wrote:
From: on Fri, Oct 13 2006 3:44am
wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 9 2006 6:20 pm
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 8 2006 5:29 am
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 7 2006 6:39 am

Try as hard as I can, I can't find ANY relatively modern
computer that needs 6SN7s (a dual triode, octal base),
not even 12AU7s.

You didn't look very hard:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,10...1/article.html

ERROR on "correction,"

Yes, *you* made an error, Len.

That's a 2002 ad-promo, four years OLD.

You wrote:

"I can't find ANY relatively modern
computer that needs 6SN7s (a dual triode, octal base),
not even 12AU7s."

2002 is certainly "relatively modern" compared to 1946.

You made a mistake, Len.

Only under
whiny little REdefinition of the
word "mistake." :-)

Nope. You made a mistake, pure and simple. That is, unless you
deliberately wrote an untruth with the intent to deceive, in which case
it was a lie.

The original IBM PC that debuted in 1980 (26 years ago)
did NOT have any vacuum tubes in it.

The display that came with it had a CRT. The portable IBM PC, with
built-in display, had a CRT as well.

Neither did any
subsequent IBM PC...right on up to the total emptying
of IBM's Boca Raton, FL, PC operations.

But you didn't ask about the "IBM PC"

You wrote that you "can't find ANY relatively modern computer" with
vacuum tubes.

Not just IBM PCs, but "ANY relatively modern computer".

Did IBM ever produce any AMATEUR RADIO products?

No? Then why do you go on and on and on and on
about this niche subject and the "glory" that was
ENIAC?

To prove a point, Len: That a thing can be practical in its time even
if it is considered impractical in other times, and even if it is never
repeated.

That's true whether the device is ENIAC, Fessenden's early AM voice
work with modulated alternators, or something completely different.

I proved my point. You are now trying to misdirect, rather than admit
you were flat-out wrong.

Did ENIAC ever serve AMATEUR RADIO in any
way?

Yes.

If you look back at personal computing, you will NOT
find any vacuum tubes used in them...except in your
absolute world a couple of short-lived PC systems that
incorporated a CRT (a vacuum tube) into the PC package.
[CP/M OS systems using an 8080 or Z80 CPU]

The computer I referenced used a vacuum tube. The portable IBM PC used
a CRT, too.

The original Apple (6502 processor based) didn't use
vacuum tubes. The original Apple Macintosh packaged
a CRT into the Mac's box since it brought out the icon-
based GUI display that was possible only with CRTs
at that time. Did ANY of the Apple computers use a
vacuum tube for SOUND output? No?

You didn't ask about the "original Apple"

You wrote that you "can't find ANY relatively modern computer" with
vacuum tubes.

Not just Apples, but "ANY relatively modern computer".

Look to the earlier personal computers such as the
Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, etc., etc., etc. NONE had
any vacuum tubes in them for SOUND output. NONE of
the pocket calculators had vacuum tubes. Some of the
earlier desktop calculators had GAS displays for
alphanumerics; HP and Tektronix both had PCs with
incorporated CRTs (in which the very earliest models
had some vacuum tubes for the CRT HV supply circuits).
NONE had any tubes for SOUND output.

Doesn't matter, Len. You could have found the link I provided with just
a few keystrokes.

There's a niche area of guitarists who prefer tubes
for the particular "warm sound" (distorted) they
associate with over-driving amplifiers.

Are you a musician, Len?

That "tube
sound" MYTH has been 'over-driven' to the point of
nausea, about like the "gold-coated speaker cable"
myth that is claimed to produce "golden sound" from
music amplifiers. :-)

Tell it to those who actually play the things.

Tube amps and gold-coated "monster cable" is a
triumph of Public Relations bull**** warping the
minds of the buying public.

You are confusing audiophools with audiophiles.

Not unlike the mythos
of morse that was CREATED in earlier radio. :-)

By whom?

As I have shown, voice radio was practical as early was 1906, and in
regular use for broadcasting by 1921. Yet Morse Code on radio was used
by many radio services for many more decades after 1921. The use of
Morse Code by the US Coast Guard and the maritime radio services lasted
well into the 1990s. That's more than 90 years after Fessenden's voice
transmissions, and more than 75 vears after 1921.

Morse Code is still in wide use in Amateur Radio today - almost 100
years after Fessenden.

It wasn't "mythos" that kept Morse Code in use.

