To the moon on a pocket calculator
quilty
quite remember where I heard this) that pocket calculators today are
more powerful than the computers that sent the Apollo crews to the
moon in the 60s.
If this is true...why the need for such complicated machines like the
Shuttle? Why is it that there is a debate going on about making the
Orbital Space Plane more advanced than the shuttle to push out from
low Earth orbit?
jer
Ami A. Silberman
procedures which, in the Shuttle, are controlled via computer, or
automatic, which involved lots of setting of switches in Apollo.
2. The real computing brains behind Apollo were earth-bound. All the
trajectory and burn calculations were performed on earth.
3. Compared to Apollo, the Shuttle flies a much more complicated
re-entry profile. (Since it actually flys, as opposed to plummets
aerodynamically.)
4. The Shuttle now uses a "glass cockpit" with reconfigurable displays
... Apollo used a lot of dials and strips. (Note that Mercury used a
clockwork mission timer, IIRC)
5. The original shuttle computer was about as powerful as a late 70's
PC.
John Beaderstadt
"Ami A. Silberman" <sil...@mitre.org> on Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:36:45
-0400, which said:
>5. The original shuttle computer was about as powerful as a late 70's
>PC.
*Were* there PCs in the late '70s? I honestly don't remember. I know
there weren't in the late '60s and early '70s.
Hmm... Thinking hard, I remember that the late '70s were the time of
the Atari game consoles, and I remember reading an article (Time?
Newsweek?) that speculated whether Ataris might be adaptable so that
people could have computers in their homes. I think that article
appeared about 1980 or '81. It was also in 1980 that I saw my first
desktop computer, in the USCG base hospital on Kodiak, AK.
---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."
Henry Spencer
quilty <quil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I heard (and don't ask me to identify the source...because I can't
>quite remember where I heard this) that pocket calculators today are
>more powerful than the computers that sent the Apollo crews to the
>moon in the 60s.
That is more or less correct. Digital electronics has advanced
enormously in the last four decades.
>If this is true...why the need for such complicated machines like the
>Shuttle?
Because faster computers do very little to solve the engineering problems
of spaceflight. Computing power was not a major limitation on Apollo.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | he...@spsystems.net
Jason Rhodes
"John Beaderstadt" <be...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:m0i0iv074uh38kdft...@4ax.com...
> I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
> "Ami A. Silberman" <sil...@mitre.org> on Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:36:45
> -0400, which said:
>
> >5. The original shuttle computer was about as powerful as a late 70's
> >PC.
>
> *Were* there PCs in the late '70s? I honestly don't remember. I know
> there weren't in the late '60s and early '70s.
>
> Hmm... Thinking hard, I remember that the late '70s were the time of
> the Atari game consoles, and I remember reading an article (Time?
> Newsweek?) that speculated whether Ataris might be adaptable so that
> people could have computers in their homes. I think that article
> appeared about 1980 or '81. It was also in 1980 that I saw my first
> desktop computer, in the USCG base hospital on Kodiak, AK.
>
Here are a couple of interesting links:
http://www.darron.net/firstibm.html (IBM got into the PC business in 1981,
until then it was dominated by Apple and Tandy.
http://www.apple-history.com/frames/?
Apple I and II were introduced in 1976 and 1977. So yes, there were PCs in
the late 1970s.
Jason
OM
<be...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>*Were* there PCs in the late '70s? I honestly don't remember. I know
>there weren't in the late '60s and early '70s.
...Depends on how you want to define a PC. If you take the definition
literally, then an Atari 400/800 or a Commode-Door PET qualifies.
Stretch it a bit and add a terminal, and an Altair could be called a
"Personal Computer" as well. Throw away taste, and the TRaSh-80 Model
I counts too. Also, IBM even had what was referred to at times as a
"smart terminal" that was about half as powerful as the original "A"
model they termed a PC.
...However, these days the computer term "PC" is pretty much
restricted to referring to any computer built and based on a Wintel
platform that isn't both by designation and design a server.
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Henry Spencer
Ami A. Silberman <sil...@mitre.org> wrote:
>2. The real computing brains behind Apollo were earth-bound. All the
>trajectory and burn calculations were performed on earth.
This is true, but Apollo also had the capability of doing a credible job
on board. In fact, the original requirement on the Apollo navigation
system was to fly the entire mission with zero help from the ground, and
it was very nearly capable of that. (The ability to actually fly the
lunar landing that way was sacrificed when they ran short of memory,
because by then it was clear that on-board navigation would be only a
backup system, and so only the abort cases really had to be covered.)
>3. Compared to Apollo, the Shuttle flies a much more complicated
>re-entry profile. (Since it actually flys, as opposed to plummets
>aerodynamically.)
Apollo flew too, although less obviously. It had significant lift at
hypersonic speeds, and that was used to control the reentry. The shuttle
reentry profile is slightly more complex, but only slightly.
Sam Seiber
> *Were* there PCs in the late '70s? I honestly don't remember. I know
> there weren't in the late '60s and early '70s.
Yep. I built my Altair 8800 the summer of '75. IIRC the first IBM
PC was out in 1980. Useful microcomputers were very much around
in the late 70's.
Sam Seiber
Rusty Barton
>quilty <quil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I heard (and don't ask me to identify the source...because I can't
>>quite remember where I heard this) that pocket calculators today are
>>more powerful than the computers that sent the Apollo crews to the
>>moon in the 60s.
>
http://www.hpcalc.org/hp48/docs/columns/space.html
HP-65 IN SPACE
"65 Notes," July 1975
Volume 2, Number 6, Page 7
PALO ALTO, Calif., July 8 -- An 11-oz, $795 pocket calculator that can
be programmed like a computer will play an important role in the
historic Apollo/Soyuz rendezvous in space July 17.
The Hewlett-Packard HP-65 fully programmable pocket calculator will be
used to calculate two critical mid-course correction maneuvers just
prior to the linkup of the U.S. Apollo and the Russian Soyuz
spacecraft. These maneuvers will take place 12 and 24 minutes after
terminal phase initiation (the beginning of the last part of the
flight before rendezvous).
The calculator also will be used as a backup for Apollo's on-board
computer for the final maneuvers prior to rendezvous and docking. The
first use will be for the coelliptic maneuver (putting both spacecraft
into the same orbit) when the vehicles are within approximately 100
miles of each other. The second will be for the terminal phase
initiation calculations when Apollo is 22 miles from Soyuz. In both
instances, the HP-65 will be used to solve the problems, and its
answers will be compared with those of the on-board computer.
In the event of an on-board computer failure, however, the HP-65 will
provide the only available solution for the mid-course maneuvers,
since the spacecraft will not be in communication with ground stations
at that phase of the mission.
A third set of calculations to be performed by the battery-powered
HP-65 will allow the astronauts to precisely point Apollo's high gain
antenna at an orbiting satellite to assure proper communications with
Earth.
NASA scientists have written programs of up to 1,000 steps and
recorded them on tiny magnetic cards (100 steps per card). The
astronauts will feed these cards into the HP-65 to automatically
perform the critical calculations. In previous space flights, backup
maneuver calculations were made manually, using charts. The HP-65 will
substantially reduce the time needed to make the complex calculations
and improve the quality, accuracy and confidence in resulting
solutions.
Two HP-65s will be taken on the space flight, along with four sets of
program cards and six spare battery packs.
The HP-65 is not the first HP pocket calculator to venture into space;
an earlier model, the HP-35, went along on the Skylab missions.
The HP-65 is a general purpose calculator that can be programmed to go
through a step-by-step routine at the touch of a few keys, solving
extremely complex, lengthy or repetitive calculations quickly, easily
and accurately. Users can write their own programs for the calculator
or buy prerecorded program cards from Hewlett-Packard in the fields of
finance, mathematics, statistics, electrical engineering,
thermodynamics, stress analysis, surveying, medicine, aviation and
marine navigation.
Hewlett-Packard pocket calculators are no strangers to adventure. They
have served high upon the rugged slopes of Mt. Everest; at the LeMans,
France, professional auto races; at the navigator's station of the
sailboat "Courageous" the successful America's Cup defender; and in
the cockpits of Powder Puff Derby aircraft race contestants.
The U. S. spaceship will begin its mission July 15 from Cape
Canaveral.
--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California |"Every so often, I like to
| stick my head out the window,
| look up, and smile for the
| satellite picture."-Steven Wright
Henry Spencer
John Beaderstadt <be...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>*Were* there PCs in the late '70s? I honestly don't remember. I know
>there weren't in the late '60s and early '70s.
In the modern sense of the term, no. But the first personal computers
started appearing circa 1975, and I believe the first issue of Byte hit
the stands in 1976.
