USAF Gray Air Crew Headsets
Dan
headsets air crews used to use in the USAF. Anyone know?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> I am trying to recall the designation and manufacturer of the gray
> headsets air crews used to use in the USAF. Anyone know?
IIRC, the manufacturer was David Clark. If only the
intercom connectors on them were about 10 inches longer!
I loved them - and hated those 20 lb. black monsters
with the goofy 'spit cup' housing a microphone.
Of course, those gray headsets are why I can't hear shit
today - but I wouldn't have traded them for anything!
Dan
I was fond of my talkies, what you call "black monsters." Then again,
I was attached at the hip with them for the 2 years I was on F-4E. I
didn't want to turn them in when I rotated back to the world.
The gray aircrew sets were never designed for hearing protection. I
noticed the air crews are now issued David Clark headsets with full
protection. They look a bit more comfortable than the old ones.
John Szalay
> I am trying to recall the designation and manufacturer of the gray
> headsets air crews used to use in the USAF. Anyone know?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
The one I have is from 1966
Headset H-143 AIC Manufactured by Roanwell Corp.
W/Microphone M-87/Aic Dynamic
We used to find them on the DZ, back when I was in. (65-68)
during sweeps for lost equipment.(180kts slipstream does that)
IIRC: the airborne infantry types thought it was real cute
to grab a baseball hat off the loadmasters head as they went out the door.
sometimes the headset went along for the ride.
Getting caught with a hat was no big deal,part of the "game"
but get caught with the expensive headset and it was article 15 or
worse..so they dropped those..
Dan
OK, that put me on the right track. It turns out the one I was
thinking of was H-157/AIC:
http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/pic/h-157aic_bluelight_01.jpg
Thank you.
John Szalay
> John Szalay wrote:
>>
>> The one I have is from 1966
>>
>> Headset H-143 AIC Manufactured by Roanwell Corp.
>> W/Microphone M-87/Aic Dynamic
>>
>>
> OK, that put me on the right track. It turns out the one I was
> thinking of was H-157/AIC:
>
> http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/pic/h-157aic_bluelight_01.jpg
>
> Thank you.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Interesting, the set I have looks exactly like that headset.. Hummmm...
wonder what the real difference is, other then the number ?
There is also a earphone/speaker with the H-143 number..
perhaps I read the wrong tag..
But the set I have looks exactly like H-157.
Oh well, we found the right one.
H-143 speaker element.
http://store.acousticom.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=134
coffelt2
>> I loved them - and hated those 20 lb. black monsters
>> with the goofy 'spit cup' housing a microphone.
The "20 pound black monsters" sound like the "mickey
mouse" intercom set we used on the ground cord while
working on running engines or launching aircraft.
(USAF style) Same????????
Old Chief Lynn
Dan
That's the beast :) I have seen them for sale on e-bay.
Daryl Hunt
Huh??? Speak Up, I can't hear you.
It's funny, I protected against the turbine engine noise. Kept my high
frequency just fine. What got me was the Diesel Power Carts. I lost
quite a bit right around 6hz.
Dan
One can't lose what one never had.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range
Ken S. Tucker
Na, nobody (I know of) actally hears 6hz, it's more feel,
20 hz is a very low hum.
I occasionally design hearing aids, enjoy sound files hear,
http://www.trak4.com/earco/index.html
I put a soft peak at 3khz because it's subjectively responsive to
nature sounds, by consensus.
They're cheap units ($200) but have never had a field failure in 20
years, it's a strange story.
Why did I design it so good?, cuz any failure lands on my desk.
Last year I did a repair, a dog chewed the cord, a few years
ago a Woodpecker hacked into a mike, so I issue a directive to
manufacture, Woodpecker screening.
That's why we're above board, everybody knows us.
Customers are adamant about service so we make sure they know
our email and phone#.
It's not for the money, I'll order another 100 units, and maybe the
company will make $100 per unit = $10k, but the important factor
is respecting nature.
I suppose it's our small way of enhancing natural philosophy.
