units which do have panoramic quad-eye configuration.

Yes id think if one saw this tube in person, even only one time, you would remember what it was for the most part the next time you saw one. even if it had been a long time since first seeing one. They are just so different looking than the normal formats that it seems like it would be hard to forget about seeing one in the past. So odd looking.

When Ed sent the first one too me i hadnt even ever heard of an F9821ug or ag, much less seen one. and then he told me that all parts need to be salvaged from bad units and that noone else works on these tube and i had to figure out how to depot and save every part without damaging it so the good part would be salvageable and able to be used in the next rebuild he sends me to do. And then he adds thay the tubes are ownd by either LEA agencies or are Mil tubes. He also tells me he would need all the bad parts that cant be used back, but would need me to build and pot the bad parts into completely non working, paperweight tubes so that he can install them into other empty housings that he has that are missing tubes so that they weigh the correct weight so they can be catalogued back into the inventories they had each originally come from. i was trying not to hyperventilate from all of what he had told me that needed to be done with these tubes and i had to figure it all out as i went with no one to ask any questions i may have or to seek advice from if i got stuck on something. Theres no one else with experience with these tubes that i could learn from.  Not even Ed could help with how to go about getting the thing depotted without dqmgong tje metallic boot and the other parts. I thought i was gonna screw it up so bad and causr all kinds of unwanted trouble for Ed and I. I sat and looked at the damn thing for so long trying to come up with the best way to depot the tube, but was coming up blank. I finally realized thati was overthinking it way to much and thats never a good thing to do when trying something the first time. Just gets a person all psyked out which is usually the reason that things result badly for them. So i just dove into it headfirst and found it to be way less difficult and far less complicated than i had thought it would be beforehand. It was fun having to figure out how to rebuild and repsir these tubes without any prior knowledge and without anyone with the experience of working on them to help me out at all, to rebuild them though for sure.

Hi Guys,  new here, so hello to all. I'm  just about to buy a tube (depending on your comments) , it's as follows, many thanks.

MX 10160B/AVS 6
CAGE: 55311
NSN: 5855 01 473 6076
DAAB07 98 C J418
EXPIRES SEP 09
ID NUM: 80063 A3279453

Hi Dino, or anyone else on this thread

Apologies.... im a noob here, so i dont really know what im doing yet.

Im about to buy (potentially) this tube:

MX 10160B/AVS 6
CAGE: 55311
NSN: 5855 01 473 6076

UPDATED, I GOT THE REST OF THE NUMBERS!!
DAAB07 98 C J418
EXPIRES SEP 09
ID NUM: 80063 A3279453

Any ideas.  Thank you kindly, and HELLO to all, great forum, great posts and good to be here,   Andy UK.    P.S: MURTIS Im struggling to email you back buddy, cant seem to send you a message, i have found more out about this tube >>

From my basic research on nsn.com, it appears to be a mil-spec 2001 gen 3 Omni V.   But till not sure, desperately need some help before i purchase!!!!   Thanks.   Any replies please put it on here, i cannot access my private messages for some reason, thank you.
http://cubeupload.com/im/andy2640/IMG2303.jpg
http://cubeupload.com/im/andy2640/IMG2287.jpg
http://cubeupload.com/im/andy2640/IMG2312.jpghttp://cubeupload.com/im/andy2640/IMG2306.jpg

BUMP... Ive found the NSN number in full, and uploaded pictures of the tube. HELP!!  Thanks all ;-)

The contract number is also OMNI V. Those are very nice tubes as long as it’s not all beat up.

Thanks for contacting me Norbs.  What do you make of the pictures i supplied?

From what i can tell from NSNnow.com, this tube is a high FOM up to around a max of...  2450???  That seems a little high to me.  Also this maybe the Litton experimental tube called gen 4. But after the competition from ITT they lost the contract to ITT, some say this was a shame cus the film-less tech in this was sweet, if a little undeveloped..  here is some info from a previous forum post regarding its max specs:

mx10160B
Res. > 72
2100 uA/lm
SNR > 36
30000-80000 gain
FOM> 2592.
HALO - 0.4 - 1.25  (why it cant be good for recoil)
Gen4 T-ANVIS

I struggle to think it could be this high, and i know this is maximum spec sheet, but would anyone say that this tube (with pics attached) is really around even around >  65 res   -  26 SNR

- uA/lm  1800???

Desperate for someone with some top notch info to help me out.   Will have to contact the buyer soon.   Thanks Norbs, much appreciated buddy.

