“Valve” vs “Tube” vs “Thermatron”

One of the compelling reasons, in my opinion, that transistors hastened the replacement of tubes in the late 50’s and early 60’s was due to the name “transistor”; one of the many things transistors had going for them.  “Transistor” sounds way cooler than “valve” or “tube”, and if you look it up on Google, there is no question what you’ll see. 

(FYI – Bell Labs circulated proposals as to what to officially call the thing, other than the name “crystal triode” that appeared on some very early Western Electric packages. The final choice was based on it being a resistor that had transconductance. — source: Ludwell Sibley)

The term “valve” was coined by English physicist John Fleming in 1904 for his invention of the first practical thermionic device which he called the “Fleming Valve”.  I suppose he chose the name as an analogy to a mechanical valve, something that could regulate the flow of electrons similar to how a valve can regulate the flow of liquid.  The term “valve” as a generic term for any thermionic device continued in Britain and much of Europe up to the present.

Back in the U.S., in 1906 American engineer Lee de Forest created a three-element thermionic device he called the Audion by adding a wire grid between cathode and anode (the first very basic triode).  

Additional research that led to improvements in the Audion design was carried out by Irving Langmuir at General Electric in the early 1920’s.  His improved designs were called Kenotrons and Pilotrons (a specialized type of Kenotron).  However, because Pliotron and Kenotron were registered trademarks of GE, and Audion trademarked by de Forest, technical writers tended to use the more generic term “vacuum tube” for any thermionic device, probably because tube bulbs were often formed from bulk glass tubing, or at least the lower part with the formed stem was.  As far as I can tell, the term “valve” was never used by an American tube manufacturer.  

I find it hard to believe, after decades of development of “thermionic devices” from the early 1900’s through the 1980’s by thousands of clever scientists and engineers and having been taught in hundreds of schools and universities, not to mention military services, etc, that the best anyone could come up with to call these marvels of engineering was “tubes” or “valves”.  And why could the world not settle on either valve or tube?  At least “valve” has some relevance. 

It is way past time that someone corrects this miscarriage of history, even if posthumously, and I see no reason it shouldn’t be me.   Thus my use of the term “thermatron” in my books and articles to refer to what was previously “tube” or “vacuum tube” or “valve”.

I have taken some flak over the years with insisting on calling tubes thermatrons.  Really?  The whole electronics industry worldwide could not even decide on whether it is a valve or a tube?  Valve and tube is all anyone (GE, RCA, Phillips, Sylvania, Tung-Sol, etc.) could come up with?  Everybody is OK with this?   Sorry, not me.