Let me know if you want an EAR.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Dweezil Dwarftosser
Precisely.
I guess it wouldn't have been too bad had we been
issued 'personal' sets, but these things came from
a very small pool. Besides: the lightweight gray
intercom sets (with boom mike) provided an ability
to hear ambient sounds in the cockpit and of the
radar when the 'dome was open.
Knowing what one sounded like in normal operation
gave great clues when it was malfunctioning.
(Really; people accept the idea concerning an engine
- but don't readily accept it when the subject is
an electronic device. They don't know that resolvers
have a distinct 400 Hz 'ring'; gyros whistle at a few
thousand hertz, and magnetrons buzz distinctively at
the PRF used. If something is out of the ordinary,
you notice the different sound immediately. . .)
Daryl Hunt
Correct that to 6000 hz.
Daryl Hunt
> On May 24, 11:56 pm, Daryl Hunt <dh...@i70westnospam.com> wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> coffelt2 wrote:
>>>>>> I loved them - and hated those 20 lb. black monsters with the goofy
>>>>>> 'spit cup' housing a microphone.
>>>> The "20 pound black monsters" sound like the "mickey
>>>> mouse" intercom set we used on the ground cord while
>>>> working on running engines or launching aircraft.
>>>> (USAF style) Same????????
>>>> Old Chief Lynn
>>> That's the beast :) I have seen them for sale on e-bay.
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>> Huh??? Speak Up, I can't hear you.
>>
>> It's funny, I protected against the turbine engine noise. Kept my high
>> frequency just fine. What got me was the Diesel Power Carts. I lost
>> quite a bit right around 6hz.
>
> Na, nobody (I know of) actally hears 6hz, it's more feel,
> 20 hz is a very low hum.
> I occasionally design hearing aids, enjoy sound files hear,
I misttype. It should read 6000 hz.
Ken S. Tucker
No Prob, most hearing (99%) needs <4000 hz, unless you have a whiny
bitch
with a squeaky voice, you wanna listen to.
That stuff is studied for telephony, it makes a big diff to squeeze
channel's
(in the old days) into transoceanic cables. Audiophiles might want
higher
frequencies.
Ken
Dan
I will probably regret asking this, but where did you come up with
that figure?
Ken S. Tucker
The subject is very boring except for specialists,like me,
(I drool on that stuff),
here's a very primitive ref, see BandWidth,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_telephone_cable
check out the number of 'channels'.
In simple terms, the more narrow the BW the more channels
(telephone calls per wires), subjectively it was determined 4500hz
was the max needed for good enuf audio communication, that
impacts the bottom line.
I specialized in compressors and expanders, ingenius
devices, quite advanced.
Weird stuff, what I'd do is tune a pair, so the actual signal
amplitude was attenuated to reduce the power requirement,
across the ocean, then at the other end restore the amplitude.
Also did scramblers for propietary comunications, is was spooky,
I think the details are still classified, but the overview is known.
Ken
Daryl Hunt
I made more money as a Musician in the 20 years with the AF than I did
from the AF itself. The last few years, I noticed that I was having
trouble with the monitors. Since I played Bass, my own instrument was
well below the damage. But I had trouble hearing some of the voices.
And my mixes were coming up with a different feel. I ended up using
electronics for the mixes for them to come out right and using white
noise to set up the PA system. Since then, my left hand has shown
damage from an engine stand and that pretty well says I play in my
living room and not for bucks anymore. Oh, well, that's life in the
fast lane.
And "SPEAK UP WILLYA' "
Daryl Hunt
Comon Ken, you didn't answer that question.
I do disagree with you. The sounds I am hearing right now (btw, I still
have acute hearing in the lower and the upper ranges) is from about 30hz
to around 18khz. A birds chirp is much higher than 4k. Some birds go
past 20k. Nature will also have lower freqs that are below the 18hz
that I can hear. You feel it, you don't actually hear it. Much like my
bass which is designed to put out a set of freqs you can here but goes
down to below 15hz which you can only feel. Live music is designed to
stimulate the full range of the hearing and non hearing senses.