I have the exact same tube. The contract number has been "XXX'ed" out with laser engraving, presumably by the manufacturer. I called Harris and they couldn’t give me any information on it. My assumption is that it was re-manufactured at some point and they didn't keep track of the old serial numbers.

The mx-10160b made by litton was the first filmless tube with a GaAs photocathode that was developed for use in night vision devices and was sold under contract for use in avators night vision systems. The problem with the 10160b was that the film was removed and the mcp was scrubbed to remove positive ions. The scrubbing process was a very tedious and expensive process and in the end was not a very efficient method to remove positive ions and many of the positive ions would remain and be reldased during the secondady electron emission process and  would reflect onto the photocathode which is not a good thimg for the PC as it causes damage to it in the form of PC poisoning and this would manifest itself as large dark spots or blobs and eventually the tube will fail prematurely due to the photocathode being poisoned to the point that it no longer is able to convert photns to electrons to begin the secondary electron emission process. The mx-10160b was pulled from service and gen 4 designation was redacted, gen 3+ was designated to thin filmed autogated tubes( ITT 10160c). the remainig tubes that were pulled from service and sold to companies who sell devices on the commercial market. That most likely why the contract is xxx'ed out on your tube. Alot of these tubes seemed to have been bought by ATN and the like and i see them marketed in their rifle scopes alot as they will market them as gen 4 units. That can only meqn they have on of those 10160b tubes inside.  and using these autogated tubes that had small halo values that were originally meant for aviation purposes in a rifle scope is a recipe for alot of dead or damaged tubes due to recoil shock where the MC strrikes the photocathode and leaves a giant burn on the PC that is seen in the image, if it isnt damge to the point where it no longer works at all that is. As for the high FOM, tgat sounds right. These would have had very high FOM usually compared to alot of other tubes available at the time.

rep,ly below, sorry

Hi Blackout, thanks for your post.

Please check my post again, i have now updated the xxx. I couldnt read it at first, but ive seen new photos that show it in full. Also check the pictures of the tube, how do they look to you?

Thanks so much for responding, im undecided whether to buy the tube, and need to make my mind up......before its sold.

MX 10160B/AVS 6
CAGE: 55311
NSN: 5855 01 473 6076

DAAB07 98 C J418
EXPIRES SEP 09
ID NUM: 80063 A3279453

http://cubeupload.com/im/andy2640/IMG2287.jpg

http://cubeupload.com/im/andy2640/IMG2303.jpg

http://cubeupload.com/im/andy2640/IMG2306.jpg
http://cubeupload.com/im/andy2640/IMG2312.jpg

i was actually referring to what another poster was saying about how his tubes contract number had been  x'd out by laser engraving.

Thr tube looks good. As is the case with tubes in general, no two are going to be exacrtly alike so while many 10160b's have failed prematurely or are on their way out and will fail eventually it is possible that that tube had its mcp scrubbed very well and most of the positive ions have been removed and it may run without many problems for a good amount of time before it fails completely. However one should also  consider the fact that it may just not have been used very much at all and there wasnt enough use to have ion spots appear in the image yet. Its hard to say what might be case. my advice wouuld be this. if the asking price is crazy low compared to used filmed tubes available on the used market at this time, and you can afford to take a risk on it, then go for it. If the orice is anywhere near, equal to or more than used filmed tubes available on the used market at this time, id say pass on it as its too much of a risky thing to spend that much monesy on. just my 2 cents. do what you want to do though. Dont take this as me telling you not to buy it. i am just giving you something to help you decide.

Edit: i had thought the poster saying he had theexaxt same tube with the contract number Xxx'd was talking about an mx-10160b/avs-6 but now i realize he was talking about an Everest tube that was posted about in a recent post above and not about the Litton 10160b. my mistake.

Double post

The FOM in your post has that extra zero on the end and it needs to be removed. its just a typo and It should read 2592, not 25920.

Cheers, post corrected.  I am still unsure on this tube tbh.  My own research has been  limited to what i could find on it.  Old posts on here say it is a cracking tube, and only susceptible to spots/failures if mounted on a weapon.  Recoil is its worst enemy apparently.  But i would only be using it as a spotter.  I already own an XR5 photonis, as i live in europe and we are limited to what we can get hold of.  The tube here in question is going for £1900 with mini-14.   My XR5 provides excellent NV but is limited in rural areas. I really want something that can give me some more light through the tube.   So far ive heard this could be a milspec tube with a max snr of 37!!   72 res and 2100 Lum.  However ive also heard that it may be at its end of life (like you say) and that it is risky.   But im just unsure about this tube cus of the lack of knowledge anywhere on it.