Mind you, it was a very different world -- the machines were very small
and limited, a floppy drive was a luxury, hard drives were unheard-of, and
the early Byte was essentially a specialized electronics magazine, heavy
on circuit diagrams and construction articles. (In fact, Byte was started
by the publisher of a ham-radio magazine.) Things changed quickly.
Doug...
> In article <cb7a62e6.03072...@posting.google.com>,
> quilty <quil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I heard (and don't ask me to identify the source...because I can't
> >quite remember where I heard this) that pocket calculators today are
> >more powerful than the computers that sent the Apollo crews to the
> >moon in the 60s.
>
> That is more or less correct. Digital electronics has advanced
> enormously in the last four decades.
>
> >If this is true...why the need for such complicated machines like the
> >Shuttle?
>
> Because faster computers do very little to solve the engineering problems
> of spaceflight. Computing power was not a major limitation on Apollo.
Well -- yes and no. Computing power was not an issue the way Apollo was
flown, and since there were never any major communication problems, it
was fine to have the ground calculate all the burns and trajectories.
However, there *was* a program called RTE (Return to Earth) that was
developed for Apollo and ultimately removed because there simply was not
room in memory for it and for the other programs needed. That program
would, indeed, have allowed a crew to calculate its own trajectory and
burns to return to earth at any point during the mission, from five
minutes after TLI through lunar orbit through post-TEI.
So, there *was* some capability that was originally desired for Apollo
that couldn't be provided because of limitations in computing power.
--
It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... | dvan...@mn.rr.com
Doug...
says...
>
> <snip>
>
> Here are a couple of interesting links:
> http://www.darron.net/firstibm.html (IBM got into the PC business in 1981,
> until then it was dominated by Apple and Tandy.
> http://www.apple-history.com/frames/?
> Apple I and II were introduced in 1976 and 1977. So yes, there were PCs in
> the late 1970s.
Yep, there were Apple and TRS-80 computers in the late '70s. There was
also the Commodore machine, I think that debuted in 1979, but I'm not
positive.
I worked for Arthur Andersen in 1981, for the Computer Aids to Tax
Practice group, and our partner-in-charge was determined to place a
personal computer on every tax professional's desk. So we made the first
large order (several thousand) for IBM PCs that IBM ever received. I got
an original IBM PC, with DOS 1.0 (complete with the floating point math
error) and two 5.25 floppy disk drives, in 1981. 8088 processor. We
developed applications in BASIC and VisiCalc for a couple of years to
calculate various tax figures.
That's where I got real good at playing with DOS. Those days are long
gone, of course -- as is Arthur Andersen, which is still amazing to me.
It used to be that having AA&Co. on my resume got me immediate attention.
Now, I think it's one of the reasons I don't even get responses when I
send out my resume... *sigh*...
Henry Spencer
Rusty Barton <woo...@usa.com> wrote:
>Hewlett-Packard pocket calculators are no strangers to adventure. They
>have served high upon the rugged slopes of Mt. Everest; at the LeMans,
>France, professional auto races; at the navigator's station of the
>sailboat "Courageous" the successful America's Cup defender; and in
>the cockpits of Powder Puff Derby aircraft race contestants.
Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.
Matthew F Funke
>Rusty Barton <woo...@usa.com> wrote:
>>Hewlett-Packard pocket calculators are no strangers to adventure. They
>>have served high upon the rugged slopes of Mt. Everest; at the LeMans,
>>France, professional auto races; at the navigator's station of the
>>sailboat "Courageous" the successful America's Cup defender; and in
>>the cockpits of Powder Puff Derby aircraft race contestants.
>
>Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
>everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.
I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on when it comes to
calculators, Henry. Do you think the HP49G+ -- due out next month -- is
an equal or inferior calculator to others on the market? If so, why?
If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
calculator technology.)
--
-- With Best Regards,
Matthew Funke (m...@hopper.unh.edu)
Sam Seiber
> In the modern sense of the term, no. But the first personal computers
> started appearing circa 1975, and I believe the first issue of Byte hit
> the stands in 1976.
I am NOT looking for an ICH T-Shirt, but IIRC, Byte issue number one
was dated September 1975. But you did say "hit the stands". I was
living in Idaho at the time, so I pretty much lived in a mail order
world then. I still have my Byte issue #1 (and several years after
that). Real fun to look at, just for the prices of stuff then.
(see below).
>
> Mind you, it was a very different world -- the machines were very small
> and limited, a floppy drive was a luxury, hard drives were unheard-of, and
> the early Byte was essentially a specialized electronics magazine, heavy
> on circuit diagrams and construction articles.
In the late 70's an 8" floppy and controller could have been had
for something like $1,000 (Late 70's US dollars). Hard drive,
5meg fixed, 5 meg removeable, Oh, from memory, >$10,000.
Most of us saved our programs and data on audio cassette tape.
I had a fast cassette interface, 1200 baud (bits per second).
On a good day, I could even load what I saved that fast.
The good old days!
Sam Seiber
Bob Tenney
<Sam.Sei...@sbseiber.com> wrote:
>
>Yep. I built my Altair 8800 the summer of '75.
I don't suppose you kept it,did you? There's a legend going around
that _somebody_ did.
Gravity is "only a theory"
adress is partially sdrawkcab.
Sam Seiber
>
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:32:28 -0600, Sam Seiber
> <Sam.Sei...@sbseiber.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Yep. I built my Altair 8800 the summer of '75.
>
> I don't suppose you kept it,did you? There's a legend going around
> that _somebody_ did.
>
Yeppers, I still have it around. A few years ago I tried to
fire it up. I have a problem with the status latch. I replaced
it, but still not getting the status latched. Some day I
might get around to getting it working. But I still have it.
No, it is not for sale!
Sam Seiber
Sam Seiber
<snip>
Your name rings a bell. In the early days of Byte magazine, a
Robert Tenney (IIRC) did a lot of cover art. Are you that guy?
Sam
Henry Spencer
Matthew F Funke <m...@hypatia.unh.edu> wrote:
>>Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
>>everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.
>
> I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on when it comes to
>calculators, Henry. Do you think the HP49G+ -- due out next month -- is
>an equal or inferior calculator to others on the market? If so, why?
I reserve judgement on the 49G+ until it actually appears -- last I heard,
it was still a rumor. The fact that www.hp.com's calculator page is still
a broken link (whether you attempt to reach it directly or via their
handhelds page) is not encouraging.
> If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
Already issued and already discontinued, actually -- HP has not actually
manufactured high-end calculators for years, as I understand it. I tried
a 49G but wasn't entirely pleased with it. Some good stuff, some bad
stuff. Some nice new functionality, but I was not happy with the new
package, and it did not help that the one I tried seemed to be a bit
flaky, or that the manual had gone downhill badly.
>(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
>calculator technology.)
I was pleased to discover that (a) www.fixthatcalc.com could fix my old
48SX, which I am now happily using again, and (b) www.samsoncables.com
still sells the 48G+ and 48GX (and the 49G also) from old stock, so I
picked up a 48GX as a spare.
Henry Spencer
Sam Seiber <Sam.Sei...@sbseiber.com> wrote:
>> started appearing circa 1975, and I believe the first issue of Byte hit
>> the stands in 1976.
>
>I am NOT looking for an ICH T-Shirt, but IIRC, Byte issue number one
Also, I said "I believe", indicating that I wasn't certain! I couldn't
remember the timing, so I was calculating back from the one issue I still
happen to have, but the early volume numbering may have been messed up
somehow.
Henry Spencer
Doug... <dvan...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>> Because faster computers do very little to solve the engineering problems
>> of spaceflight. Computing power was not a major limitation on Apollo.
>
>Well -- yes and no. Computing power was not an issue the way Apollo was
>flown, and since there were never any major communication problems, it
>was fine to have the ground calculate all the burns and trajectories.
The Apollo computer was perfectly adequate for on-board navigation. This
was tested on Apollo 8, it worked. (When the time came for LOI, they used
the ground numbers only because it said so in the flight plan and leaving
it that way was simpler -- the on-board numbers were so close that nobody
could actually tell which was better.)
>However, there *was* a program called RTE (Return to Earth) that was
>developed for Apollo and ultimately removed because there simply was not
>room in memory for it and for the other programs needed. That program
>would, indeed, have allowed a crew to calculate its own trajectory and
>burns to return to earth at any point during the mission, from five
>minutes after TLI through lunar orbit through post-TEI.
References? The info I have (e.g., the Apollo GNC-history paper in the
AAS Science&Technology series vol. 43) says that full on-board abort
capability remained throughout. The main on-board capability that was
sacrificed due to memory shortage was the ability to fly a nominal mission
including landing -- that is, the non-abort case -- without ground help.
That capability had been given a high priority in the original specs, but
was no longer seen as particularly important.