A click on the link for more data turns up blank with
the small advisory of no suppliers for this item. :-)

You specified "relatively modern", not "current production".

2002 is "relatively modern" compared to 1946. And that system was
brand-new in 2002.

That ONE system was DEFUNCT before 2005. :-)

How do you know? Are there none in use today?

Go back to the personal computer bellweather year of
1980.

Why?

Any of those personal computers on the market
use vacuum tubes?

Yes - in the CRTs.

No?

Are you confused?

26 years ago is NOT "current production" nor is it
hardly "relatively modern." :-)

2002 is relatively modern, Len.

Search all you want of the HP, Dell, Compaq, the
independents such as PC Club...or the big warehouse
suppliers such as CDC or Frys. You won't find any
with vacuum tubes in them on the market this year
or the year before.

So what? You specified "relatively modern", not "current production".
2002 is "relatively modern" compared to 1946. And that system was
brand-new in 2002.

You cannot change the criteria after the fact.

Your whining, foot stamping, and crying out "mistake!
mistake!" about a SINGLE exception in the millions upon
millions of personal computers based on the original
IBM architecture PC of 26 years ago is a lot of your
bull****,

Gee, Len, you're the one carrying on like an overtired two-year-old.
I'm calm, cool and collected. Not whining, foot stamping, or crying out
anything. I'm just correcting your mistakes with facts.

Basic Logic 101, Len: If you make an absolute statement that something
never happens, does not exist, or always happens, and someone provides
one or more exceptions, your statement is proved false. That's all
there is to it. Doesn't matter if there is just one exception or many,
the absolute statement is proved false - invalid - a mistake - if there
is an exception.

That your SINGLE exception went
DEFUNCT after a year on the market only proves that you
are a whiny, foot-stamping, cryer who is bound and
determined to attempt humiliation of anyone disagreeing
with you.

It seems that you consider any correction of your mistakes to be a
humiliation. Why is that?

You've proved that activity for years in here. :-)

You keep making mistakes and I keep correcting some of them.

BTW, what did ENIAC have to do with AMATEUR RADIO?

That it was practical in its time.

ENIAC did something for RADIO? [I don't think so...]

Actually, it did.

What do your ramblings about non-amateur-radio subjects have to do with
amateur radio, Len?

"Non-amateur-radio subjects?"

Yes.

Like ENIAC?

Like your experiences in Japan, real estate, "computer modem
communications", and a host of other non-amateur-radio subjects.

An early
mainframe computer that was really a programmable
calculator? :-)

Did the Aberdeen Proving Ground Historical Officer get it wrong?

"ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS WITHIN THE ORDNANCE CORPS

CHAPTER II -- ENIAC

The World's First Electronic Automatic Computer"

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html

You did not work on ENIAC and have never been a ham....

I've never claimed to... :-)

However, I was alive in 1946 and you were not. :-)

YOU never worked on ENIAC. You've never claimed to have
worked on ANY computer, main-frame, minicomputer, nor
personal computer.

You are mistaken.

Are you a member of the ACM? [Association for Computing
Machinery, the first and still-existing professional
association for computing and information technology] I was
a voting member of the ACM for a few years.

And now you're not?


ENIAC and the amateur code test deserve a place in
MUSEUMS, not the reality of life in today's world.

In your *opinion*.

...yes, an OPINION shared by thousands and thousands and
thousands of others.

Yet when it came time to express that opinion to FCC, there were *more*
who held the opinion that the Morse Code test should remain as a
requirement for at least some US amateur radio licenses.

Do you believe in democracy, Len? The majority of those who expressed
an opinion on the Morse Code test to FCC want at least some Morse Code
testing to remain.

As of 2004 the US Census Bureau stated that 1 out of 5
Americans had SOME access to the Internet. That involves
access via a personal computer (or its cousin, the "work-
station"). That is roughly 50 to 60 MILLION Americans.

Old news. Are you still tied to dialup?

The original (and only) ENIAC used an architecture that
is NOT common to present-day personal computers. About
the only term that IS common is that ENIAC used "digital
circuits." That's about the end of it for commonality
with MILLIONS and MILLIONS of personal computers in the
daily use worldwide.

Nope. Wrong.

See:

The Tree of Computing:

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap7.html

The ONLY radio service in the USA still requiring tested
morse code skill to permit operation below 30 MHz is the
AMATEUR radio service.

Because the amateur radio service *uses* the mode extensively.