Appreciate your response buddy, i may have to decline on it, due to its rareness and lack of solid info.  Cheers!

the posts about it being mounted on a weapon and that beingnwhat causes damage are not wrong but they are incorrect if your trying to understand why the 10160b/avs-6 tubes were pulled from service. Any tube having an autogated power supply and a small halo value(halo size is determined by the distance between the photocathode and the MCP) are going to be the tubes that are most susceptable to sustaining damage from recoil. it doesnt matter whether a tube is filmed(thick or thin) or unfilmed. Both are susceptable to mcp strikes to the photocathode if heavy recoil is encountered. ion barrier films of any thickness are still so thin that they dont make any difference as to whether the mcp will contact the pc or not. iif a autogated thin filmed tube with halo of .7mm encounteres recoil and the mcp strikes the photocathode then a thick filmed tube potted with an auto gate power supply and a halo of .7mm and a filmless autogated tube with halo of .7mm would both have mcp strikes on their photocathodes as well in all likelyhood if used on the same rifle. If one thinks about it having a film on the mcp is actually worse for recoil damage as tge film actually smears all over the Pc during a strike as well as the burn to photocathode that occurs from a strike. A filmless tube would just recieve the burn.to the pc and wouldnt have tye ion barrier film smeared all over the pc as well. so like i said the ones saying dont use it on a rifle as they cant take a beating from recoil arent wrong about that advice, however that is true of any tube with small halo and autogated power supplies. also, the recoil damage claim simply cant account for the reasob these contract tubes were pulked from service as they were never intended to be used in any rifle scopes by the US Army or Us Navy. Tyey were contracted for the anvis systems used by aviators and wouldnt often be exposed to extreme force or shock. The reason they were pulled was because they were incurring damage and failing prematurely while they were operating under normal use and conditions for their intended purpose. this was because positive ions were being released from the mcp during secondary electron emission and the posotive ions would make their way to the pc and cause poisoning of the photocathode which is terminal for the PC. Eventually a poisoned photocathode will no longer be able to convert photons to electrons, which is essential and one of the main and most important processes that are central to how and why an image intensifier is able to work the way ot does.

ETA: just wanted to add that when someone says that a tube has a thicker film so it has more recoil resistance is giving info that is slightly misguided and used in the wrong context due to the common misconception that the ion barrier film thickness is related to a tubes resistance to recoil in any substantial way. that as stated above is determined by the distance between the mcp and pc. The larger the distance between the two the better a tube will be able to take a veating from recoil. The thickness of the ion barrier film has little to do with what determines the distance between the pc and mcp. Its thickness also has very little impact on whether or not the mcp makes contact with the pc during a high schock event. The correct understanding of what is meant by thick fimed tubes may have better redistance to recoil, is that thick fimed tubes tend yo be older tubes made before thin filmed tubes were introduced. These older thick filmed tubes usially had much larger halos than the newer thin fimed tubes and also the newest unfilmed tubes. Not always, but most of the time this was the case also these older thick fimed  tubes used DC power supplies while most newer tubes have autogated supplies. I have explained why autogated power supplies are bad for recoil resistance a few times in detail in past posts so i wont go into that right now. If interested to know more about that you can find by doing a search im sure.

Thank you kindly Blackout. Great info, much appreciated.

Just received my tube. I know its an ITT tube but thats about it. It is also missing the pigtail but has a resistor in its place.

NV5018L-F5C

S/N 721045 DC0931

http://i.imgur.com/tV3b6rH.jpg

is it definatley a resistor - just looks like a line of solder, just how the pic looks i guess

This is most likely an L-3 module potted in an itt power supply which was bought by L-3 to fulfill a contract or an order. the lack of branding on the power supply(ITT or KM) and the part number tell that it is a non OEM ITT assembly. The part number telss that this is a power supply that was made with the intention of selling to another OEM or third party tube builder. I have seen alot of power supplies with that part number that were sold to L-3 and L-3 potted their tube modules in them. Usually they are L-3 contract tubes.

Also looks like it has an SMD resistor soldered accross the pins. If i were to add a resistor to an ITT pinnacle style power supply like the one pictured, id do it the same way. Smd resistor soldered accross the pins. Quick, easy(if you can solder well) and low profile.

Found it. Dont know how to delete the post!

Hey guys - any comments on the following:

MX11769UV
Contract No - W91CRB-11-D-0082/0005
ID No. A3297320
Warranty Exp Feb 15
CAD1245
MFR 13567

Based on the beginning posts in this thread it appears to be a milspec ITT tube and I think Omni VIII? Non autogated?