>So, there *was* some capability that was originally desired for Apollo
>that couldn't be provided because of limitations in computing power.
Not really, even setting aside the above. It would not have been hard to
have given the Apollo computer more memory, had the need been foreseen far
enough ahead to budget resources for it. This was not a technology
limitation, just a mistake in implementation.
(In fact, the Apollo computer's memory *did* get enlarged once, during the
Block I - Block II transition, but not by enough.)
Matthew F Funke
>Matthew F Funke <m...@hypatia.unh.edu> wrote:
>>>Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
>>>everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.
>>
>> I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on when it comes to
>>calculators, Henry. Do you think the HP49G+ -- due out next month -- is
>>an equal or inferior calculator to others on the market? If so, why?
>
>I reserve judgement on the 49G+ until it actually appears -- last I heard,
>it was still a rumor. The fact that www.hp.com's calculator page is still
>a broken link (whether you attempt to reach it directly or via their
>handhelds page) is not encouraging.
I'd heard a number of rumors that HP was completely doing away with
their calculator business, and was somewhat saddened by that news. The
maintainer of <http://www.hpcalc.org>, Eric Rechlin, maintains that he's
heard from half a dozen sources (though I haven't asked what those sources
are) that HP is going to create a 49G+, a 48GII, and a 17BII+ in the same
timeframe (August or September 2003). HP itself is preparing for a 2003
calculator expansion, according to their own website:
<http://www.hp.com/calculators/news/>
Unfortunately, they don't mention the 49G+ directly, which I would
think would be big news. -=shrug=- If anything, I miss their old
manuals; if their environmental initiative is still underway, I expect
that the manual for the 49G+ will be as minimalist as that for the 49G
(which received a lot of complaints).
If it helps, hpcalc.org has a link to the Douglas Stewart Company's
order form, and *they* seem ready to sell 49G+ models in August...
>> If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
>
>Already issued and already discontinued, actually -- HP has not actually
>manufactured high-end calculators for years, as I understand it. I tried
>a 49G but wasn't entirely pleased with it. Some good stuff, some bad
>stuff. Some nice new functionality, but I was not happy with the new
>package, and it did not help that the one I tried seemed to be a bit
>flaky, or that the manual had gone downhill badly.
I'd heard that they did some *major* downsizing of the calculator
departments, including firing a great number of programmers and designers
(which I generally received as Bad News). As you mention, the latest
calculator they *did* issue was the 49G, released in 1999... and I'd
certainly have expected to have seen something before now if they fully
intended to keep up their calculator line all along.
The package also didn't look as timeless -- I'll agree with that.
(My first thought was that it looked disconcertingly iMac-like.) And it's
good to see that you liked the old manuals, too. :)
>>(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
>>calculator technology.)
>
>I was pleased to discover that (a) www.fixthatcalc.com could fix my old
>48SX, which I am now happily using again, and (b) www.samsoncables.com
>still sells the 48G+ and 48GX (and the 49G also) from old stock, so I
>picked up a 48GX as a spare.
I took advantage of an old EduCalc deal where I could trade in my
48SX toward a 48GX. I've been using that happily for years. Of course,
if and when a 49G+ comes out, I'd want that desperately. :)
Ami A. Silberman
Mary Shafer
F Funke) wrote:
> If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
> (I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
> calculator technology.)
I love my 48GX, but a lot of folks think that the calculator utilities
on computers are good enough.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot
Brett Buck
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:27:55 +0000 (UTC), m...@hypatia.unh.edu (Matthew
> F Funke) wrote:
>
>
>> If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
>>(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
>>calculator technology.)
>
>
> I love my 48GX, but a lot of folks think that the calculator utilities
> on computers are good enough.
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned (now that I'm in my 40's), but it just
doesn't seem the same. I get very frustrated with computer calculator
emulators - even the HP48GX emulator, that even looks right. I just seem
to think better while hitting real keys - or more accurately, keys that
feel right like the old HP.
Brett
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Brett Buck" <buc...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3F21DCEF...@pacbell.net...
> Maybe I'm just old-fashioned (now that I'm in my 40's), but it just
> doesn't seem the same. I get very frustrated with computer calculator
> emulators - even the HP48GX emulator, that even looks right. I just seem
> to think better while hitting real keys - or more accurately, keys that
> feel right like the old HP.
Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards have the same keys,
but not the same click.
And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.
>
> Brett
>
Doug...
Damn -- this is something that I read sometime in the last 30 years or
so. I am positive of what I read -- it described the process of
developing the RTE program, the memory constraints that led to the
decision to fly without it, and the decision to instead rely upon
frequently updated abort pads that were read up to the crew at regular
intervals. This was discussed in the case of loss of communication
combined with other problems requiring a mission abort.
It is factual that the procedures for lunar flights included frequently
updated pads for upcoming preplanned abort windows, so that part of the
story is provable. Now I just have to a shitload of research to find the
documentation of the decision-making process about which I read sometime
in the last 30 years...
> >So, there *was* some capability that was originally desired for Apollo
> >that couldn't be provided because of limitations in computing power.
>
> Not really, even setting aside the above. It would not have been hard to
> have given the Apollo computer more memory, had the need been foreseen far
> enough ahead to budget resources for it. This was not a technology
> limitation, just a mistake in implementation.
>
> (In fact, the Apollo computer's memory *did* get enlarged once, during the
> Block I - Block II transition, but not by enough.)
Oh, agreed. As I said (or at least implied), it wasn't a calculational
constraint, it was a memory constraint. It wouldn't have been all that
difficult to add enough memory to allow the full RTE program, it was more
a matter of configuration and weight control, IIRC. My memory of the
account I read said that the final decision about the RTE program was
made sometime in mid- to late-1968, during planning for Apollo 8.
And, you'll recall that not *all* Apollo maneuvers were based on ground
numbers. Some maneuvers, especially LM braking during the final phase of
the rendezvous, were based on numbers generated by the onboard computers
tied into the rendezvous radar and VHF ranging systems. And the computer
systems on the LM and CSM were (at least supposedly) completely capable
of handling a lunar liftoff and rendezvous without comm. So there was
indeed an autonomous navigation capability.
Charles Buckley
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:27:55 +0000 (UTC), m...@hypatia.unh.edu (Matthew
> F Funke) wrote:
>
>
>> If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
>>(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
>>calculator technology.)
>
>
> I love my 48GX, but a lot of folks think that the calculator utilities
> on computers are good enough.
>
> Mary
>
I looked at the 49G. Looked like a huge step back.. I ended up
ordering another 48GX from backstock to replace the one I lost.
Maybe I just missed it in the docs and on the keypad, but I
could not find a unit conversion library, nor did it have that
cool equation library that was on the 48GX..
Bob Tenney
No, a distant cousin maybe, but not me.
Henry Spencer
Charles Buckley <rijr...@frii.com> wrote:
> I looked at the 49G. Looked like a huge step back...
>Maybe I just missed it in the docs and on the keypad, but I
>could not find a unit conversion library, nor did it have that
>cool equation library that was on the 48GX..
My recollection -- with the caution that it's been a while since I tried
out the 49G -- is that the units stuff is in there somewhere, but the
equation library is indeed gone. The equations are gone for the same
reason there is no IR communication: too many schools banned the 48s
from exams etc.
Mary Shafer
wrote:
> In article <3f224dca$0$196$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> Charles Buckley <rijr...@frii.com> wrote:
> > I looked at the 49G. Looked like a huge step back...
> >Maybe I just missed it in the docs and on the keypad, but I
> >could not find a unit conversion library, nor did it have that
> >cool equation library that was on the 48GX..
>
> My recollection -- with the caution that it's been a while since I tried
> out the 49G -- is that the units stuff is in there somewhere, but the
> equation library is indeed gone. The equations are gone for the same
> reason there is no IR communication: too many schools banned the 48s
> from exams etc.
The 48s knew more engineering equations than I do, this many years out
of college. I would have loved them as an undergraduate, although we
were always allowed our slide rules and the CRC Handbook of Tables,
which did have a lot of equations (and tables of derivatives and
integrals), for most exams.
Actually, we had a high percentage of open-book and take-home exams in
engineering, because the School believed that's what work is like.
I'll admit I never had a closed-book exam in the workplace; NASA
supplied me with all the reference material I could use, even to the
point of buying it for me if the libraries didn't have it and couldn't
get it by ILL. Plus, we all had our own personal reference materials,
which would have made a pretty good engineering library if we'd
combined them.
The 48G didn't know the air data equations I used so much, but it was
easy to program them in and then use the usual standard atmosphere
tables.
Jay Windley
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <moo...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:nilUa.120039$EQ5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
|
| Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards
| have the same keys, but not the same click.