ALL of the other radio services
have either dropped morse code for communications or never
considered it when that radio service was formed.

So what? Amateurs use it. Why should the test for an amateur license
not cover what amateurs actually do?

There is
NO wired or wireless communications service in the USA that
uses manual telegraphy means today.

Are you sure?

And even if it's true - so what? That's not amateur radio.

Please direct any more hero worship of ENIAC to the
ACM historian.

Why deal with second handers when the real stuff is out there?

"Real stuff?!?"

Yes - like this:

"ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS WITHIN THE ORDNANCE CORPS

CHAPTER II -- ENIAC

The World's First Electronic Automatic Computer"

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html

ENIAC is a MUSEUM PIECE,

Now it is. But for almost a decade it was used by the US Army for a
wide variety of calculations. And it was the root of the Tree of
Computing.

Didn't you read the monograph?

It is
NOT "real stuff" except in your mind.

It's real, Len. A part of it still works, too.

It serves ONLY
the Moore School of Engineering as an EXHIBIT for PR
purposes. It is a dinosaur. Defunct. Kaput.

Part of it still works, though.

Did you finish reading the US Army historical monograph I linked to?

No.

Then you are hiding from the truth.

I rank that along with some "US Army historical" things
that described George Armstrong Custer as a "hero" of the
June 1876 Battle of the Little Big Horn. Some "hero." A
loose cannon who was LAST in his West Point class, a poor
tactician who made a tragic, fatal mistake for the 7th
Cavalry.

Custer had nothing to do with ENIAC.

And if you didn't read the monograph, how do you know what it says?

Thank you, but NO, I'd rather read the NON-PR
historical references that described things as the REALLY
were without the orgasmic after-glow of hero worship.

I think you're afraid of reading a history that disproves your
cherished opinions and biases, Len. The facts presented in the
monograph are too upsetting to you for you to even read them.

ENIAC never saw battle,

Why should it?

It was never close to the
battlefields like the Brit's Colossus nor did it "solve
ciphers" (decryption) like Colossus did. The US military
DOES have fielded computers (plural) and systems which
ARE useable today and ARE in use. You can read about
those if you wish...but you won't since none of them are
directly related to ENIAC.

They're all directly related to ENIAC because they are its descendants.

Indeed, NONE of today's computers are related to ENIAC
any more than WE are "related" to some proto-humans of
Africa.

More than 95% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, Len.

btw, the "Ordnance Corps" are the nice folks who take care of things
like how to do artillery barrages....

No,
the "ordnance" folks maintain the
ammunition and weaponry.

Then who makes up the firing tables?

The ARTILLERY folks do the
actual laying-in and firing.

The Ordnance Corps tells them how to do that. Firing tables - remember?

Really. Had you ever served
in the military (you didn't) you would be informed of that.
In the US Army, the "line" (those who are the most involved
with actual battle) units are INFANTRY, ARTILLERY, and
ARMOR. All other units exist to serve them.


As ever to you, the ByteBrothers famous phrase is invoked.

What phrase is that, Len?

"Klaatu barada necto"?

"All your base are belong to us"?

"Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel"?

Which phrase is it?

From: on Fri, Oct 13 2006 3:42pm

[...who, in a desperate effort to prove he is "right" - always -
mumbles on...]


"I can't find ANY relatively modern
computer that needs 6SN7s (a dual triode, octal base),
not even 12AU7s."

2002 is certainly "relatively modern" compared to 1946.

You made a mistake, Len.

Only under
whiny little REdefinition of the
word "mistake." :-)

Nope. You made a mistake, pure and simple. That is, unless you
deliberately wrote an untruth with the intent to deceive, in which case
it was a lie.

What happened, Jimmie, you see an old TV movie about
the glorious USMC heroes and are attempting to out-do
Robeson in the "YOU LIE, YOU LIE!" department? :-)

Are you trying to pull out a SINGLE exception (from
millions of PCs in use daily) which went DEFUNCT less
than two years from its announcement? Of course you
are! You HAVE to. Your ego depends on it.

The original IBM PC that debuted in 1980 (26 years ago)
did NOT have any vacuum tubes in it.

The display that came with it had a CRT.

It was NOT integral with the main unit. In 1980 one could
purchase the main box without the CRT display.


The portable IBM PC, with built-in display, had a CRT as well.

That "portable" didn't last long on the market, did it?