I don't know where you got the 4000hz from since all around us is the
full spectrum of sound.
This is one area that I am much more familiar than you are, I suspect.
Dan
You didn't answer my question. I'm not surprised. Neither am I
surprised in yet another subject in which you claim to be a specialist.
Remember the time you told us you know all there is to know about rocketry?
BobP
I just had a hearing booth test. All they seem to care about is the
narrow band of speech frequencys which is probably centered around
4000hz. He told me the numbers, but I don't remember. Far as I know
you buy hearing aids so you can hear people talking not so you can
hear birds.
Dan
I don't know about hearing aids and such, but every hearing test I
can remember ever having covered a rather wide range. I have no idea how
wide. I'd be curious to know.
I very much value my hearing if only for safety reasons. It's amazing
how many threats to ones safety one detects by hearing.
On the other had I remember an idiot running a dash 60 inside a tab
vee without using any form of hearing protection. He told me "you get
used to it." Same with some civil engineers doing construction in a shop
where we had to wear hearing protection because their saws caused us
pain. They also said "you get used to it." Personally I'd rather have
my hearing. There's enough loss just due to age.
Keith Willshaw
"BobP" <colds...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vt9qv59lloeo9it2q...@4ax.com...
Most codecs used by VOIP (Voice Over IP) limit the bandwidth
used for speech to a range from 200Hz to 4 kHz . HiFi systems
are typically designed for the range 25Hz to 20kHz.
This is done to cram the maximum number of speech channels into
a given bandwidth. The original analogue phone systems had similar
limitations due to the crude carbon diaphragm microphones used.
Keith
BobP
http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/testing/assess.htm
With regard to degree of hearing loss, the audiologist is looking for
quantitative information. Hearing levels are expressed in decibels
(dB) based on the pure tone average for the frequencies 500 to 4000 Hz
and discussed using descriptors related to severity: normal hearing (0
to 20 dB HL), mild hearing loss (20-40 dB HL), moderate hearing loss
(40-60 dB HL), severe (60-80 dB HL) and profound hearing loss (80 dB
HL or greater).
Dan
<snip>
>
> This is done to cram the maximum number of speech channels into
> a given bandwidth. The original analogue phone systems had similar
> limitations due to the crude carbon diaphragm microphones used.
>
> Keith
I don't recall carbon mikes being crude. I but unpleasant at times,
but never crude.
I would tell you I couldn't resist, but I doubt you'd believe me.
Roger Conroy
"Dan" <B24...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0C2Ln.10696$%u7....@newsfe14.iad...
Standard old fashioned telephones and SSB HF radios are/were normally setup
with a low cutoff at 300Hz and a high cut-off at 3000Hz. Its more than
adequate to deliver perfectly intelligible speech for practically all
voices.
BTW I thought David Clarks are usually pale green.
Dan
<snip>
> BTW I thought David Clarks are usually pale green.
>
>
They are, but the aircrew headsets they replaced were gray:
http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/pic/h-157aic_bluelight_01.jpg
and the ground crew ones were black:
ttp://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/081102-F-2517F-004.jpg
http://www.davidclark.com/images/H133C-AIC_comp.jpg
Peter Stickney
Not just the radars (Although I still pull out my pocket VHF receiver to
catch the sidebands of the airport radars around here, just for practice)
Computers as well - at least before the FCC got heavy into the RFI mitigation.
Back when I was developing the systems that Mr. Tucker claims to have
worked on, the images took hours to convolve. (Mid 1980s, Nuclear Medicine
Imaging Systems.)
I used an AM radio to listen to the interference coming from the single-chip
PDP-11 and the Array Processors to monitor progress while I did other
work. Didn't take long to get quite adept at following the progress of the
program, and detecting when pointers got crossed and it started executing
data.
The Field Circus Kit for DEC mainframes included an AM transistor pocket
radio for similar purposes.