I've managed to obtain six of those in working condition. I use one at work
and one at home, and the other four are for when those two fail.
| And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.
Their solidity and robustness is part of why I like them, and hopefully why
I'll die before all six of those keyboards succumb.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
Henry Spencer
Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com> wrote:
>Actually, we had a high percentage of open-book and take-home exams in
I dimly recall an article, years and year ago, written by some folks who'd
studied just how well various kinds of exams really evaluate knowledge of
the subject. They concluded that the clear winner for assessing actual
understanding, as distinct from just having a good memory, is a *timed*
open-book exam, where you can use any references you want but you're
scored on speed as well as correctness.
Peter Stickney
But not as shields. The old IBM keyboards can be penetrated by a 9x19
(9mm Oarabellum) round at 10m. (33 ft) They're pretty reliable at 30m,
though, but the keycaps fall off.
(In the next issue of Guns & Old Computers: "The case for the .45-70
with reference to the need for a relaible one-shop stop of teh
COnvergent Technologies C-3." (Never was so much Evil locked into a
cardcage, with the possibile exception of a MicroNove trying to run
AOS)
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Scott Hedrick
news:3F2194CE...@mitre.org...
> Well, there were Apples...
If Apple had existed and had been consulted for the CM or LM computer, NASA
would still be arguing over the color.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Jay Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> wrote in message
news:bfv3bj$9cn$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
>
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <moo...@greenms.com> wrote in message
> news:nilUa.120039$EQ5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> |
> | Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards
> | have the same keys, but not the same click.
>
> I've managed to obtain six of those in working condition. I use one at
work
> and one at home, and the other four are for when those two fail.
Hmm, where exactly did you say you lived again.... :-)
>
> | And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.
>
> Their solidity and robustness is part of why I like them, and hopefully
why
> I'll die before all six of those keyboards succumb.
So, who's named in your will?
Charles Buckley
> In article <3f224dca$0$196$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> Charles Buckley <rijr...@frii.com> wrote:
>
>> I looked at the 49G. Looked like a huge step back...
>>Maybe I just missed it in the docs and on the keypad, but I
>>could not find a unit conversion library, nor did it have that
>>cool equation library that was on the 48GX..
>
>
> My recollection -- with the caution that it's been a while since I tried
> out the 49G -- is that the units stuff is in there somewhere, but the
> equation library is indeed gone. The equations are gone for the same
> reason there is no IR communication: too many schools banned the 48s
> from exams etc.
Stupid 48SX tricks..
One, the IR frequency was the same as used on a brand of car. You
could program the thing to unlock any of that brand of car.
Other stupid trick.. It also has the same frequency as some tv
remotes. Specifically, it had the same frequency as the tv in my
dorm. We would mess with the tv as we were doing our homework.
Charles Buckley
> In article <97n5ivgfbmc6n5a54...@4ax.com>,
> Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually, we had a high percentage of open-book and take-home exams in
>>engineering, because the School believed that's what work is like...
>
>
> I dimly recall an article, years and year ago, written by some folks who'd
> studied just how well various kinds of exams really evaluate knowledge of
> the subject. They concluded that the clear winner for assessing actual
> understanding, as distinct from just having a good memory, is a *timed*
> open-book exam, where you can use any references you want but you're
> scored on speed as well as correctness.
Essentially the system used for the EIT and PE exams.
I've known way to many engineering students who could do an
exam, but even confronted with the same info the next semester,
had to relearn it.
Dave Michelson
> In article <m0i0iv074uh38kdft...@4ax.com>,
> John Beaderstadt <be...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>*Were* there PCs in the late '70s? I honestly don't remember. I know
>>there weren't in the late '60s and early '70s.
>
>
> the stands in 1976.
Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense of
the concept. Not the first *home* computer, of course :-)
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
OM
>> My recollection -- with the caution that it's been a while since I tried
>> out the 49G -- is that the units stuff is in there somewhere, but the
>> equation library is indeed gone. The equations are gone for the same
>> reason there is no IR communication: too many schools banned the 48s
>> from exams etc.
...Some of the calculators that came out with 16 to 24k text buffers
were also banned back when they first came out around 1980-1981, as
they could be used to store cheat notes. What got that ball rolling
was at Texas U, this geeky little dipshit asked whether these models
would be banned, and up until that moment the tenured,
behind-the-times mumbling old dork(*) had absolutely no clue that
anything existed more powerful and just as portable as the TI-30.
After class, he went to the department chairdip's office, and within
the hour a memo was circulated to all profs & TAs, and posted on all
bulletin board - the cork kind, mind you - that these calculators were
banned from the campus *period*, and anyone caught using them would be
brought before the Ombudsman.
...By the end of the semester, however, it became apparent that the
tenured fools had overreacted, and the memos were quietly removed and
forgoten. Not before most EE freshmen had gone and sold theirs, alas.
(*) Any of you Texas U EE types remember Dr. "Mumbles" Dougal? Only
second to Dr. Cogdell as being the most piss-poor excuse for a college
professor, much less human life. That's the "mumbling old dork" of
whom I refer to....
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
OM
wrote:
...Again, it goes into semantics, and how you define the term. The
minimum common requirement is that the unit is designed to be used by
one person, has its own CPU to perform all computational tasks and
doesn't require any sort of TSO for either assist or primary
computations, and generally has its own localized I/O and storage
capabilities.
Oh, and then there's the important point of differentiation: a PC
doesn't need an entire room dedicated to its location, function and
support.
...Note that this isn't the be-all and end-all of a basic definition,
which means Henry'll pop in any post now and poke holes in this one
wide enough to push one of Beady's cows through :-P
Christopher M. Jones
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:27:55 +0000 (UTC), m...@hypatia.unh.edu (Matthew
> F Funke) wrote:
>
> > If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
> > (I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
> > calculator technology.)
>
> I love my 48GX, but a lot of folks think that the calculator utilities
> on computers are good enough.
That depends on what those utilities are. The scientific
calculator in windows is actually pretty decent (it has
log and trig functions and some other neat stuff) and
compares pretty well with your basic ultra-cheap
scientific calculator. If it were a standalone product it
would probably cost maybe 10 or 15 dollars. It's missing
a lot of stuff that basic sci calcs have but it has some
other stuff that they don't which somewhat makes up for it
(like a very large range for its floating point numbers).
If you go a couple steps up from that to matlab or
mathematica or somesuch, then you've definitely outclassed
handheld calculators of all kinds (except for convenience).
Although mathematica is quite a lot more expensive than
even a bag full of 48Gs.
Christopher M. Jones
I've been using a 48SX or GX for a little over a decade, and
I really like both. Though I spent too much time using
Mathematica in college to drool over them now. But I still
like my GX and keep it fairly handy. I've found that it's
still a lot more convenient and natural for me to use. When
I use one of those pocket calcs or the windows calculator I
always have this disturbing notion that I don't have enough
place to put things. But, in my opinion, high-end pocket
calculators are on their way out. General purpose computers
are just too cheap and too powerful in that same size / cost
range to leave special purpose calcs a decent niche.
Christopher M. Jones
> In article <3f224dca$0$196$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> Charles Buckley <rijr...@frii.com> wrote:
> > I looked at the 49G. Looked like a huge step back...
> >Maybe I just missed it in the docs and on the keypad, but I
> >could not find a unit conversion library, nor did it have that
> >cool equation library that was on the 48GX..
>
> My recollection -- with the caution that it's been a while since I tried
> out the 49G -- is that the units stuff is in there somewhere, but the
> equation library is indeed gone. The equations are gone for the same
> reason there is no IR communication: too many schools banned the 48s
> from exams etc.
I have a calculus text-book which notes in the first
chapter that an HP48 could probably get a 95% on a
typical calculus test.
Christopher M. Jones
> In article <nilUa.120039$EQ5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <moo...@greenms.com> writes:
> > Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards have the same keys,
> > but not the same click.
> >
> > And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.
>
> But not as shields. The old IBM keyboards can be penetrated by a 9x19
> (9mm Oarabellum) round at 10m. (33 ft) They're pretty reliable at 30m,
> though, but the keycaps fall off.
Has anyone ever documented what happens when you strike an
old IBM keyboard with a 30-30 Winchester?
Christopher M. Jones
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:45:51 GMT, Dave Michelson <da...@ece.ubc.ca>
> wrote:
> >Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense of
> >the concept. Not the first *home* computer, of course :-)
>
> ...Again, it goes into semantics, and how you define the term. The
> minimum common requirement is that the unit is designed to be used by
> one person, has its own CPU to perform all computational tasks and
> doesn't require any sort of TSO for either assist or primary
> computations, and generally has its own localized I/O and storage
> capabilities.
>
> Oh, and then there's the important point of differentiation: a PC
> doesn't need an entire room dedicated to its location, function and
> support.