Can you name the CP/M-based PCs that preceded the
original IBM PC? No? Why not? Tens of thousands
were in use, including in businesses.


You wrote that you "can't find ANY relatively modern computer" with
vacuum tubes.

That's true, Jimmie. In row upon row of many makes and
models of personal computers at Frys in Burbank, CA,
(intersection of Hollywood Way and Van Owen street)
there isn't a single one with a vacuum tube in it.
The same thing happens at Best Buy at the Empire Center
(where the main Lockheed factory had been) in Burbank.
I can go to Office Depot or Office Max and see the
same...or Circuit City or Comp USA or PC Club (the one
on Victory Blvd in Burbank at one corner of the OSH
center)...or dozens of smaller shops handling computers.


Did IBM ever produce any AMATEUR RADIO products?

No? Then why do you go on and on and on and on
about this niche subject and the "glory" that was
ENIAC?

To prove a point, Len: That a thing can be practical in its time even
if it is considered impractical in other times, and even if it is never
repeated.

Tsk, tsk, more REdefinition of the word "practical." :-)

That's true whether the device is ENIAC, Fessenden's early AM voice
work with modulated alternators, or something completely different.

Only in Jimmieworld. :-)

Now you just hop on over to your nearest AM BC station
and convince the station manager and chief engineer that
sticking a high-power, special carbon microphone in
series with the antenna feedline is "PRACTICAL."

Then you run over to the nearest ACM group and tell them
that 10 KHz clock rates on computers is "better" and "more
PRACTICAL" than 1 GHz clock rates. Good luck on that.


Did ENIAC ever serve AMATEUR RADIO in any
way?

Yes.

HOW? Name the applications of ENIAC that served ham radio.


You wrote that you "can't find ANY relatively modern computer" with
vacuum tubes.

Absolutely right.

I've had a keen interest in personal computing (as well
as numerical calculation) for over a quarter century.
The ONLY exceptions to personal computers having vacuum
tubes involve the DISPLAY, NOT the "sound output."

Vacuum tubes are just TOO SLOW to be of value in either
computation or the memory sections of computers. The
Information Technology folks found that out a half
century ago and never looked on vacuum tubes as worthy
of computation technology.


Doesn't matter, Len. You could have found the link I provided with just
a few keystrokes.

Oh, my, ruler-spank from Mother Superior again! :-)

Yes, "a few keystrokes" could have brought up "new age-ism"
of "pyramid power" or "ancient astronauts" tales from
author Erich von Daniken, not to mention lots and lots of
PR dreck from all sorts of hustlers.


Are you a musician, Len?

Yes.

That "tube
sound" MYTH has been 'over-driven' to the point of
nausea, about like the "gold-coated speaker cable"
myth that is claimed to produce "golden sound" from
music amplifiers. :-)

Tell it to those who actually play the things.

I have. I get the same response as from morsemen who
believe in the myth that OOK CW telegraphy is the
"best" way to communicate.

It is impossible to communicate with the stone walls of
morsemen Believers.



Gee, Len, you're the one carrying on like an overtired two-year-old.
I'm calm, cool and collected. Not whining, foot stamping, or crying out
anything. I'm just correcting your mistakes with facts.

Tsk, tsk, the Robeson syndrome again. You are "always right"
and your challengers are "always wrong." :-)


You keep making mistakes and I keep correcting some of them.

Tsk, tsk, for years I've shown you YOUR mistakes and
you've never acknowledged them. Hypocrite.


ENIAC did something for RADIO? [I don't think so...]

Actually, it did.

NAME IT. This is the second time you've claimed something
and NOT followed through with specifics.



YOU never worked on ENIAC. You've never claimed to have
worked on ANY computer, main-frame, minicomputer, nor
personal computer.

You are mistaken.

"Mistaken" in WHAT?

You CANNOT have worked on ENIAC prior to 1955.

What mainframe computer did you work on or with?

What minicomputer did you work on or with?

That you USE a personal computer for message communication
isn't valid for "working on" a personal computer.


Are you a member of the ACM? [Association for Computing
Machinery, the first and still-existing professional
association for computing and information technology] I was
a voting member of the ACM for a few years.

And now you're not?

Yes.

Are YOU now, or have you ever been a member of the ACM?

Answer the question I posed. Directly. No misdirection.


Do you believe in democracy, Len?

So much so that I volunteered to serve in the military of
the United States to DEFEND that right guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States.

