Choice of iron powder toriod?
 

Joerg wrote:

Hello Michael,

There is no reason to apologize for being good with analog. ;-) I
worked as a broadcast engineer during the time they announced the first
memory chip, (1101) which was a slow, noisy 256 bit * 1 DRAM with very
critical timing. I also did analog and digital work on the microwave
equipment built at Microdyne, before L3-Com closed the Ocala plant.


Seems you started with digital stuff a year or two earlier than I did.
My first RAM had a whopping 1024 bits. Not bytes, bits. 21...something,
I could look it up since the device where its in still works.

2114? 1K * 4 bits?

The reason I asked about the microwave equipment, I would like to
meet the people who designed the C-band CATV receivers I had to maintain
in the '80s. I always loved Collins equipment, till I ran into those
radios. They had a horrible failure rate, ...

But their HF radios were quite reliable. Unfortunately at that time out
of my budget range, and so were those nice mechanical filters :-(

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

I still have an unused 2.1 KHz Collins 455 KHz mechanical filter I
bought at the Dayton hamfest years ago. Its a little narrow for voice,
but it would be good for CW.

I still like Collins equipment, just not their poorly designed CATV
equipment. I wish I could afford a R-390 and felt well enough to do a
complete restoration. :(

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Choice of iron powder toriod?
 

"Joerg" wrote in message
...
Then again a SW engineer once told me that nothing is truly analog.
There is always that smallest digital step, the quantum.

So, digital is base two, and analog is base 1.6 x 10^19? ;-)

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

Choice of iron powder toriod?
 

In article ,
says...
"Joerg" wrote in message
...
Then again a SW engineer once told me that nothing is truly analog.
There is always that smallest digital step, the quantum.

So, digital is base two, and analog is base 1.6 x 10^19? ;-)

Not really. Analog's bits are just smaller. ;-)

--
Keith

Choice of iron powder toriod?
 

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:

Hello Michael,

There is no reason to apologize for being good with analog. ;-) I
worked as a broadcast engineer during the time they announced the
first memory chip, (1101) which was a slow, noisy 256 bit * 1 DRAM
with very critical timing. I also did analog and digital work on
the microwave equipment built at Microdyne, before L3-Com closed
the Ocala plant.


Seems you started with digital stuff a year or two earlier than I
did. My first RAM had a whopping 1024 bits. Not bytes, bits.
21...something, I could look it up since the device where its in
still works.

2114? 1K * 4 bits?

Nah - 2102 1k * 1.

Had 8 of 'em in in my homebuilt Nascom 1 computer which with a
2708 UVEPROM for the 'monitor' was all the RAM for system and
user code and video store! Nevertheless, it was sufficient for a
machine code program to run 'Lunar Lander', hee hee.

Collins filters were regarded as the bees knees in UK ham circles
but I never could afford one!

73 de G3VPC

--
Graham W http://www.gcw.org.uk/ PGM-FI page updated, Graphics Tutorial
WIMBORNE http://www.wessex-astro-society.freeserve.co.uk/ Wessex
Dorset UK Astro Society's Web pages, Info, Meeting Dates, Sites & Maps
Change 'news' to 'sewn' in my Reply address to avoid my spam filter.

Choice of iron powder toriod?
 

Hello Tim,

Then again a SW engineer once told me that nothing is truly analog.
There is always that smallest digital step, the quantum.

So, digital is base two, and analog is base 1.6 x 10^19? ;-)


Still, the digital guys kept telling us "Some day we'll get there and
then you are going to be extinct". I am not worried at all...

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Choice of iron powder toriod?
 

Joerg wrote:

Still, the digital guys kept telling us "Some day we'll get there
........

How long have they been saying that ???? ;-)

Graham

Choice of iron powder toriod?
 

In article ,
says...


Joerg wrote:

Still, the digital guys kept telling us "Some day we'll get there
........

How long have they been saying that ???? ;-)

We've been getting half the way there every two years or so. ;-)

--
Keith

Choice of iron powder toriod?
 

Graham W wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:

Hello Michael,

There is no reason to apologize for being good with analog. ;-) I
worked as a broadcast engineer during the time they announced the
first memory chip, (1101) which was a slow, noisy 256 bit * 1 DRAM
with very critical timing. I also did analog and digital work on
the microwave equipment built at Microdyne, before L3-Com closed
the Ocala plant.


Seems you started with digital stuff a year or two earlier than I
did. My first RAM had a whopping 1024 bits. Not bytes, bits.
21...something, I could look it up since the device where its in
still works.

2114? 1K * 4 bits?

Nah - 2102 1k * 1.

That was one early memory chip i don't recall using.


Had 8 of 'em in in my homebuilt Nascom 1 computer which with a
2708 UVEPROM for the 'monitor' was all the RAM for system and
user code and video store! Nevertheless, it was sufficient for a
machine code program to run 'Lunar Lander', hee hee.

Collins filters were regarded as the bees knees in UK ham circles
but I never could afford one!


The price was right, that day at the Dayton hamfest. ;-)

73 de G3VPC


--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Choice of iron powder toriod?
 

"Joerg" wrote in message
...
Hello Bill,

...

Then again a SW engineer once told me that nothing is truly analog.
There is always that smallest digital step, the quantum.
Regards, Joerg


Poor fella's got it bass ackward.

73, Steve, K,9;D.C'I

Choice of iron powder toriod?
 

"Keith Williams" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
"Joerg" wrote in message
...
Then again a SW engineer once told me that nothing is truly analog.
There is always that smallest digital step, the quantum.

So, digital is base two, and analog is base 1.6 x 10^19? ;-)

Not really. Analog's bits are just smaller. ;-)
-- Keith

That's what he said... 10^18 smaller
73, Steve, K,9.D;C'I