Examining the introduction of a promising new product

OCRd Copy

CONFIDENTIAL TO MEMBERS OF P.P.C.                         P.P.C. MEETING NO.50 ITEM 4

ADDITIONAL PROPRIETARY INSTRUMENTS 1965/7

Working Party on Sweep Generators

Meeting held 29th November 1962

Present:                 Mr. H.V. Beck

                             Mr. R. Chaffey          (Items 1 - 7 only)

                             Mr. A. Havilland

                             Mr. D.R. Willis          (Items 1 - 7 only)

                             Mr. A.G. Wray

1.       It was noted that the previous working parties on sweep generators had indicated an expanding market for this type of instrument; several new instruments were required covering DC to 2,000 Mc/s; existing sweepers were not very satisfactory; turnover that M.I. could expect from all sweep generators was £250K to £300K. Plug-in X and Y sweeper units for an oscilloscope such as the TF 2201 and also for a large screen oscilloscope could yield £150K.

2.       In an attempt to obtain general confirmation of these figures, the statistics given in the Directory of Technical Specifications on sweep generators were considered.

                   a)      The arithmetic mean price of a sweep generator in 1962 was £640 and 224 types of instruments were available. There are 36 firms making sweep generators.

                   b)      If we assume that quantities of 30 to 300 were sold of each type the gross turnover would be between £4.3 to £43M.

                   c)      50% of this turnover is thought to be obtained from the sale of instruments in the U.S.A.

                   d)      To obtain £300K turnover, M.I. would have to take between 1.4% to 14% of the world market less the U.S.A. Sales in the U.S.A. would be regarded as a bonus. The median figure of 5% of the market outside the U.S.A. (corresponding to approximately 100 off of each types) may be ambitious.

3.       It was noted that the sales of Rohde & Schwarz Polyscop instruments in the U.K. was £120K in one year.

4.       It was difficult to extract turnover for sweep generators from Company data.        Thus the turnover of Jerrold was £4M p.a., but it was not known what share of this was obtained by sweep generators.

5.       It was agreed that we should make a general purpose sweep generator rather than special purpose. Thus, for example, we should not design units to evaluate filter characteristics at specific frequencies, but we might cater for these requirements by the modification of the standard instruments.

2

6.       It was agreed that the General Radio technique of providing a mechanical sweep attachment and separate level controller for any of their oscillators was not a suitable basis for M.I. policy. It was noted that this technique gave sweep generator facilities from 20 c/s to 2 Gc/s.

7.       It was stated that the Company did not have the experience or resources to enable it to develop, manufacture under licence or market a generator in the microwave frequency range.

8.       It was stated that the market for sweep generators was about equal to that of signal generators, which is at least £3M outside the U.S.A. 5% of this could yield £150K.

9.       It was thought that the bulk of the market was below 1,000 Mc/s and that we needed a range of sweep generators, perhaps on a modular or plug-in basis. Suggested ranges were:-

                   a)      10 kc/s to 20 Mc/s

                   b)      100 kc/s to 100 Mc/s

                   c)      10 Mc/s to 1,000 Mc/s

          Output should be at leant 1 volt into 50 ohms and we should aim at a 0.1 db flatness. The design should. if possible be transistorised.* Relatively simple attenuators could be provided and we should consider the possibility of incorporating derivative, remote control and programming facilities. It was noted that the combination of a selective voltmeter and frequency sweeper, with a single control for frequency, made a vary powerful measuring instrument.

10.     If we had such instruments to sell now, at the end of 1963 or at the end of 1964, our turnover figures might look as follows :-

                   Ready to sell          1964                1965                1966                1967

                                                  £                      £                      £                      £

                   Now                     100K               200K               300K               400K

                   End 1963                50K               100K               200K               300K

                   End 1964                                       50K               100K               200K

          These are based on the assumption that the instruments are of moderately good but not exceptional design. It is clear that on this basis we could not meet our target but we would come near to it if we could immediately take out a manufacturing licence on a suitable design. There is not, however, to our knowledge a transistorised unit available.

11.     Should we immediately seek a licence for a range of transistorised designs with the best ergonomic features, or take on or divert staff to have new sweep generators available by the end of 1964?

                   *       This may not be very easy in the case of the sweeper extending to 1,000 Mc/s, as on the b.f.o. technique the oscillator frequency would be considerably greater than 1,000 Mc/s. It might, however still be possible to use solid state devices such as parametric multipliers.