YOU never volunteered to serve in the military. YOU haven't
even volunteered to join a civilian government agency to do
support of democracy.


The majority of those who expressed
an opinion on the Morse Code test to FCC want at least some Morse Code
testing to remain.

A very slim margin of "majority," Jimmie. *I* am the one
who bothered to read EVERY comment on FCC 05-235 *and* to
post the updated results in here. Remember? You should,
you were in there heckling me at every turn...:-)

In the first months of Comment on FCC 05-235 the MAJORITY
of respondents were AGAINST the morse code test. You
don't want to remember that, do you? Of course not, it
goes against your morseodist Beliefs.

You MUST have that code test in federal law. You MUST,
you MUST (whiny foot-stamping, arm-waving, and crying
by you against the 'evil' eliminators).

Why do you persist with your must-have-code-test
obsession? There's NOTHING stopping anyone from USING
OOK CW telegraphy, so why is the code test a requirement
for amateur privileges below 30 MHz? You can't give any
rational answer to that, only the EMOTIONAL one, the
personal one where YOU think all must take that test.


As of 2004 the US Census Bureau stated that 1 out of 5
Americans had SOME access to the Internet. That involves
access via a personal computer (or its cousin, the "work-
station"). That is roughly 50 to 60 MILLION Americans.

Old news.

The year 2004 is "relatively modern," isn't it? :-)

The Internet went public in 1991. Is 1991 "relatively
modern?"

The US government, all agencies and officers were on
the Internet since the mid-1990s. Even the US military
(that you never served in) was on the Internet.

Are you still tied to dialup?

No and yes.

The original (and only) ENIAC used an architecture that
is NOT common to present-day personal computers. About
the only term that IS common is that ENIAC used "digital
circuits." That's about the end of it for commonality
with MILLIONS and MILLIONS of personal computers in the
daily use worldwide.

Nope. Wrong.

Sorry, Jimmie, you made one HORRENDOUS technological ERROR!

Do your homework on IT technology, say from 1955 onwards.
Try some basic subjects like "Harvard Architecture" and
all-binary registers, fetch-and-carry, addressing and data.
Forget the old IBM plugboards and patch cords of pre-WW2
technology (what you think as "ROM"?) and all-machine-
language programming transition to "high-level" languages.
That's several HUNDRED specific technological areas that
lie between 1946 through 1980 and on to 2006. Big, big BIG
changes in ALL of them.

I don't claim any "expertise" on computers...but what I DO
know is way, Way, WAY ahead of your misconception of
"practical" computing technology being that of ENIAC.

Your whole tirade in here is tied to YOUR emotional state
about ONE of the first WORKING computers at the Moore
School of Engineering. Emotional infatuation that is
bordering on the religious belief akin to sects.

Sex is still better than sects.



btw, the "Ordnance Corps" are the nice folks who take care of things
like how to do artillery barrages....

No, the "ordnance" folks maintain the ammunition and weaponry.

Then who makes up the firing tables?

Little computers on or with the field pieces and anti-
aircraft weaponry.

The only exception is the field mortars which have been
using the same elementary "firing tables" in use prior to
any ENIAC...i.e., since before WW2.

You can begin by studying "TACFIRE" and its evolution but
RELATIVELY MODERN (since 1980) artillery aiming and firing
has been systemized with field computers doing the "on-line"
tasks of aiming, especially with moving targets. The Abrams
tank turret gun is computer-controlled as one example, that
one may be responsible for its very high "kill" ratio that
ranks among the best of the world's military. Try the AEGIS
missle cruiser fire control system, able to track several
targets simultaneously and direct gun fire as well as missle
firing. Try the modern aircraft fire control systems, in
everything from the old F-102 on up to the F-18 and F-22,
systems which are an integral part of the whole airframe's
control. Cruise missles (around since the 1970s) don't use
"firing tables" or even "sectional charts" to fly to a pre-
set target all by themselves. ALL of those are about as
"related" to ENIAC as the modern word processor-computer-
printer is to clay tablets and cuneiform writing, perhaps
what you would call "practical" writing-recording of data.

Jimmie, you REALLY need to get your head out of your ass
and into the modern world.


As ever to you, the ByteBrothers famous phrase is invoked.

What phrase is that, Len?

"Just a few keystrokes" will get you that phrase, Jimmie.

The late Jimmy Pearson coined it. Lots of us old
ByteBrothers remember it.