Erm, I think even more important than not needing a
single room would be being inexpensive enough to be
affordable by most people. I'm not sure, I think the
PDP-8 was just about in that range. A good estimate
for "affordable" I think would be around automobile
price range, which people usually buy at least one of
in their lifetimes.
In general though, I think the more important
distinction of the PC as it developed later on was that
the PC is a device for casual use by those who may not
be professional computer users. And there I think the
PDP-8 and Altair aren't quite up to snuff. Though
certainly the Apple I/II and other similar computers
in the late 70s were fully deserving of the "personal
computer" title, especially as they were used as such.
OM
<spic...@dualboot.net> wrote:
>"Peter Stickney" <pe...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> In article <nilUa.120039$EQ5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
>> "Greg D. Moore \(Killfiled Idiot\)" <moo...@greenms.com> farted:
>> > Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards have the same keys,
>> > but not the same click.
>> >
>> > And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.
...There is a documented case of this. Some wife hit her husband over
the head with it, and killed him dead on the spot. She got 2nd degree
manslaughter for it instead of murder one, because she convinced the
jury that she only wanted him to quit playing computer games all day,
and just wanted to break the KB over his head to get her point across.
According to some old IBeeMers, this is rumored to be the reason they
went to the cheaper, ligher keyboards...
>Has anyone ever documented what happens when you strike an
>old IBM keyboard with a 30-30 Winchester?
...Nope. but someone *has* done the exploding spray paint can trick on
it. Keys went everywhere, but to the surprise of the experimenter,
when you put the keys back in, the damn thing still worked with only
the "G" and "Left Shift" keys showing any problems, and apparently
those were present when they KB was skedded for the Great Keyboard
Shelf in the Sky.
PP
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~spaceuk/stscpu/stscpu.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap15fj/compessay.htm
--
"Ami A. Silberman" <sil...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:3F20354D...@mitre.org...
> quilty wrote:
> >
> > I heard (and don't ask me to identify the source...because I can't
> > quite remember where I heard this) that pocket calculators today are
> > more powerful than the computers that sent the Apollo crews to the
> > moon in the 60s.
> >
> > If this is true...why the need for such complicated machines like the
> > Shuttle? Why is it that there is a debate going on about making the
> > Orbital Space Plane more advanced than the shuttle to push out from
> > low Earth orbit?
> >
> > jer
> 1. Apollo was incredibly labor-intensive to fly. There were a lot of
> procedures which, in the Shuttle, are controlled via computer, or
> automatic, which involved lots of setting of switches in Apollo.
>
> 2. The real computing brains behind Apollo were earth-bound. All the
> trajectory and burn calculations were performed on earth.
>
> 3. Compared to Apollo, the Shuttle flies a much more complicated
> re-entry profile. (Since it actually flys, as opposed to plummets
> aerodynamically.)
>
> 4. The Shuttle now uses a "glass cockpit" with reconfigurable displays
> ... Apollo used a lot of dials and strips. (Note that Mercury used a
> clockwork mission timer, IIRC)
Jay Windley
"Charles Buckley" <rijr...@frii.com> wrote in message
news:3f236607$0$199$7586...@news.frii.net...
|
| I've known way to many engineering students who could do an
| exam, but even confronted with the same info the next semester,
| had to relearn it.
Engineers do their best work when not confined to memory. I prefer my teams
take the extra time to look things up and be sure of them.
Herb Schaltegger
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
> In article <3f224dca$0$196$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> Charles Buckley <rijr...@frii.com> wrote:
> > I looked at the 49G. Looked like a huge step back...
> >Maybe I just missed it in the docs and on the keypad, but I
> >could not find a unit conversion library, nor did it have that
> >cool equation library that was on the 48GX..
>
> My recollection -- with the caution that it's been a while since I tried
> out the 49G -- is that the units stuff is in there somewhere, but the
> equation library is indeed gone. The equations are gone for the same
> reason there is no IR communication: too many schools banned the 48s
> from exams etc.
I used my HP-48GX for two years as an aerospace engineering undergrad.
If the calculator makes THAT much difference on an exam, the professor
isn't doing a very good job devising exams. Our profs never banned
calculators from the exams (even knowing half of us had -48GX's); in
fact, one of the professor's exams were always completely "open
anything" - bring whatever you like to the test. If you don't know the
material it won't matter what tools you have.
Sadly, my -48GX was crushed by a box of books during a move several
years after college; I replaced it with a -48G (I never used the
expansion capability of the GX anyway) which I still have today.
--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks
Herb Schaltegger
Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote:
> The 48G didn't know the air data equations I used so much, but it was
> easy to program them in and then use the usual standard atmosphere
> tables.
As an undergrad, we programed our -48GX's with the equations for static
and dynamic stability so that, with the aircraft's parameters properly
identified, we could determine basic flight characteristics. Fun stuff
for an Airplane Performance class.
Brett Buck
> If you go a couple steps up from that to matlab or
> mathematica or somesuch, then you've definitely outclassed
> handheld calculators of all kinds (except for convenience).
> Although mathematica is quite a lot more expensive than
> even a bag full of 48Gs.
So is MATLAB. But in either case, and having had access to
Mathematica and MATLAB for years, when it comes to simple calculations,
I still pick up the old 32sII or 48GX.
As an aside, I find the syntax of the the MATLAB symbolic toobox a
lot more conducive than Mathematica. I've pretty much stopped using
Mathematica as a result - it's either too fussy, or just different
enough to be annoying.
Brett
Mike Flugennock
Jones" <spic...@dualboot.net> wrote:
You mean, _strike_ it -- like hitting with the butt -- or _shoot_ it?
The keyboard on my old Mac Plus was a real friggin' tank -- repeatedly
dropped, knocked off the desk, stuff dropped _on_ it, Guinness spilled on
it, and wouldn't quit working. I sometimes thought, as the Plus neared the
end of its service life, that I really could bounce a bullet off that
damn' keyboard.
--
"All over, people changing their roles,
along with their overcoats;
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway!" --the clash.
___________________________________________________________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org
Brett Buck
> I used my HP-48GX for two years as an aerospace engineering undergrad.
Kids these days, they just have it too easy. No 48GX's when I was in
college. I used a National Semiconductor LED calculator with RPN. I took
the back off one time, and the "chip" was not in a molded package - it
was hand-potted right on the circuit board! It worked just fine,
despite on time when it spend about 2 weeks in a snowbank, where I had
dropped it and couldn't find it until the snow melted, until after I
graduated (when I got a HP 11c).
As I recall, HP41's were not allowed in college due to the
expansion card capability. And you could always tell the people using
their TI calculators in an exam - they're the ones cursing uder their
breath because they either couldn't get the keys to register, or once
they did, registered multiple times. I remember a TI-30 getting thrown
at high velocity into a wall during a physical optics exam...
Brett
Henry Spencer
Herb Schaltegger <herbsch...@spamtrap.invalid> wrote:
>> ...The equations are gone for the same
>> reason there is no IR communication: too many schools banned the 48s
>> from exams etc.
>
Agreed, but many schools thought otherwise, and HP definitely lost sales
on this.
Henry Spencer
Brett Buck <buc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Kids these days, they just have it too easy. No 48GX's when I was in
Kids these days, they just have it too easy. :-) I was in college right
at the time calculators arrived.
No pocket calculators period when I was a freshman. You had to know how
to use a slide rule, log tables, etc. And I did, but it was no fun.
By second year, our family owned a $100 four-function calculator -- mostly
for my father's business use, of course, but it was possible to borrow it
for critical events like exams.
By fourth year, I had an HP-45, and life was a whole lot better.
>...I took
>the back off one time, and the "chip" was not in a molded package - it
>was hand-potted right on the circuit board!
That's actually fairly common in high-volume low-cost electronics. It
saves a penny or two to put the bare chip on the board and then put a glob
of epoxy over it, rather than having the chip-maker glob it beforehand.
Henry Spencer
Dave Michelson <da...@ece.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> In the modern sense of the term, no. But the first personal computers
>> started appearing circa 1975, and I believe the first issue of Byte hit
>> the stands in 1976.
>
>Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense of
It's borderline. Especially when you got up to a practical configuration,
it was still awfully expensive, not to mention rather large and in need of
considerable space and cooling. It was the first computer that a lot of
labs could afford for themselves, but it still wasn't really a personal
computer.
Alan Jones
<spic...@dualboot.net> wrote:
>"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:45:51 GMT, Dave Michelson <da...@ece.ubc.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense of
>> >the concept. Not the first *home* computer, of course :-)
>>
>> ...Again, it goes into semantics, and how you define the term. The
>> minimum common requirement is that the unit is designed to be used by
>> one person, has its own CPU to perform all computational tasks and
>> doesn't require any sort of TSO for either assist or primary
>> computations, and generally has its own localized I/O and storage
>> capabilities.