(Oh, and Mr. Tucker, I'm still in touch with my compadres from
Lightning Way and Waverley Oaks. Oenker, Tipton, Jensen,
Birkener and Lazawatski never heard of you.)
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system
Ken S. Tucker
I'm sure you are Daryl, how much hearing acuity does a drummer need?
I did some medical Ultra sound, 4,6,8 Mhz, so what, I agree with what
you wrote.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
> catch the sidebands of the airport radars around here, just for practice)
> Computers as well - at least before the FCC got heavy into the RFI mitigation.
> Back when I was developing the systems that Mr. Tucker claims to have
> worked on, the images took hours to convolve. (Mid 1980s, Nuclear Medicine
> Imaging Systems.)
Not sure what you're point is Peter, your data is a bit faulty, anyway
it's was no problemo for me to replace a 30" wide Na Iodide crystal in
a few hours, c/w tuning.
> I used an AM radio to listen to the interference coming from the single-chip
> PDP-11 and the Array Processors to monitor progress while I did other
> work. Didn't take long to get quite adept at following the progress of the
> program, and detecting when pointers got crossed and it started executing
> data.
> The Field Circus Kit for DEC mainframes included an AM transistor pocket
> radio for similar purposes.
PDP-11 was an ok mini. I (we) tended to use photonics to isolate.
> (Oh, and Mr. Tucker, I'm still in touch with my compadres from
> Lightning Way and Waverley Oaks. Oenker, Tipton, Jensen,
> Birkener and Lazawatski never heard of you.)
That's cuz I worked with upscale outfits.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
Not sure what you're point is Peter, your data is a bit faulty, anyway
it's was no problemo for me to replace a 30" wide Na Iodide crystal in
a few hours, c/w tuning.
> I used an AM radio to listen to the interference coming from the single-chip
> PDP-11 and the Array Processors to monitor progress while I did other
> work. Didn't take long to get quite adept at following the progress of the
> program, and detecting when pointers got crossed and it started executing
> data.
> The Field Circus Kit for DEC mainframes included an AM transistor pocket
> radio for similar purposes.
PDP-11 was an ok mini. I (we) tended to use photonics to isolate.
> (Oh, and Mr. Tucker, I'm still in touch with my compadres from
> Lightning Way and Waverley Oaks. Oenker, Tipton, Jensen,
> Birkener and Lazawatski never heard of you.)
That's cuz I worked with upscale outfits.
Ken
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> On the other had I remember an idiot running a dash 60 inside a tab
> vee without using any form of hearing protection. He told me "you get
> used to it."
I'll take the fifth on that one - but maintain that using
a -60 inside a closed-back (no roof) revetment could do
more damage. (Especially so, when some sort of mass gaggle
was occurring around you. The hotshots were racing to beat
the other squadron's planes to the runway - and would goose
the engines quite a bit to get rolling.)
With lots of practice, we could accomplish a pre-flight
AIM-7 'Hot tune" check in 3-5 minutes with nothing but
one of those deisel generators (MD-80 ? I don't remember.)
Things would turn bad for us - hustling from plane to plane
on our list - when they had instead provided a -60. Your
ears could hurt, afterward.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> I used an AM radio to listen to the interference coming from the single-chip
> PDP-11 and the Array Processors to monitor progress while I did other
> work. Didn't take long to get quite adept at following the progress of the
> program, and detecting when pointers got crossed and it started executing
> data.
> The Field Circus Kit for DEC mainframes included an AM transistor pocket
> radio for similar purposes.
Nothing was more fun than listening to the Z-80 in
a slow, old Sinclair ZX-81 kerchunking away at a
math problem, on a nearby AM radio. It then would
stop, and finally display the graph of some exponential
function - after recursing into a tiny table a few tens
of thousands of times to resolve a trig function for
each of the curve's data points. Much more intriguing
than watching das blinkenlites on a PDP-8 or -11.
(Early '70s, during a break in service: the control
system for a parts-distribution/delivery conveyor in
Pan Am's four-747 heavy maintenance hangar at JFK . . .)
Dan
<snip>
>
> With lots of practice, we could accomplish a pre-flight
> AIM-7 'Hot tune" check in 3-5 minutes with nothing but
> one of those deisel generators (MD-80 ? I don't remember.)
MD-3, gasoline power if memory serves. Replaced in the 1980s with a
diesel unit made by Hobart, I forget the designation.
Paul J. Adam
Dwarftosser <f4...@yahoo.com> writes
>Nothing was more fun than listening to the Z-80 in
>a slow, old Sinclair ZX-81 kerchunking away at a
>math problem, on a nearby AM radio.
I *had* a ZX81 and never thought to listen in to its RF emissions. (But
I was only ten at the time).
>Much more intriguing
>than watching das blinkenlites on a PDP-8 or -11.
On the other hand I wrote, compiled, linked and ran FORTRAN code on a
PDP-11/70 for a while. (Not as a compliment, just because it was little
used, the VAX was chargeable, and my billable time was very cheap at
that point)
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
Dan
Considering software available at the time Sinclair was a good buy.
Once user friendly software became available home computers became
viable. When Radio Shaft brought out the Trs-80 many people thought it
would be good for home use. It was, if you could at least do basic, but
most people couldn't. The Trs-80 did, however, break the price barrier.
Now, if you want to mention a piece of junk, remember the Commodore Pet?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired (not CP/M compatible)
Daryl Hunt
Id hw he is going to be any good at all, he needs the full spectrum.
You must listen to some pretty crappy drummers.
Daryl Hunt
> Dan said...
>
>> On the other had I remember an idiot running a dash 60 inside a tab
>> vee without using any form of hearing protection. He told me "you get
>> used to it."
>
> I'll take the fifth on that one - but maintain that using
> a -60 inside a closed-back (no roof) revetment could do
> more damage. (Especially so, when some sort of mass gaggle
> was occurring around you. The hotshots were racing to beat
> the other squadron's planes to the runway - and would goose
> the engines quite a bit to get rolling.)
>
> With lots of practice, we could accomplish a pre-flight
> AIM-7 'Hot tune" check in 3-5 minutes with nothing but
> one of those deisel generators (MD-80 ? I don't remember.)
> Things would turn bad for us - hustling from plane to plane
> on our list - when they had instead provided a -60. Your
> ears could hurt, afterward.
If your ears hurt afterwards, later on, you will diminish your sound
capability. You may not notice it but others around you will. Can you
say "Huh"?
Ken S. Tucker
<n...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <MPG.26688cff6aa115b7989...@news2.flex.com>, Dweezil
> Dwarftosser <f4...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >Nothing was more fun than listening to the Z-80 in
> >a slow, old Sinclair ZX-81 kerchunking away at a
> >math problem, on a nearby AM radio.
>
> I *had* a ZX81 and never thought to listen in to its RF emissions. (But
> I was only ten at the time).
>
> >Much more intriguing
> >than watching das blinkenlites on a PDP-8 or -11.
>
> On the other hand I wrote, compiled, linked and ran FORTRAN code on a
> PDP-11/70 for a while. (Not as a compliment, just because it was little
> used, the VAX was chargeable, and my billable time was very cheap at
> that point)
Paul, yous is a young guy with good head-start. I bit for $1000 and
bought a TRS-80 in 1980, learned machine and assembler code for
the Z-80, it paid off, looked impressive on resumes going forward so
I got a fair raise, I was in my 20's, even designed a compiler.
Ken
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > With lots of practice, we could accomplish a pre-flight
> > AIM-7 'Hot tune" check in 3-5 minutes with nothing but
> > one of those deisel generators (MD-80 ? I don't remember.)
>
> MD-3, gasoline power if memory serves.
Yes! that's it; the one with the basso profundo exhaust.
(MD-80? I must have been thinking about C-9's, or
something ;)
Dan
C-9 was a DC-9. MD-80 came about when models were re-designated. When
the USAF decided on KC-10 some of us were poking the civil DC
designation as "done crashed."