>>
>> Oh, and then there's the important point of differentiation: a PC
>> doesn't need an entire room dedicated to its location, function and
>> support.
>
>Erm, I think even more important than not needing a
>single room would be being inexpensive enough to be
>affordable by most people. I'm not sure, I think the
>PDP-8 was just about in that range. A good estimate
>for "affordable" I think would be around automobile
>price range, which people usually buy at least one of
>in their lifetime.
I was going to suggest the ABC, until you added the following
paragraph.
Reed Snellenberger
news:HIp1y...@spsystems.net:
>
> By second year, our family owned a $100 four-function calculator --
> mostly for my father's business use, of course, but it was possible to
> borrow it for critical events like exams.
>
> By fourth year, I had an HP-45, and life was a whole lot better.
>
Same here -- slipstick in high school, and got my first calculator in time
for freshman chemistry in college -- just a TI SR-10, but I thougth I was
in hog heaven. That one kept me going through my senior year, when I
splurged on an HP-67 (that's the one that used mag cards to store its
programs).
It's easy to identify people from that early generation of calculator users
(at least, technical ones) by asking them to recite pi to more than 4
significant digits ;-)
--
Reed Snellenberger
3.141592654
Mary Shafer
<herbsch...@spamtrap.invalid> wrote:
> In article <97n5ivgfbmc6n5a54...@4ax.com>,
> Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > The 48G didn't know the air data equations I used so much, but it was
> > easy to program them in and then use the usual standard atmosphere
> > tables.
>
> As an undergrad, we programed our -48GX's with the equations for static
> and dynamic stability so that, with the aircraft's parameters properly
> identified, we could determine basic flight characteristics. Fun stuff
> for an Airplane Performance class.
When I was taking S&C, HP-35s had just barely been invented. I
remember working out a Kutta-Jakowski (sp?) transformation for my
Incomprehensible Flow class on my Atari 800, though.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot
Mary Shafer
<herbsch...@spamtrap.invalid> wrote:
> I used my HP-48GX for two years as an aerospace engineering undergrad.
> If the calculator makes THAT much difference on an exam, the professor
> isn't doing a very good job devising exams. Our profs never banned
> calculators from the exams (even knowing half of us had -48GX's); in
> fact, one of the professor's exams were always completely "open
> anything" - bring whatever you like to the test. If you don't know the
> material it won't matter what tools you have.
I once asked if I could bring a NASA aero engineer to one of the "open
anything" exams and the description was changed to "open anything, not
anyone". Spoilsports.
I liked the "one 8-1/2x11" cheat sheet with anything you want written
on it" exam that the chem and physics depts had, but by the time I got
my cheat sheet written out, I didn't need it for the actual exam.
Just creating it was enough of a review and reminder for me.
Herb Schaltegger
Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote:
> I
> remember working out a Kutta-Jakowski (sp?) transformation for my
> Incomprehensible Flow class on my Atari 800, though.
>
> Mary
Heh. I had an Atari 800, too. Prior to that I had an Atari 400 and
before that a Sinclair ZX-81. As an adult I've fought my affinity for
the technology of my youth but, thanks to eBay, it has been a losing
battle. Now I own an Atari 400, an 800, a 600XL, two 800XLs, two
1200XLs, and a 130XE, plus a variety of peripherals (5.25" floppies, 40
column printers that weigh about 10 pounds, etc.). I actually bought my
wife a Commodore 64 and the Lunar Lander cartridge she used to play as a
kid, too.
Jay Windley
"Mary Shafer" <mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bhk8iv414uv3rqsup...@4ax.com...
|
| Just creating it was enough of a review and reminder for me.
Yep. That's what the professors will tell you. Brains are not very good at
storing naked facts. Paper is much better. The brain is good at
*connecting* facts into complex relationships. Creating those connections
helps recall of the facts.
As a student I hated derivations. What's the point of duplicating someone
else's effort? Isn't the point of progression to avoid having to reinvent
the wheel every time? But of course the derivation captures the *meaning*
of an equation. If you know what an equation does -- not just where to find
it and how to plug in values -- you'll probably remember it easier when you
need it.
OM
<herbsch...@spamtrap.invalid> wrote:
>Prior to that I had an Atari 400 and before that a Sinclair ZX-81.
...The mark of distinction isn't owning a ZX-81, it's having built a
ZX-80.
David M. Palmer
<mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote:
> I once asked if I could bring a NASA aero engineer to one of the "open
> anything" exams and the description was changed to "open anything, not
> anyone". Spoilsports.
One Physics take-home exam I heard of had a list of references you were
allowed to consult, e.g. Halliday & Resnick, Jackson, Feynman.
This being Caltech, someone consulted Feynman, who read the rules and
decided that that was in-bounds.
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Kevin Willoughby
> In general though, I think the more important
> distinction of the PC as it developed later on was that
> the PC is a device for casual use by those who may not
> be professional computer users.
I once worked with a marketing guy who differentiated between "personal
computer" and "personal computing". The latter matches your definition.
The former was a computer that could be bought by an individual person.
By that definition, the early Dartmouth time-shared Basic would be a
"personal computing" environment, since it allowed ordinary people to
get computerized results with just a little training.
> And there I think the
> PDP-8 and Altair aren't quite up to snuff.
By the definitions above, a raw PDP-8 didn't provide Personal
Computing, but load it up with Focal or TSS running Basic, and it did
provide Personal Computing.
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@scispace.org.invalid
We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong
Kevin Willoughby
> Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense of
> the concept. Not the first *home* computer, of course :-)
Since the PDP-8 was an update the of the PDP-5, it is hard to see how
the -8 could be the first.
Peter Stickney
Not a .30-30, no. A .30-06 will do a job on it, though. The holes
aren't that big, but the momentum transfer makes all those little
springs come unglued.
The industrial computer hardware salesmen learned pretty quickly about
calling their products "bulletproof" around me. I'd have them bring a
salvaged cardcage on their next visit, and we'd go find out just how
bulletproof "bulletproof" was.
TO bring it on charter, consider it an experiment in micrometeroid
bombardment.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Herb Schaltegger
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:14:23 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
> <herbsch...@spamtrap.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Prior to that I had an Atari 400 and before that a Sinclair ZX-81.
>
> ...The mark of distinction isn't owning a ZX-81, it's having built a
> ZX-80.
>
>
> OM
Perhaps, but at least my ZX-81 wasn't a "Timex Sinclair xxxxx" but an
honest-to-Clive original "Sinclair" :-P You ever play the Flight
Simulator program on one of those? Heh. These kids these days don't
know how good they've got it: color graphics, indeed! Pixels smaller
than a quarter-inch square, feh! *grumble, mumble*
;-)
jeff findley
> I liked the "one 8-1/2x11" cheat sheet with anything you want written
> on it" exam that the chem and physics depts had, but by the time I got
> my cheat sheet written out, I didn't need it for the actual exam.
> Just creating it was enough of a review and reminder for me.
I remember those. I wrote mine out on grid paper and made the print
as small as I could with my 0.5 mm mechanical pencil. Creating those
cheat sheets took hours of reviewing material to find the equations
and group them appropriately. As you said, once you were done
creating the cheat sheet, you knew the material much better. The poor
slobs that tried to copy someone else's cheat sheet before the exam
didn't get that benefit.
Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.
Alan Jones
<dmpa...@email.com> wrote:
>In article <bhk8iv414uv3rqsup...@4ax.com>, Mary Shafer
><mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I once asked if I could bring a NASA aero engineer to one of the "open
>> anything" exams and the description was changed to "open anything, not
>> anyone". Spoilsports.
>
>One Physics take-home exam I heard of had a list of references you were
>allowed to consult, e.g. Halliday & Resnick, Jackson, Feynman.
>
>This being Caltech, someone consulted Feynman, who read the rules and
>decided that that was in-bounds.
Proving once again, it is not what you know, but who you know. :(
LooseChanj
<ke...@scispace.org.invalid> made the sensational claim that:
> Dave Michelson said:
>> Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense of
>> the concept. Not the first *home* computer, of course :-)
>
> Since the PDP-8 was an update the of the PDP-5, it is hard to see how
> the -8 could be the first.
Well, see, there was this accident with a compiler and a time machine...
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here
Dave Michelson
> In article <jGJUa.560433$Vi5.14...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>, Dave
> Michelson <da...@ece.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>>> In the modern sense of the term, no. But the first personal computers
>>> started appearing circa 1975, and I believe the first issue of Byte hit
>>> the stands in 1976.
>>
>> Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense
>> of the concept...
>
>
> It's borderline. Especially when you got up to a practical configuration,
> it was still awfully expensive, not to mention rather large and in need of
> considerable space and cooling. It was the first computer that a lot of
> labs could afford for themselves, but it still wasn't really a personal
> computer.
Perhaps this was true of the original units, but our old PDP-8E (circa 1970)
and trusty VT-52 terminal didn't need any heroic efforts to cool them. They
just sat on the bench and worked.
Expensive? At $6500 each, I suppose so. But they looked and felt more like a
1970's single user CP/M machine than they didn't.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Christopher M. Jones
> In article <bg022d$gv0ht$1...@ID-137880.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Christopher M.
> Jones" <spic...@dualboot.net> wrote:
> > Has anyone ever documented what happens when you strike an
> > old IBM keyboard with a 30-30 Winchester?
>
> You mean, _strike_ it -- like hitting with the butt -- or _shoot_ it?
Hint, I'm talking about different IBM products. ;)
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Christopher M. Jones" <spic...@dualboot.net> wrote in message
news:bg551d$l0rot$1...@ID-137880.news.uni-berlin.de...
Actually I recall reading a comment by a former Air Force guy about the .45
they had strapped to the side of the hard disk pack case.
His job in the event of being overrun by the Soviets was to fire it into the
spinning disk pack and letting momentum do the rest to the disk pack.
Henry Spencer
Dave Michelson <da...@ece.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> It's borderline. Especially when you got up to a practical configuration,
>> it was still awfully expensive, not to mention rather large and in need of
>
>Perhaps this was true of the original units, but our old PDP-8E (circa 1970)
>and trusty VT-52 terminal didn't need any heroic efforts to cool them. They
>just sat on the bench and worked.
The 8E configuration we had needed a bit more than that. Admittedly it
was a rather large one.
RAILROAD SPIKE
"Ami A. Silberman" <sil...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:3F20354D...@mitre.org...
> quilty wrote:
> >
> > I heard (and don't ask me to identify the source...because I can't
> > quite remember where I heard this) that pocket calculators today are
> > more powerful than the computers that sent the Apollo crews to the
> > moon in the 60s.
> >
> > If this is true...why the need for such complicated machines like the
> > Shuttle? Why is it that there is a debate going on about making the
> > Orbital Space Plane more advanced than the shuttle to push out from
> > low Earth orbit?
> >
> > jer
> 1. Apollo was incredibly labor-intensive to fly. There were a lot of
> procedures which, in the Shuttle, are controlled via computer, or
> automatic, which involved lots of setting of switches in Apollo.
>
> 2. The real computing brains behind Apollo were earth-bound. All the
> trajectory and burn calculations were performed on earth.
>
> 3. Compared to Apollo, the Shuttle flies a much more complicated
> re-entry profile. (Since it actually flys, as opposed to plummets
> aerodynamically.)
>
> 4. The Shuttle now uses a "glass cockpit" with reconfigurable displays
> ... Apollo used a lot of dials and strips. (Note that Mercury used a
> clockwork mission timer, IIRC)
>
> 5. The original shuttle computer was about as powerful as a late 70's
> PC.
OM
wrote:
>MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
>first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | he...@spsystems.net
...Apparently, detumbling was successful today, as well as official
commissioning:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/microsat-03h.html
...Congrats, Henry!
Henry Spencer
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote:
>>MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
>>first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | he...@spsystems.net
>
>...Apparently, detumbling was successful today, as well as official
Detumbling was last Thursday, actually. And official commissioning isn't
done yet, despite possibly-misleading wording in that report; that will
take at least the activation of precision attitude control, and some
testing to confirm that it works as well as expected. (I'm not involved
in MOST operations, and I don't remember the planned sequence offhand.)
But yes, it's getting there.
--
Bob Martin
> >college. I used a National Semiconductor LED calculator with RPN...
Evil... evil RPN. I refused to use the HP's my high school supplied simply
because of that (I stuck with my TI-86 instead, or just did the problems by
hand).
> No pocket calculators period when I was a freshman. You had to know how
> to use a slide rule, log tables, etc. And I did, but it was no fun.
Anywhere I could learn how to use a slide rule? I my mom's old one while
helping my grandparents move. It might be interesting to show up to my
aerodynamics class one day with it...
OM
wrote:
>MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
>first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | he...@spsystems.net
...Apparently, detumbling was successful today, as well as official
OM
wrote:
>In article <497fivcjuo4lpnk1l...@4ax.com>,
>OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote:
>>>MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
>>>first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | he...@spsystems.net
>>
>>...Apparently, detumbling was successful today, as well as official
>>commissioning...
>
>Detumbling was last Thursday, actually. And official commissioning isn't
>done yet, despite possibly-misleading wording in that report;
...Yeah, I re-read that, and noted that commissioning wasn't anywhere
near complete. Either way, congrats are still in order.
Now, for the big question: how'd the Zoology department get involved
with a project like this anyway? :-)
OM
<gtg...@mail.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> > Kids these days, they just have it too easy. No 48GX's when I was in
>> >college. I used a National Semiconductor LED calculator with RPN...
>
>Evil... evil RPN. I refused to use the HP's my high school supplied simply
>because of that (I stuck with my TI-86 instead, or just did the problems by
>hand).
...RPN was one of those calculating methods that had absolutely no
reason to come into being. I tend to equate it with all those bullshit
"top-down" design concepts that idiots like Nell Dale foisted on CS
majors in the 80's.
>> No pocket calculators period when I was a freshman. You had to know how
>> to use a slide rule, log tables, etc. And I did, but it was no fun.
>
>Anywhere I could learn how to use a slide rule? I my mom's old one while
>helping my grandparents move. It might be interesting to show up to my
>aerodynamics class one day with it...
...There actually used to be a couple of websites up that had all the
info on how to use a slide rule properly. One even had a Flash slide
rule simulator that allowed you to try out the tutorials. Both have
been gone for over a year now, which sucks because it was really a
trip to see whether you remembered how to use it after 20+ years!
Herb Schaltegger
"Bob Martin" <gtg...@mail.gatech.edu> wrote:
OH MY GOD! An engineering student who bases his calculator choice
AGAINST RPN? What the hell is the world coming to these days? I
suppose that's why my academic advisor (also the department head) called
it "The Georgia Institute for Wayward Boys" (it was his alma mater . .
.) ;-)
Gene Wright
HP was always crunched early on for memory, since they didn't make their own
chips like TI did. Using RPN requires less memory than algebraic. STudies
have even shown that to solve almost any problem, it takes fewer keystrokes
on an RPN machine than a algebraic machine (with parentheses or not). HP
models would have 49 steps of program memory, while TI's would have 100. HP
would have one with 224, TI would have one with 960! Calculations-wise, the
HP calculator systems needed less ram to solve arithmetic problems than an
algebraic AOS stack machine from TI. They saved money too.
Had HP been a memory chip manufacturer, they may have gone algebraic. Hard
to tell. But there was a good reason, in their opinion, to do so.
I for one, still use RPN as I believe it is much faster than dealing with
parentheses. Lots and lots of engineers still swear by HP. Of those who are
older than 40, I imagine a huge majority would do so.
Gene
--
* These statements and opinions are mine alone and do not reflect my
employer's views. *
"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote
in message news:gh5giv0uh1t4qkhfd...@4ax.com...
Herb Schaltegger
"Gene Wright" <ge...@ford.invalid> wrote:
> I for one, still use RPN as I believe it is much faster than dealing with
> parentheses. Lots and lots of engineers still swear by HP. Of those who are
> older than 40, I imagine a huge majority would do so.
Make that "35 or older" and you can count me in . . .
Another great feature of using RPN on a calc is that it makes dealing
with the stack (which is often filled with results of intermediate steps
in the problem) more intuitive. As you work through complicated
problems, its handy to look at your stack and be able to just hit the
key for the operation or function you want to perform on the two values
visible right there in front of you. Sometimes you goof up; especially
before "UNDO" became available, it was a good feeling to SEE and verify
both numbers you wanted to work with before telling the calc to do the
operation.
To all RPN doubters I say this: do one really complicated set of
thermodamnamics or incomprehensible flow problems on your standard
TI-type calc, then do a comparable set of problems on an RPN-based calc.
You probably won't go back.
Jorge R. Frank
news:herbschaltegger-F6...@enews.newsguy.com:
> In article <bg94jd$ik...@eccws12.dearborn.ford.com>,
> "Gene Wright" <ge...@ford.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I for one, still use RPN as I believe it is much faster than dealing
>> with parentheses. Lots and lots of engineers still swear by HP. Of
>> those who are older than 40, I imagine a huge majority would do so.
>
> Make that "35 or older" and you can count me in . . .
And me...