I used to heat C rations in dash 60 exhausts. I'd partially open the
can to keep it from exploding and hang it in the exhaust with safety
wire. Good thing I never dropped it in. Placing a can on the exhaust of
an MD-3 could be a tad problematic if the generator surged. I never had
one fall over, but I heard it had happened.
I still say the ham and egg C ration was failed wall paper paste
mixed with expired cat food.
vaughn
>
> Considering software available at the time Sinclair was a good buy.
But it had a tiny keyboard that limited its usefullness and (like other cheap
computers of the time) it could only display about 40 (or was it 20?) characters
on a line.
> Once user friendly software became available home computers became viable.
The ultimate "user friendly" software of the time was basic in ROM. I learned
much about programming, and spend many happy hours doing it. The commercially
available cassette-based applications available back then were mostly a joke.
> When Radio Shaft brought out the Trs-80 many people thought it would be good
> for home use. It was, if you could at least do basic, but most people
> couldn't. The Trs-80 did, however, break the price barrier.
The best "bang for the buck" was the one I finally bought for my first computer,
the Ohio Scientific Challenger 1P.
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=813
> Now, if you want to mention a piece of junk, remember the Commodore Pet?
Yep. My first Commodore was a 64 with an outboard floppy disk. It still could
not display 80- characters, but with a dot matrix printer and a rom-based word
processor it did my first college papers. I was the only one in my Freshman
Communications class with a word processor, so while my classmates were turning
in a first or (at best) second draft manually typewritten product, I was able to
do as many drafts as it took! The prof complained about my coarse dot matrix
output, but consistently gave me good grades because that crappy computer was
helping me outshine my classmates.
By the time I finished college, it would have been unthinkable for any student
to turn in a typewritten paper.
Vaughn
Ken S. Tucker
Your're pretty worried Daryl, ok don't play cymbals,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymbal
I recommend you learn the Kazoo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazoo
Eat lots of beans and you can play the Kazoo at gay stag parties.
Ken
Peter Stickney
On Thu, 27 May 2010 11:40:00 -0700, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 26, 9:08 pm, Peter Stickney <p_stick...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Not just the radars (Although I still pull out my pocket VHF receiver
>> to catch the sidebands of the airport radars around here, just for
>> practice) Computers as well - at least before the FCC got heavy into
>> the RFI mitigation. Back when I was developing the systems that Mr.
>> Tucker claims to have worked on, the images took hours to convolve.
>> (Mid 1980s, Nuclear Medicine Imaging Systems.)
>
> Not sure what you're point is Peter, your data is a bit faulty, anyway
> it's was no problemo for me to replace a 30" wide Na Iodide crystal in a
> few hours, c/w tuning.
First, I am not a point.
Second - Ken, you keep using where you don't know what they mean.
Image Convolution is the fundamental tenet of Tomography -
the science of looking around the perimeter of something, and
inferring what the appearance of that something's innards are.
In this case, we're talking about acquiring data from sources that
render the biological components of people and animals translucent.
(X Rays and Gamma Rays) or using techniques which allow the
concentration of particular atoms to be inferred (Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance)
It has nothing to do with screwing on a detector.
If you were really in the business, you'd know that.
You keep insisting on displaying what you don't know -
then trying to persist in attempting to impose it as truth.
Doesn't work.
>> I used an AM radio to listen to the interference coming from the
>> single-chip PDP-11 and the Array Processors to monitor progress while I
>> did other work. Didn't take long to get quite adept at following the
>> progress of the program, and detecting when pointers got crossed and it
>> started executing data.
>> The Field Circus Kit for DEC mainframes included an AM transistor
>> pocket radio for similar purposes.
>
> PDP-11 was an ok mini. I (we) tended to use photonics to isolate.
The 11, and its grown up son, the VAX, had pretty near the ideal
combination of architecture and instruction set. All others are
measured against it.
(The DG Nova and Eclipse, now - Ack! Phht!)
>> (Oh, and Mr. Tucker, I'm still in touch with my compadres from
>> Lightning Way and Waverley Oaks. Oenker, Tipton, Jensen, Birkener and
>> Lazawatski never heard of you.)
>
> That's cuz I worked with upscale outfits. Ken
Can't get more upscale that the designer (CDA/Analogic)
and the manufacturer (Siemens Gammasonics)
I don't see you in any of the pictures.
Hell - Even the folks at GE Takenocare (Technicare) ever heard
of you.
Ken S. Tucker
Right, I worked on advanced stuff.
> You keep insisting on displaying what you don't know -
> then trying to persist in attempting to impose it as truth.
> Doesn't work.
Ok, we have different backgrounds, I have a physics pov.
> >> I used an AM radio to listen to the interference coming from the
> >> single-chip PDP-11 and the Array Processors to monitor progress while I
> >> did other work. Didn't take long to get quite adept at following the
> >> progress of the program, and detecting when pointers got crossed and it
> >> started executing data.
> >> The Field Circus Kit for DEC mainframes included an AM transistor
> >> pocket radio for similar purposes.
>
> > PDP-11 was an ok mini. I (we) tended to use photonics to isolate.
>
> The 11, and its grown up son, the VAX, had pretty near the ideal
> combination of architecture and instruction set. All others are
> measured against it.
The 11 was ok in it's day. I was partial to Z-80.
> (The DG Nova and Eclipse, now - Ack! Phht!)
Don't know what they are.
> >> (Oh, and Mr. Tucker, I'm still in touch with my compadres from
> >> Lightning Way and Waverley Oaks. Oenker, Tipton, Jensen, Birkener and
> >> Lazawatski never heard of you.)
>
> > That's cuz I worked with upscale outfits. Ken
>
> Can't get more upscale that the designer (CDA/Analogic)
> and the manufacturer (Siemens Gammasonics)
I work NuMed with Siemens for a few years, how about you?
Ken
Dan
> coffelt2 said...
>>>> with the goofy 'spit cup' housing a microphone.
>> The "20 pound black monsters" sound like the "mickey
>> mouse" intercom set we used on the ground cord while
>> working on running engines or launching aircraft.
>> (USAF style) Same????????
>
> I guess it wouldn't have been too bad had we been
> issued 'personal' sets, but these things came from
> a very small pool. Besides: the lightweight gray
> intercom sets (with boom mike) provided an ability
> to hear ambient sounds in the cockpit and of the
> radar when the 'dome was open.
> Knowing what one sounded like in normal operation
> gave great clues when it was malfunctioning.
> (Really; people accept the idea concerning an engine
> - but don't readily accept it when the subject is
> an electronic device. They don't know that resolvers
> have a distinct 400 Hz 'ring'; gyros whistle at a few
> thousand hertz, and magnetrons buzz distinctively at
> the PRF used. If something is out of the ordinary,
> you notice the different sound immediately. . .)
Did you get the e-mails I sent you?
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Commodore Pet? ISTR you could set it on fire with an (in?)appropriate
bit of assembler - problem with its parallel port.
I still have the Nascom that my dad built circa '76 and it still
works. I had great fun writing the DOS for it from scratch, polling
not interrupt and having to pick some instructions on the number of
machine cycles they used - JMP PO rather than JE if my feeble Z80
memory still works.
Guy
Dan
I never owned one, but a friend who did routinely called me over to
fix his. There were wires from the main board to the monitor that would
come loose when they had nothing better to do. Picture a Molex connector
without the plastic,
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> Did you get the e-mails I sent you?
Yes - I got two replies at once, then the third a
couple of days later.
Nice photo, BTW.
Question: Red, White, or Blue?
Dan
Blue, 10th AMU, it rhymes.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
> > Question: Red, White, or Blue?
>
> Blue, 10th AMU, it rhymes.
Then you knew my best friend, PC Weakland.
He was the nicest guy in the world - as long as you didn't
have to work for him. (I did - in the Bitburg Cal Docks.)
He was amazing: like night and day.
Dan
If he was there 1978 - 1980 I knew him. To be honest I remember very
few names.