> To all RPN doubters I say this: do one really complicated set of
> thermodamnamics or incomprehensible flow problems on your standard
> TI-type calc, then do a comparable set of problems on an RPN-based
> calc. You probably won't go back.
I certainly won't. I swear by my HP-41CV. It got me through four years of
aero. Damn thing's almost indestructable, too.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Jim Davis
>> To all RPN doubters I say this: do one really complicated set
>> of thermodamnamics or incomprehensible flow problems on your
>> standard TI-type calc, then do a comparable set of problems on
>> an RPN-based calc. You probably won't go back.
>
> I certainly won't. I swear by my HP-41CV. It got me through
> four years of aero. Damn thing's almost indestructable, too.
Does anyone else have an HP-15C? I've had mine for 20 years and if it
stopped working or got lost or stolen I'd be heartbroken.
Jim Davis
Dave Michelson
>
> Does anyone else have an HP-15C? I've had mine for 20 years and if it
> stopped working or got lost or stolen I'd be heartbroken.
I did, but lost mine about five years ago :-(
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Reed Snellenberger
news:Xns93C8D5E655187ji...@130.133.1.4:
Absolutely -- although I've got a couple of the later models, the 15C has
always felt a lot more solid.
They're advertised for sale on ebay, as well -- there are several there
right now, with prices around the $160 mark.
--
Reed Snellenberger
Mike Chan
> In article <3F23FBA...@pacbell.net>,
> Brett Buck <buc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >...I took
> >the back off one time, and the "chip" was not in a molded package - it
> >was hand-potted right on the circuit board!
>
> That's actually fairly common in high-volume low-cost electronics. It
> saves a penny or two to put the bare chip on the board and then put a glob
> of epoxy over it, rather than having the chip-maker glob it beforehand.
The HP-3xE series had the chip and the LED assembly pins pressed down
onto the PWB by a high density foam pad after the case was screwed
together. The foam gradually got compressed in spots in the course of
normal usage, leading to intermittent display and results. I soldered
the pins on both the chip and LED assembly, and got a couple more
years out of my 32E until the "4" key wouldn't work any more.
Mike Chan
> Actually, there was a GREAT reason for RPN to come into existence.
>
> HP was always crunched early on for memory, since they didn't make their own
> chips like TI did. Using RPN requires less memory than algebraic. STudies
> have even shown that to solve almost any problem, it takes fewer keystrokes
> on an RPN machine than a algebraic machine (with parentheses or not). HP
> models would have 49 steps of program memory, while TI's would have 100. HP
> would have one with 224, TI would have one with 960! Calculations-wise, the
> HP calculator systems needed less ram to solve arithmetic problems than an
> algebraic AOS stack machine from TI. They saved money too.
>
Another reason was that ALU architecture in HP minis of that time were
based stack operations instead of general purpose registers. So,
there was design leverage.
> Had HP been a memory chip manufacturer, they may have gone algebraic. Hard
> to tell. But there was a good reason, in their opinion, to do so.
>
> I for one, still use RPN as I believe it is much faster than dealing with
> parentheses. Lots and lots of engineers still swear by HP. Of those who are
> older than 40, I imagine a huge majority would do so.
Remember the "ENTER" > "=" T-shirts?
It is noteworthy that some old HP calculators go for 2x to 3x their
original MSRP on EBay. I was looking for another HP-42S for a backup
in case I lost the one I have now, and was shocked to see them getting
$200 to $300 winning bids.
For the folks who cut their teeth using RPN, algebraic entry just
plain sucks.
The other major plus of the old HP calculators was the precise feel of
the keys compared to the mushy feel on any calculator (HP included) on
the market today.
HP made some truly classic products...
Mark
> Perhaps, but at least my ZX-81 wasn't a "Timex Sinclair xxxxx" but an
> honest-to-Clive original "Sinclair" :-P
I didn't build a ZX80, but I did build a ZX81 :).
> You ever play the Flight
> Simulator program on one of those? Heh. These kids these days don't
> know how good they've got it: color graphics, indeed! Pixels smaller
> than a quarter-inch square, feh! *grumble, mumble*
There was hi-res graphics code for the ZX81 which could kind of do
256x192 pixels (kind of as in you couldn't control every single pixel
with perfect accuracy, only approximate). The great thing about a
computer which used software to display the screen was that you could
hack the display routine to display things other than what it was
'supposed' to display.
Mark
Gene Wright
news:Xns93C8F1...@199.184.165.240...
> Jim Davis wrote:
>
> > Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>>
> >> I certainly won't. I swear by my HP-41CV. It got me through four
> >> years of aero. Damn thing's almost indestructable, too.
> >
> > Does anyone else have an HP-15C? I've had mine for 20 years and if
> > it stopped working or got lost or stolen I'd be heartbroken.
>
> got run over by a car and still worked fine afterwards, although the
> case is a mess. Still worked the last time I used it, admittedly a few
> years ago. Oh, and it did create quite the stir when I started work at
> HP. ;-)
Gene: Anyone looking for a trip down calculator memory lane?
Check:
for some fun memories!
OM
>Herb Schaltegger <herbsch...@spamtrap.invalid> wrote in message news:<herbschaltegger-93...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>> Perhaps, but at least my ZX-81 wasn't a "Timex Sinclair xxxxx" but an
>> honest-to-Clive original "Sinclair" :-P
>
>I didn't build a ZX80, but I did build a ZX81 :).
...And not too many of those kits were successfully built. They were a
bit less "slop-tolerant" than the ZX-80's, which was a major
motivating factor towards Sir Clive switching the line to being
totally pre-assembled. Once he did that, Timex jumped on the marketing
deal, and they became essentially the in-thing for every geek to own
because they were cheap *and* affordable *and* for a -brief- time
trendy.
Ergo, they were the Pet Rock or the Rubik's Cube for those who
actually wanted a fad item that *did* something constructive.
Jonathan Silverlight
<ope...@yahoo.com> writes
I had a Novus 4525 programmable (National Semiconductor, RPN) and
devised workarounds for the fact that the "2" key stopped working.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk
Diane Wilson
@earthlink.net says...
Yup, just checked the one in my desk while reading this thread,
and it's a 15C. The 11C (I think, it has hex mode) is at
work. It's still working after 20 years, which my new laptop
definitely won't be.
I don't use it much any more, but when you need a calculator,
you need a RPN calculator!
Diane
Rick DeNatale
> ...The mark of distinction isn't owning a ZX-81, it's having built a
> ZX-80.
No I can do better than that.
When I was an engineering student back in the (very) early 70's I built a
4 function pocket calculator with a membrane keyboard from a kit which I
purchased from some surplus electronics outfit in MA. I think it was B&K
or something like that.
This was back when the "Bowmar Brain" still cost hundreds of dollars, and
the HP-35 was brand spanking new, and most of the calulators that neophyte
engineers with the right stuff carried around hanging from our belts like
swords bore brands like K&E and Pickett.
What was good enought for Von Braun and Korylev was good enough for us!
OM
wrote:
>When I was an engineering student back in the (very) early 70's I built a
>4 function pocket calculator with a membrane keyboard from a kit which I
>purchased from some surplus electronics outfit in MA. I think it was B&K
>or something like that.
...I think I remember that kit, or one very much like it. We built
them in my first electronics class for our final exam. We were judged
for three criteria: neatness of soldering, proper function of unit,
and general appearance of the overall unit. We also got extra credit
if we modified the unit in any way, shape or form and it still worked.
I took mine, split the circuit board, ran several jumper wires, and
combined it with a portable tape recorder I was using to record class
lectures with. I also found a green version of the LED display that
came with the kit in another surplus catalog, and managed to get it
shipped to me in the mail and installed about an *hour* before final
projects were due.
The punch line? I got an A- instead of an A+ because if the calculator
was used while the recorder was recording, for some unknown reason it
picked up this nasty RF 'blip-hiss'. Never did figure out what that
was...
Kevin Willoughby
> Another reason was that ALU architecture in HP minis of that time were
> based stack operations instead of general purpose registers. So,
> there was design leverage.
?!
In that era, I used an HP-2114B, and an HP-2100S for real-time data
acquisition. (My employer was owned by fire insurance companies. We'd
build and burn down buildings to figure out how to minimize fire
damage. (The major cost of most fires in commercial buildings isn't
fire damage, it is water damage from the sprinklers!)) Some data
reduction was done with our HP-35 and HP-65. Trust me, the computers
did *not* have stack-based operations. Despite the longer word length
(16 bit vs 12 bit), the HP instruction set was inferior to the much
simpler PDP-8.
> > Lots and lots of engineers still swear by HP. Of those who are
> > older than 40, I imagine a huge majority would do so.
I balanced my checkbook last night. Used my HP-11c. That little unit
has just worked for many years.
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@scispace.org.invalid
We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong