Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » Re: Fwd: Linux on a small memory PC
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415913 is a reply to message #415899] Wed, 03 August 2022 00:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/2/22 12:29 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 01:05:20 -0400, "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On 8/1/22 10:45 AM, D.J. wrote:
>>>> I still have, somewhere, in a storage box, a 5.25" floppy drive,
>>>> internal. And i think I still have a desktop computer i can put it in.
>>>> No idea if the PSU, or the hard drive, stil lwork though.
>>>>
>>>> I've never seen an 8" floppy drive anywhere.
>>>
>>> I used an LSI-11 system with those for a couple of years.
>>> They were REALLY "floppy" :-) Still have a few notebooks
>>> with the print-outs AND those disk in there. There were also
>>> some that were like 12" ... and held even LESS data. Never
>>> used those. I think they weren't even MFM encoded, more like
>>> pure FM. the Original Deal.
>>>
>>> I did like those old hard drives with the removable
>>> disk-stacks. DO make sure the thing has reached zero
>>> RPMs before attempting to EXTRACT the pack though.
>>>
>>> For the newbies, you opened the lid on what kinda looked
>>> like a little top-loading washing machine, pushed a big
>>> plastic 12-inch or so top-cover down over the disk-stack,
>>> twisted it to lock and then physically lifted the stack
>>> out of the "drive". However the safety interlocks, IF they
>>> existed, didn't always work right ... the stack MIGHT
>>> still be at like 1000 RPM when you pulled it out.
>>> Google the term "gyroscopic precession" :-)
>>>
>>> Mid 80s I took a tour of an attack sub - and in the
>>> sonar niche they were STILL using those kinds of
>>> disk drives ... might still BE for all I know, those
>>> systems are spec'ed like ten+ YEARS before actual
>>> construction ...........
>>
>> On the Dec Vax 11/730 at university, we used it for Pascal, there were
>> disc packs just like that. Had a backup, and two or three rotated out
>> for each semester.
>>
>> The university guy who kept it in mantenance, bought cheap labels, and
>> one year one fel off onto the platters when they were still spinning.
>>
>> I could hear him yell in agony from the next room. The faculty were
>> upset, as those platters held their homework plans, etc.
>
> Backup, backup, backup. We backed up our 730 every night. Once I had to go
> back to the previous generation of backup tape to retrieve something.

Backups are CHEAP now ... but Back In The Day ......

But yea, keep as many backups, in as many places and
formats, as possible. Today it's not sticky labels
but RANSOMWARE that's the Big Threat. Always have
backups THEY Can't Get To.

Set up a SINOLOGY NAS ... with an external USB drive
and their HyperBackup. Every day after hours it does
some full rsync-like backups of the main stuff to the
USB drive and then the final job UMOUNTS it. After
some digging I found a way to write a little script
that will RE-MOUNT the thing (cron job) a few
minutes before the backup pgm kicks in. So, the
overall effect is as if you'd physically turned off
the drive - it becomes invisible - and then it's
magically "re-powered" at the right moment again.

A *much* smaller window for the evil people to exploit.
Other backup pgms use a few tricks to detect if
ransomware has corrupted the source - and won't copy
the corrupted stuff over the top of the last good
backups. The hacks ARE good - but at minimum can be
OVERPOWERED by a broad aggressive backup approach.

Temporary mounts can be very useful - even wrote a
little service to manage them, still umount them
after a specified interval even if the backup script/pgm
crashes. Layers and layers - on-site, "cloud". Oh yea,
and the more a 'cloud' outfit promises 'privacy' the
more you'd better make sure everything is pre-encrypted
before sending it there :-)

On the subject line - after 35 years I did write a few
small COBOL pgms in the past few days. A basic one for
entering/saving/viewing some useful employee data and
I'm still working on one that'll write ascii-delimited
PICK-style multi-value records (I like those). COBOL
really wasn't meant for that however ... but I've got
those functions in half a dozen other languages (even ADA)
at this point so I'm GONNA find out how to do it, neatly,
in COBOL too. First up, a PIC X(50) with three characters
in it should NOT still have three characters plus 47 spaces
in it on disk. At the very least it's educational, and fun ......
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415915 is a reply to message #415896] Wed, 03 August 2022 00:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/2/22 12:23 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
>> On 8/1/22 10:45 AM, D.J. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 23:23:35 -0400, "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 7/29/22 6:23 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> On 28/07/2022 20:13, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 28/07/2022 12:01, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >>>>> "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> But then it has to deal with packed decimals ... :-)
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> 'Efficient' is kind of relative - is it fewer ASM bytes
>>>> >>>>>> or fewer ultimate CPU cycles ?
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>> Depends. Sometimes it was lack of EPROM space
>>>> >>>> Sometimes it was lack of CPU Hz.
>>>> >>>> What isn't efficient is low source code byte count achieved by removing
>>>> >>>> the comments
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Unless your source is on paper tape.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> It is still going to end up as machine code long before you run it
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > If you punch your code on cards, you get one instruction per card. The
>>>> > other sixty or so characters will be there whether they’re blanks or a
>>>> > comment, so you might as well comment. If you use paper tape, comments will
>>>> > balloon the size of your source to several times it’s size, and you have to
>>>> > read in all that tape to compile. I think early tapes used card-images,
>>>> > blocked or unblocked, so, again, comments were “free.”
>>>>
>>>> Largely true ... the "Real App Tapes" didn't include the
>>>> comments - that was "elsewhere", printed onto the wide-
>>>> format fan-fold paper with green stripes in the local equiv
>>>> of Courier-12 by an 8-pin teletype/printer, where'd it'd
>>>> soon get lost or totally out-of-sync because people kept
>>>> making "tweaks" without documenting them in the slightest
>>>> beyond MAYbe a scribble on their deskpads ..........
>>>>
>>>> This was when "large convenient removable storage" was
>>>> 8" SS/SD floppies. I still come across white ring
>>>> notebooks with those printouts, and several of those
>>>> old floppies. Is it even POSSIBLE to read those disk
>>>> formats these days ???
>>>>
>>>> The same is coming to apply to 5-1/4 disks SS/SD thru
>>>> DS/QuadD/HD, and it won't be long before even 3-1/2
>>>> and CD/DVD disks won't have any readers. You didn't
>>>> use "ZIP disks", did you ?). Yer "safest" bet may be
>>>> "the cloud" - but eventually they'll all get hacked
>>>> or go out of business so REPLICATION is the holy grail.
>>>
>>> The last time I looked online, about 2019, I was able to locate for
>>> sale an external USB 3.5" floppy drive.
>>
>> Harder and harder to find these days. For an INTERNAL 3-1/2
>> you'll need to find a mboard kinda of the Core2-Quad vintage
>> where there were still dedicated headers on the board. I
>> have one - and will KEEP it. ALSO supports 5-1/4" and has
>> a parallel port that can run ZIP disks. A valuable bit of
>> hardware (and NOT as slow as you'd think).
>>
>> But 8" floppies ... no ... nothing anymore. Those died out
>> in the early 80s. No hardware, no drivers .....
>>
>>> I still have, somewhere, in a storage box, a 5.25" floppy drive,
>>> internal. And i think I still have a desktop computer i can put it in.
>>> No idea if the PSU, or the hard drive, stil lwork though.
>>>
>>> I've never seen an 8" floppy drive anywhere.
>>> --
>>> Jim
>>
>> I used an LSI-11 system with those for a couple of years.
>> They were REALLY "floppy" :-) Still have a few notebooks
>> with the print-outs AND those disk in there. There were also
>> some that were like 12" ... and held even LESS data. Never
>> used those. I think they weren't even MFM encoded, more like
>> pure FM. the Original Deal.
>>
>> I did like those old hard drives with the removable
>> disk-stacks. DO make sure the thing has reached zero
>> RPMs before attempting to EXTRACT the pack though.
>>
>> For the newbies, you opened the lid on what kinda looked
>> like a little top-loading washing machine, pushed a big
>> plastic 12-inch or so top-cover down over the disk-stack,
>> twisted it to lock and then physically lifted the stack
>> out of the "drive". However the safety interlocks, IF they
>> existed, didn't always work right ... the stack MIGHT
>> still be at like 1000 RPM when you pulled it out.
>> Google the term "gyroscopic precession" :-)
>
> We used to grab them before they stopped completely.


And HELD ON TIGHT I'll bet !!! :-)

I did witness a disaster when an impatient somebody
pulled out the stack when the RPMs were still pretty
high. The gymnastics that ensued were kinda amusing
but eventually the disk stack escaped and smashed,
several times, against the walls and floor. Oh the
(bitwise) Humanity !!!
Re: backups in real life, COBOL and tricks [message #415916 is a reply to message #415903] Wed, 03 August 2022 01:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/2/22 1:05 PM, John Levine wrote:
> According to Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1>:
>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 20:37:43 +0100
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 12:22:38 -0700
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If engineers built bridges the way programmers write programs, the first
>>>> stiff breeze that came along would destroy civilization.
>>>
>>> Tacoma Narrows 1940 - nuff said ?
>>>
>> Beta-test first. And always keep a backup.
>
> Oddly, there was a backup for Galloping Gertie. The Bronx-Whitestone
> Bridge in New York City which opened in 1939 used a similar design.
> When the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed, and although it was shorter
> and wider and so less likely to oscillate, they addded stiffening
> trusses anyway after the war. It's been widened and refurblshed in
> ways that let them remove the trusses in the mid 2000s. Now it's part
> of I-678 and is used by over 100,000 vehicles per day.

"Gertie" was a real (and expensive) textbook lesson
in resonance. It was basically a big long guitar
string whipping in the wind. Tesla, long before,
fully understood structural resonance issues - even
built a little "shaker" device he (claimed) could
collapse large buildings and bridges. I have doubts,
but the *principle* was sound.
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415917 is a reply to message #415904] Wed, 03 August 2022 01:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/2/22 3:09 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>
>>> Do you have something against those hardware geeks
>
>> I don't know what you're talking about.
>
> It's OK, Scott, neither does he.


Oh, one of THOSE too I see .... :-)

No hardware, no programs. It's all one thing
bottom to top to bottom. Babbage would have
got it ...
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415922 is a reply to message #415917] Wed, 03 August 2022 09:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Lew Pitcher

On Wed, 03 Aug 2022 01:07:52 -0400, 25B.Z969 wrote:

> On 8/2/22 3:09 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>>
>>>> Do you have something against those hardware geeks
>>
>>> I don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>> It's OK, Scott, neither does he.
>
>
> Oh, one of THOSE too I see .... :-)
>
> No hardware, no programs. It's all one thing
> bottom to top to bottom. Babbage would have
> got it ...

Lack of hardware did not stop Lady Ada Lovelace
from writing programs for Charles Babbage's
(never-built) "Analytical Engine"

--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
Re: backups in real life, COBOL and tricks [message #415924 is a reply to message #415916] Wed, 03 August 2022 12:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 01:05:13 -0400, "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net>
wrote:
> "Gertie" was a real (and expensive) textbook lesson
> in resonance. It was basically a big long guitar
> string whipping in the wind. Tesla, long before,
> fully understood structural resonance issues - even
> built a little "shaker" device he (claimed) could
> collapse large buildings and bridges. I have doubts,
> but the *principle* was sound.

You should have watched Mythbusters... they had an episode about this
using an old bridge they got permission to 'bounce around'.
--
Jim
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415928 is a reply to message #415898] Thu, 04 August 2022 00:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/2/22 12:23 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
>> On 7/25/22 7:37 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> On 2022-07-24 00:23, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
>>>> >     Sometimes that IS a factor ... you have to have people who
>>>> >     can write it. But 1990 ... IMHO it should have been 'C'.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> IMNSHO, COBOL. C is a terrible language for those types of language.
>>> Things
>>>>    that are so dimple in COBOL, like moving a character string with blank
>>>> fill, or formatting numeric output, requires calling subroutines in
>>> C, and
>>>> lack of length checking on string moves is a recipe for disaster.
>>> This is one of the weirder arguments I've ever seen:
>>> "requires calling a subroutine in C". As if that somehow is a problem?
>>> Not to mention it's a function, and not a subroutine. Any claim of "used
>>> the language quite a bit" sounds hollow after that.
>>>
>>> A statement to move a character string in COBOL will in the end be a
>>> subroutine call as well.
>>>
>>> And lack of length checking depends on the function. Nothing prevents
>>> you from using strncpy in C. Or write your own, with whatever
>>> characteristic you want. It will actually be pretty efficient.
>>> Comparable to the provided functions.
>>>
>>>> I have used both languages quite a bit, perhaps COBOL more, years
>>> ago, but
>>>> neither is my preferred language, so I have no dog in this fight.
>>>> …
>>> Seems like your C is both rusty and bad.
>>>
>>>> >     Mostly I like "terse" languages - less typing and lots
>>>> >     of room left over for comments at the ends of the lines.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like assembler ;-)
>>>>
>>>> It’s too easy to write tricky code with side-effects in C. COBOL
>>> might not
>>>> be as self-documenting as advertised, but the operation of each
>>> statement
>>>> is pretty obvious and easily understood.
>>> What kind of side effects are we talking about? The operation of each
>>> statement in C is very obvious and easy to understand.
>>> Most people get into trouble because of memory handling. Not the
>>> language semantics.
>>> But that is where you get to the point where things gets even harder to
>>> even do in COBOL. And if you manage to do it, it won't be easily
>>> understood.
>>
>> With all the talk about COBOL, I actually wrote some
>> today. Hadn't done so in like 35+ years.
>>
>> Ya know what .... it kinda SUCKS. Beyond the mere verbosity
>> it is heavily oriented around fixed-sized vars and records.
>> and can get VERY anal if you try to mix types - maybe even
>> worse than ADA in that respect. I spent an hour on a compact
>> 'strlen()' that would actually tell you how long the string
>> REALLY was, as opposed to how many bytes were officially
>> allocated for it. No loop breaks unless you kinda cheat to
>> engineer some - or use GOTOs. It's meant to process "business"
>> records. Try to go beyond that and you'll SUFFER. You COULD
>> write Winders or Linux with it - but WHY ???
>>
>> Since COBOL, esp for smaller apps, I've liked to create
>> ASCII-delimited multi-value records kinda in the PICK
>> tradition. They're easy to create and humans can actually
>> READ them. After an hour of Duck and Google I *still*
>> couldn't see how to append "non-printable" ASCII chars
>> to a string. Super-duper easy in 'C' and Python and Pascal,
>> but COBOL once again wasn't MEANT for that and it's a
>> huge fight. No "S1+chr(254)". (Some IBM COBOLS do have
>> a "CHAR(nnn)" ... but not the COBOL I had).
>>
>> It just shouldn't be hard to do this kind of stuff. IMHO
>> a "good" computer language provides clear simple no-BS ways
>> to do most ANYTHING you want. PL/I is better in that
>> respect, amongst the 'older' langs, usually SEVERAL ways
>> to do whatever you need to do. I was able to do the kinds
>> of things I wanted MUCH easier with FORTRAN - and there's
>> a practical little app that evolved from that.
>
> PL/I is better than just about anything. When I couldn’t get a version for
> my system I decided to write my own.


OK .. I'm impressed ... that's hard-core :-)

I've dabbled with writing compilers/interpreters, but
it was just Too Much Work and I left it to the Wizards.
Did write a quasi-usable FORTH-like interpreter, but
FORTH is super-simple.

Some things are just beyond my skills/patience. I wish
I'd learned how to build CPU chips - even an 8008 -
but it got too deep, too time-consuming. I know my
limitations and happily stay inside them. Still
had room for a long profitable career. CPUs will
just have to remain "magic".

As for PL/I ... it's one of the first things I checked out
when I really got into computers ... though 'C' came
long not TOO much later to replace it (had to FORTRAN
in the meanwhile). Apparently you can STILL get PL/I
in IBM z-OS ... so it's hardly a "dead" language. It
really COULD do pretty much anything too, often in
several ways, and was a little more "self documenting"
than 'C'. A very practical programming language - straight
up without trying to be weird or 'exotic' or some kind
of 'paradigm statement'. I'd like to see it make a come-back.

Now how do we pry it away from IBM ? GPLI ? I do prefer
native compilers over 'convert-2-C' approaches though.
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415929 is a reply to message #415890] Thu, 04 August 2022 01:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/2/22 10:30 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>> On 7/31/22 5:26 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>>>> On 7/30/22 10:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> > drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) writes:
>
>>> There's no microcontroller, just a bunch of state
>>> machines. The B3500 was transistor
>>> based, with some early use of SSI integrated circuits.
>>>
>>> It wasn't until the third generation (B4900) that microcode
>>> became a common adjunct to the hardwired logic.
>>
>> You're still seeing the peripherals as separate
>> from The System. They were not, and still are not
>> even though there's a lot more abstraction these
>> days.
>
> Actually, at Burroughs, the peripherals were designed
> and implemented in completely different states and or
> countries, and were used for multiple lines of mainframes
> (when they weren't outsourced to memorex).
>
> The were completely separate from the system in
> every possible respect.

But you still had to have DRIVERS so YOUR system
could talk to them sensibly.

The hardware/firmware/driver people seem to labor
in obscurity, deep in the bowels of the Data Mine.
Write LOTUS-123 and you'll be famous ... build the
complex hardware it RUNS on and you'll be forgotten :-)

>> Do you have something against those hardware geeks
>> with the faint whiff of solder flux ? Don't let
>> them sit at the lunch counter ? :-)
>
> I don't know what you're talking about. I spent 14 years
> architecting and building mainframes and mainframe operating
> systems.

Then you SHOULD understand ... but don't. Puzzling ...

>> Powerful I/O instructions REQUIRE "smart" periphs.
>
> No, they're not smart. Simple logic.

Um ....... maybe in 1960 ................

After that they became "computers" unto themselves.
Hardware+firmware+drivers ... an EXTENSION of the
main system/software, making it much more powerful.

Oh well, someday you'll get it. It's all ONE THING,
top to bottom, bottom to top. That's the REAL "system".
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415930 is a reply to message #415922] Thu, 04 August 2022 01:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/3/22 9:41 AM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2022 01:07:52 -0400, 25B.Z969 wrote:
>
>> On 8/2/22 3:09 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> > Do you have something against those hardware geeks
>>>
>>>> I don't know what you're talking about.
>>>
>>> It's OK, Scott, neither does he.
>>
>>
>> Oh, one of THOSE too I see .... :-)
>>
>> No hardware, no programs. It's all one thing
>> bottom to top to bottom. Babbage would have
>> got it ...
>
> Lack of hardware did not stop Lady Ada Lovelace
> from writing programs for Charles Babbage's
> (never-built) "Analytical Engine"

Programs that DID nothing ...... just abstractions,
short 'stories' to amuse a non-existent audience.

These days the MONEY is in them DOING STUFF.

I won't knock Babbage - he DID have it right, just
lacked decent hardware. Lovelace saw it's possibilities
even more than Babbage. Alas it was all for naught,
an 'intellectual excercise' ........

Jobs or Woz ? I'll pick Woz - HE made it WORK.

Yer tofu-burger relies on a VAST chain - from
miners and geologists and farm-gurus to metallurgists
and engineers who made possible the engines for the
harvesters/processors/transport all the way on up
to the COBOL handling the cash transactions. It's
an INTEGRATED SYSTEM from one end to the other, all
the SAME THING, different parts of the SAME ANIMAL.
Can't remove any of the steps or it all falls apart.

Maybe that Big Picture isn't so "important" ... well ...
until one of those links in the chain fails .......

I hear GM now has over 100,000 vehicles just SITTING in
storage because one link in their chain failed - can't
get a few kinds of MPUs and sensor devices. I urged them
to go back to analog ..... everybody seems *shocked* at
the suggestion ... why, autos were IMPOSSIBLE before
digital ya know :-)

Oh well, THINK about it. One day ......
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415931 is a reply to message #415930] Thu, 04 August 2022 02:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: maus

On 2022-08-04, 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net> wrote:
> On 8/3/22 9:41 AM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2022 01:07:52 -0400, 25B.Z969 wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/2/22 3:09 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>
>>>> > "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> >> Do you have something against those hardware geeks
>>>>
>>>> > I don't know what you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> It's OK, Scott, neither does he.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, one of THOSE too I see .... :-)
>>>
>>> No hardware, no programs. It's all one thing
>>> bottom to top to bottom. Babbage would have
>>> got it ...
>>
>> Lack of hardware did not stop Lady Ada Lovelace
>> from writing programs for Charles Babbage's
>> (never-built) "Analytical Engine"
>
> Programs that DID nothing ...... just abstractions,
> short 'stories' to amuse a non-existent audience.
>
> These days the MONEY is in them DOING STUFF.

I would think that today the MONEY is being pretty, leaking like hell,
and being essencially useless. Zoom versus IRC.


>
> I won't knock Babbage - he DID have it right, just
> lacked decent hardware. Lovelace saw it's possibilities
> even more than Babbage. Alas it was all for naught,
> an 'intellectual excercise' ........
>
> Jobs or Woz ? I'll pick Woz - HE made it WORK.
>
> Yer tofu-burger relies on a VAST chain - from
> miners and geologists and farm-gurus to metallurgists
> and engineers who made possible the engines for the
> harvesters/processors/transport all the way on up
> to the COBOL handling the cash transactions. It's
> an INTEGRATED SYSTEM from one end to the other, all
> the SAME THING, different parts of the SAME ANIMAL.
> Can't remove any of the steps or it all falls apart.
>
> Maybe that Big Picture isn't so "important" ... well ...
> until one of those links in the chain fails .......
>
> I hear GM now has over 100,000 vehicles just SITTING in
> storage because one link in their chain failed - can't
> get a few kinds of MPUs and sensor devices. I urged them
> to go back to analog ..... everybody seems *shocked* at
> the suggestion ... why, autos were IMPOSSIBLE before
> digital ya know :-)
>
> Oh well, THINK about it. One day ......

Agreed.
--
greymausg@mail.org
Fi Fi Fo Fum, I smell the stench of an influencer
ten, twenty million tops
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415933 is a reply to message #415928] Thu, 04 August 2022 05:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Harry Vaderchi is currently offline  Harry Vaderchi
Messages: 719
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 00:46:37 -0400
"25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> wrote:

[]
> As for PL/I ... it's one of the first things I checked out
[]
>
> Now how do we pry it away from IBM ? GPLI ? I do prefer
> native compilers over 'convert-2-C' approaches though.
>

http://pl1gcc.sourceforge.net/

needs some work.

But it seems to be tricky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL/I#Implementation_issues


--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
Re: different languages, was COBOL and tricks [message #415940 is a reply to message #415754] Thu, 04 August 2022 10:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Timothy McCaffrey

On Saturday, July 30, 2022 at 12:53:32 AM UTC-4, 25B.Z959 wrote:

>
> One of my big regrets was never learning how to
> actually design a CPU chip - HOW the logic grabs
> those bytes, decodes them, sets things in motion.
> To me that's still kinda "magic" - but at least
> I acutely understand that there's a whole level
> of reasoning and design underlying. If I could
> build - and UNDERSTAND - even a Z80 then I'd be
> happier.
>

Then you might like this:
https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1977-11/page/n77/m ode/2up

"Building a computer from scratch"
Fits on two S-100 sized breadboards.
(6 bits IIRC, but it covers all the basics).

- Tim
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415941 is a reply to message #415933] Thu, 04 August 2022 11:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/4/22 5:34 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 00:46:37 -0400
> "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> wrote:
>
> []
>> As for PL/I ... it's one of the first things I checked out
> []
>>
>> Now how do we pry it away from IBM ? GPLI ? I do prefer
>> native compilers over 'convert-2-C' approaches though.
>>
>
> http://pl1gcc.sourceforge.net/
>
> needs some work.
>
> But it seems to be tricky
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL/I#Implementation_issues

BUT you can get BrainFuck compilers :-)

Admittedly PL/I was a rather "fractured" language, many
flavors and sub-versions. If you ask somebody to write
an open-source PL/I the first question is "WHICH PI/I ?"
Of course some enthusiasists, a new K&R, could just
make up their own 'and the kitchen-sink to' version
and promote it. As that wiki said, even some common
looping paradigms never became "standard" in PL/I and
it'd be nice to have a few - though GOTOs, sanely used,
DO work quite well.

As for the GNU approach of translating other languages
into 'C' (why not just write it in 'C' in the first place) ...
there MAY come a point where even 'C' isn't up to it -
consider the trend towards 'neural networks' and quantum.
The straight-up step-by-step 'C' approach doesn't seem
well suited for quantum and NNs are an odd mix between
sorta-traditional software and super-capable processor
arrays like NVIDIA sells (hardware/software/firmware all
in one thing - more like a brain).
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415943 is a reply to message #415930] Thu, 04 August 2022 11:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net> wrote:
> On 8/3/22 9:41 AM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2022 01:07:52 -0400, 25B.Z969 wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/2/22 3:09 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>
>>>> > "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> >> Do you have something against those hardware geeks
>>>>
>>>> > I don't know what you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> It's OK, Scott, neither does he.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, one of THOSE too I see .... :-)
>>>
>>> No hardware, no programs. It's all one thing
>>> bottom to top to bottom. Babbage would have
>>> got it ...
>>
>> Lack of hardware did not stop Lady Ada Lovelace
>> from writing programs for Charles Babbage's
>> (never-built) "Analytical Engine"
>
> Programs that DID nothing ...... just abstractions,
> short 'stories' to amuse a non-existent audience.
>
> These days the MONEY is in them DOING STUFF.
>
> I won't knock Babbage - he DID have it right, just
> lacked decent hardware. Lovelace saw it's possibilities
> even more than Babbage. Alas it was all for naught,
> an 'intellectual excercise' ........
>
> Jobs or Woz ? I'll pick Woz - HE made it WORK.
>
> Yer tofu-burger relies on a VAST chain - from
> miners and geologists and farm-gurus to metallurgists
> and engineers who made possible the engines for the
> harvesters/processors/transport all the way on up
> to the COBOL handling the cash transactions. It's
> an INTEGRATED SYSTEM from one end to the other, all
> the SAME THING, different parts of the SAME ANIMAL.
> Can't remove any of the steps or it all falls apart.
>
> Maybe that Big Picture isn't so "important" ... well ...
> until one of those links in the chain fails .......
>
> I hear GM now has over 100,000 vehicles just SITTING in
> storage because one link in their chain failed - can't
> get a few kinds of MPUs and sensor devices. I urged them
> to go back to analog ..... everybody seems *shocked* at
> the suggestion ... why, autos were IMPOSSIBLE before
> digital ya know :-)
>
> Oh well, THINK about it. One day ......
>

There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
engine control. Apparently it’s i possible to meet current emission-control
standards without computers. As one who has spent time doing a tune-up on
an “analog” engine, I think the current situation is much better. No more
fooling around with setting points, etc.

--
Pete
Re: different languages, was COBOL and tricks [message #415945 is a reply to message #415940] Thu, 04 August 2022 13:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Timothy McCaffrey <timcaffrey420@gmail.com> writes:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2022 at 12:53:32 AM UTC-4, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>
>>
>> One of my big regrets was never learning how to
>> actually design a CPU chip - HOW the logic grabs
>> those bytes, decodes them, sets things in motion.
>> To me that's still kinda "magic" - but at least
>> I acutely understand that there's a whole level
>> of reasoning and design underlying. If I could
>> build - and UNDERSTAND - even a Z80 then I'd be
>> happier.
>>
>
> Then you might like this:
> https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1977-11/page/n77/m ode/2up
>

There is a one page block diagram of the 6502 that provides a
good introduction to how a processor is designed (far simpler
than a modern six-billion transistor die).

https://hackaday.io/project/21496-fpga-nes/log/58495-cpu-ove rview

The key there is the 21x130 decode ROM which is indexed by the
instruction opcode and the staging (timing) logic which encodes
the state of the FSM that executes the instruction.

The 21 bits (opcode + state) index to a 130 bit word, each bit
of which drives a different signal (listed to the left of the
RANDOM CONTROL LOGIC block) and set the next stage of the
FSM. You can trace those signals which
often are the trigger input to a FF (flip-flop) element. I believe
you can find on-line the contents of the decode ROM.

A modern processor is far, far more complicated, and often contains
all the hardware device controllers on-die[*]. The processors we build
have dozens of high-end OOO processing cores, a few low-performance, low-power
cores for management, security and blinking LAN/Storage LEDs, 200+ Gb/sec
networking throughput with hardware acceleration blocks for typical packet
processing tasks (including IPsec, tunnelling, DPI, compression,
workflow engines, classification, etc), DSPs, etc..

[*] AMD, Intel et. al. are starting to use a 'chiplet' approach, where
multiple dies are placed on a common substrate in a single package;
this allows for very high speed, low latency transmission between
the chiplets. The chiplets can be processor dies or I/O dies or
dies with both functions. The chiplets may also be based on
different process nodes (10nm, 5nm, 3nm, 2nm) for cost or
performance reasons.
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415946 is a reply to message #415943] Thu, 04 August 2022 13:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 08:23:19 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
> engine control. Apparently it’s i possible to meet current
> emission-control standards without computers. As one who has spent time
> doing a tune-up on an “analog” engine, I think the current situation is
> much better. No more fooling around with setting points, etc.

It's probably possible to do a really nice engine controller with
an analogue computer - but it would be a pain to reprogram.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: backups in real life, COBOL and tricks [message #415958 is a reply to message #415924] Thu, 04 August 2022 22:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/3/22 12:51 PM, D.J. wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 01:05:13 -0400, "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net>
> wrote:
>> "Gertie" was a real (and expensive) textbook lesson
>> in resonance. It was basically a big long guitar
>> string whipping in the wind. Tesla, long before,
>> fully understood structural resonance issues - even
>> built a little "shaker" device he (claimed) could
>> collapse large buildings and bridges. I have doubts,
>> but the *principle* was sound.
>
> You should have watched Mythbusters... they had an episode about this
> using an old bridge they got permission to 'bounce around'.

Never saw that one.

In reality, damping factors will limit the efficiency
of "resonance weapons". So does the issue of low-Q
resonance ... because no ONE frequency will be able
to efficiently deliver all its energy to the structure,
the equation becomes too "fuzzy".

I'm not sure what they did with Burj Khalifa - it's a
very thin needle - but to some degree can be thought
of as a cone-shaped building. Desert winds can be quite
strong, and I'm not sure how they keep the top half
from finding a resonance and swaying dangerously.

IMHO, if you want to build REALLY tall, a pure cone
shape is probably the safest bet. There's no real
resonance point except for the entire structure as
a whole, assuming you hung it on a wire and tapped
it like a bell. The foundation damps THAT however.

I suppose you could build a hollow, tapered cone, kind
of building Most everybody would get some kind of view,
either of the outside or the cathedral-like inside. The
DANGER is a fire somewhere on the inside. Now you've
got a "chimney".

With terrorism an omnipresent danger, building VASTLY
TALL may NOT be the best thing anymore. Too obvious
a target. A joined cluster of 25-floor towers - lots
of space, potential for aesthetics, but psychologically
less of a target AND limits damage from any one attack.

The SCARIEST proposition that keeps popping up is a
"space elevator" - a 150-mile-tall hypermaterial
cable with something massive on the top end. What
future bin-Laden could RESIST ??? And we're ALMOST
there in terms of the cable ....
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415959 is a reply to message #415943] Thu, 04 August 2022 23:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/4/22 11:23 AM, Peter Flass wrote:
> 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net> wrote:
>> On 8/3/22 9:41 AM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2022 01:07:52 -0400, 25B.Z969 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/2/22 3:09 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
>>>> > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >>> Do you have something against those hardware geeks
>>>> >
>>>> >> I don't know what you're talking about.
>>>> >
>>>> > It's OK, Scott, neither does he.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, one of THOSE too I see .... :-)
>>>>
>>>> No hardware, no programs. It's all one thing
>>>> bottom to top to bottom. Babbage would have
>>>> got it ...
>>>
>>> Lack of hardware did not stop Lady Ada Lovelace
>>> from writing programs for Charles Babbage's
>>> (never-built) "Analytical Engine"
>>
>> Programs that DID nothing ...... just abstractions,
>> short 'stories' to amuse a non-existent audience.
>>
>> These days the MONEY is in them DOING STUFF.
>>
>> I won't knock Babbage - he DID have it right, just
>> lacked decent hardware. Lovelace saw it's possibilities
>> even more than Babbage. Alas it was all for naught,
>> an 'intellectual excercise' ........
>>
>> Jobs or Woz ? I'll pick Woz - HE made it WORK.
>>
>> Yer tofu-burger relies on a VAST chain - from
>> miners and geologists and farm-gurus to metallurgists
>> and engineers who made possible the engines for the
>> harvesters/processors/transport all the way on up
>> to the COBOL handling the cash transactions. It's
>> an INTEGRATED SYSTEM from one end to the other, all
>> the SAME THING, different parts of the SAME ANIMAL.
>> Can't remove any of the steps or it all falls apart.
>>
>> Maybe that Big Picture isn't so "important" ... well ...
>> until one of those links in the chain fails .......
>>
>> I hear GM now has over 100,000 vehicles just SITTING in
>> storage because one link in their chain failed - can't
>> get a few kinds of MPUs and sensor devices. I urged them
>> to go back to analog ..... everybody seems *shocked* at
>> the suggestion ... why, autos were IMPOSSIBLE before
>> digital ya know :-)
>>
>> Oh well, THINK about it. One day ......
>>
>
> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
> engine control.


I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.


> Apparently it’s impossible to meet current emission-control
> standards without computers.

So change those standards. Just takes a few pen-strokes
from the right people - THAT simple. Actually with computer
sims, much more efficient carburetors or mechanical injectors
systems could be designed quickly - "less perfect" than digital,
but not bad at all and NOT dependent on tech imported from
enemy/vulnerable nations. The proverbial '57 Chevy was the
right idea - but, given the times, not refined quite enough.

> As one who has spent time doing a tune-up on
> an “analog” engine, I think the current situation
> is much better. No more fooling around with setting
> points, etc.

You really don't even need "points" - Google "magneto
ignition". All small aircraft have TWO of them ...
each wired to a different set of spark plugs. You are
supposed to test each of them before take-off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBEsrpSVFVY

https://mechanicaljungle.com/magneto-ignition/

Modern magnetics can deliver a sharper, more robust spark
than the old AlNiCo or iron magnets.

Points/Distributors were invented because it was a little
bit easier to vary the spark according to RPM and load
conditions ... and you only needed 12volts and not an
entire magneto - about the size of a small alternator.
Yer lawnmower probably uses magneto ignition - it's
just a magnet fitted into the flywheel that whizzes
past a little coil. All very low-tech. No Chinese
chips required.

So it CAN be done, and WAS done for 100 years.
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415960 is a reply to message #415959] Thu, 04 August 2022 23:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Levine is currently offline  John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
According to 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net>:
>> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>> engine control.
>
> I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
> features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
> they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.

So did I. They got 19 MPG and fell apart after 75,000 miles. No thanks.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415961 is a reply to message #415946] Thu, 04 August 2022 23:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/4/22 1:05 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 08:23:19 -0700
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>> engine control. Apparently it’s i possible to meet current
>> emission-control standards without computers. As one who has spent time
>> doing a tune-up on an “analog” engine, I think the current situation is
>> much better. No more fooling around with setting points, etc.
>
> It's probably possible to do a really nice engine controller with
> an analogue computer - but it would be a pain to reprogram.

But you don't have to. Digital ignition controllers are,
or can be, burned into PROMs, mask-programmed chips - get
it right the first time and you'll never need to change it.

And you don't NEED an "engine controller". '57 Chevy's didn't
have any - and were robust driving machines. Model-T's don't
have them, and STILL run. The engines weren't super-refined
of course - but modern sim tech and materials can easily
make a very efficient motor.

And not one chip, or even transistor or tube, required.
Re: backups in real life, COBOL and tricks [message #415964 is a reply to message #415958] Fri, 05 August 2022 01:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 22:11:17 -0400
"25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> wrote:

> The SCARIEST proposition that keeps popping up is a
> "space elevator" - a 150-mile-tall hypermaterial
> cable with something massive on the top end. What

That's not a space elevator - a space elevator is a cable structure
with it's centre of mass at geosynchronous orbit 23000 miles up. So not 150
miles but more like 30-40,0000 depending on the counterweight.

> future bin-Laden could RESIST ??? And we're ALMOST
> there in terms of the cable ....

We're nowhere near in terms of cable last I checked.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415971 is a reply to message #415960] Fri, 05 August 2022 10:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
> According to 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net>:
>>> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>>> engine control.
>>
>> I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
>> features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
>> they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.
>
> So did I. They got 19 MPG and fell apart after 75,000 miles. No thanks.

You were lucky to get 19MPG, 8 to 10mpg was common until
the late 70s.

And you needed new tires every 10k miles (pre radial) and they
burned oil like locomotives. Frequent tuneups, poor cabin
acoustics, rough rides, thrown rods.

I'll take a modern car anyday.
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415972 is a reply to message #415971] Fri, 05 August 2022 12:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: maus

On 2022-08-05, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>> According to 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net>:
>>>> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>>>> engine control.
>>>
>>> I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
>>> features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
>>> they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.
>>
>> So did I. They got 19 MPG and fell apart after 75,000 miles. No thanks.
>
> You were lucky to get 19MPG, 8 to 10mpg was common until
> the late 70s.
>
> And you needed new tires every 10k miles (pre radial) and they
> burned oil like locomotives. Frequent tuneups, poor cabin
> acoustics, rough rides, thrown rods.
>
> I'll take a modern car anyday.

I remember Yanks would import big `yankee cars' back to ireland to show
off to the old neighbours how well they were doing. There was a story
about someone that did that, and brought it to the local filling
station, where then a man would actually use a pump to pump the fuel
into the car tank, so as the driver left the engine running for some
reason, the man pumping the fuel in had to tap on the window, to turn
the engine off, ``I'm falling behind.''

Gassguzzlers, I don't miss them.

--
greymausg@mail.org
Fi Fi Fo Fum, I smell the stench of an influencer
ten, twenty million tops
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415974 is a reply to message #415971] Fri, 05 August 2022 12:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2022-08-05, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>
>> According to 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net>:
>>
>>>> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>>>> engine control.
>>>
>>> I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
>>> features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
>>> they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.
>>
>> So did I. They got 19 MPG and fell apart after 75,000 miles. No thanks.
>
> You were lucky to get 19MPG, 8 to 10mpg was common until
> the late 70s.
>
> And you needed new tires every 10k miles (pre radial) and they
> burned oil like locomotives. Frequent tuneups, poor cabin
> acoustics, rough rides, thrown rods.

You might be exaggerating a bit. My 1970 Suburban got 15 MPG
with its 350-cubic-inch engine and 4-barrel carburetor. Mind
you, those were Imperial gallons. And I figured you could get
30k miles from a set of tires - but I much prefer radials.
(At one point I found myself with a mix of radial and bias-ply
tires. It did _not_ handle well.)

> I'll take a modern car anyday.

So will I - they sure start more easily on a cold day.
Or any day, for that matter. I might change my mind
with the current genration, though - at least until
someone hacks the onboard computers and disconnects
the surveillance equipment.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415975 is a reply to message #415961] Fri, 05 August 2022 12:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2022-08-05, 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net> wrote:

> On 8/4/22 1:05 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> It's probably possible to do a really nice engine controller
>> with an analogue computer - but it would be a pain to reprogram.
>
> But you don't have to. Digital ignition controllers are,
> or can be, burned into PROMs, mask-programmed chips - get
> it right the first time and you'll never need to change it.

That's anathema to today's SaaS paradigm.

Consider the latest announcement from BMW, where you have to
subscribe to a service to get them to activate heated seats.
The last thing modern manufacturers want is something you can
buy and use without further intervention from them.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415976 is a reply to message #415974] Fri, 05 August 2022 13:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> On 2022-08-05, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>
>>> According to 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net>:
>>>
>>>> > There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>>>> > engine control.
>>>>
>>>> I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
>>>> features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
>>>> they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.
>>>
>>> So did I. They got 19 MPG and fell apart after 75,000 miles. No thanks.
>>
>> You were lucky to get 19MPG, 8 to 10mpg was common until
>> the late 70s.
>>
>> And you needed new tires every 10k miles (pre radial) and they
>> burned oil like locomotives. Frequent tuneups, poor cabin
>> acoustics, rough rides, thrown rods.
>
> You might be exaggerating a bit. My 1970 Suburban got 15 MPG
> with its 350-cubic-inch engine and 4-barrel carburetor. Mind
> you, those were Imperial gallons. And I figured you could get
> 30k miles from a set of tires - but I much prefer radials.
> (At one point I found myself with a mix of radial and bias-ply
> tires. It did _not_ handle well.)
>
>> I'll take a modern car anyday.
>
> So will I - they sure start more easily on a cold day.
> Or any day, for that matter. I might change my mind
> with the current genration, though - at least until
> someone hacks the onboard computers and disconnects
> the surveillance equipment.

I don't have anything that modern but stopping the surveillance should
be as simple as failing to pay the monthly fee. (Leave your cell phone
at home if you really care.)

My car is not new enough for the backup camera but that seems like a
worthwhile feature. The anti-lock brakes are really good and I really
like not needing a tune up every 10K miles.

--
Dan Espen
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415980 is a reply to message #415974] Fri, 05 August 2022 15:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: maus

On 2022-08-05, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-08-05, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>
>>> According to 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net>:
>>>
>>>> > There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>>>> > engine control.
>>>>
>>>> I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
>>>> features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
>>>> they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.
>>>
>>> So did I. They got 19 MPG and fell apart after 75,000 miles. No thanks.
>>
>> You were lucky to get 19MPG, 8 to 10mpg was common until
>> the late 70s.
>>
>> And you needed new tires every 10k miles (pre radial) and they
>> burned oil like locomotives. Frequent tuneups, poor cabin
>> acoustics, rough rides, thrown rods.
>
> You might be exaggerating a bit. My 1970 Suburban got 15 MPG
> with its 350-cubic-inch engine and 4-barrel carburetor. Mind
> you, those were Imperial gallons. And I figured you could get
> 30k miles from a set of tires - but I much prefer radials.
> (At one point I found myself with a mix of radial and bias-ply
> tires. It did _not_ handle well.)
>
>> I'll take a modern car anyday.
>
> So will I - they sure start more easily on a cold day.
> Or any day, for that matter. I might change my mind
> with the current genration, though - at least until
> someone hacks the onboard computers and disconnects
> the surveillance equipment.
>

There is a story floating around rightpondia that cars will be
brogrammed to stop when a signal is sent. I could not conceive that
anyone could be that stupid to provide such an aid for kidnappers.


--
greymausg@mail.org
Fi Fi Fo Fum, I smell the stench of an influencer
ten, twenty million tops
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415981 is a reply to message #415976] Fri, 05 August 2022 15:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: maus

On 2022-08-05, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2022-08-05, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> According to 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net>:
>>>>
>>>> >> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>>>> >> engine control.
>>>> >
>>>> > I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
>>>> > features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
>>>> > they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.
>>>>
>>>> So did I. They got 19 MPG and fell apart after 75,000 miles. No thanks.
>>>
>>> You were lucky to get 19MPG, 8 to 10mpg was common until
>>> the late 70s.
>>>
>>> And you needed new tires every 10k miles (pre radial) and they
>>> burned oil like locomotives. Frequent tuneups, poor cabin
>>> acoustics, rough rides, thrown rods.
>>
>> You might be exaggerating a bit. My 1970 Suburban got 15 MPG
>> with its 350-cubic-inch engine and 4-barrel carburetor. Mind
>> you, those were Imperial gallons. And I figured you could get
>> 30k miles from a set of tires - but I much prefer radials.
>> (At one point I found myself with a mix of radial and bias-ply
>> tires. It did _not_ handle well.)
>>
>>> I'll take a modern car anyday.
>>
>> So will I - they sure start more easily on a cold day.
>> Or any day, for that matter. I might change my mind
>> with the current genration, though - at least until
>> someone hacks the onboard computers and disconnects
>> the surveillance equipment.
>
> I don't have anything that modern but stopping the surveillance should
> be as simple as failing to pay the monthly fee. (Leave your cell phone
> at home if you really care.)

My daughter cannot get into her flat unless she has her mobile with her.
>
> My car is not new enough for the backup camera but that seems like a
> worthwhile feature. The anti-lock brakes are really good and I really
> like not needing a tune up every 10K miles.
>


--
greymausg@mail.org
Fi Fi Fo Fum, I smell the stench of an influencer
ten, twenty million tops
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415982 is a reply to message #415980] Fri, 05 August 2022 16:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 5 Aug 2022 19:12:25 GMT
maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:

> There is a story floating around rightpondia that cars will be
> brogrammed to stop when a signal is sent. I could not conceive that
> anyone could be that stupid to provide such an aid for kidnappers.

This comes up from time to time. Some law and order group proposes
that police should have the ability to stop any car, the manufacturers
push back on the grounds that they can't make it hacker proof *and* put it
in every patrol car so do they want script kiddies randomly stopping cars
on the freeway. That ends it until the next round.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415983 is a reply to message #415961] Fri, 05 August 2022 16:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Vir Campestris

On 05/08/2022 04:35, 25B.Z969 wrote:
>   But you don't have to. Digital ignition controllers are,
>   or can be, burned into PROMs, mask-programmed chips - get
>   it right the first time and you'll never need to change it.
>
>   And you don't NEED an "engine controller". '57 Chevy's didn't
>   have any - and were robust driving machines. Model-T's don't
>   have them, and STILL run. The engines weren't super-refined
>   of course - but modern sim tech and materials can easily
>   make a very efficient motor.
>
>   And not one chip, or even transistor or tube, required.

Let's see.

Google tells me a '57 chevy does about 13MPG for 140HP.

The current Honda Civic does nearly 60MPG for 180BHP, and I'm sure other
modern cars are similar.

I don't think "efficient" is the right term.

Andy
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415987 is a reply to message #415976] Fri, 05 August 2022 17:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2022-08-05, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2022-08-05, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll take a modern car anyday.
>>
>> So will I - they sure start more easily on a cold day.
>> Or any day, for that matter. I might change my mind
>> with the current genration, though - at least until
>> someone hacks the onboard computers and disconnects
>> the surveillance equipment.
>
> I don't have anything that modern but stopping the surveillance should
> be as simple as failing to pay the monthly fee. (Leave your cell phone
> at home if you really care.)

Of course, if you stop paying the monthly fee, the car might refuse
to start. Maybe not this generation, but probably the next one.

I'm not too worried about cell phones; I'll give up my flip phone
when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

About 10 years ago I read a science fiction story about someone driving
along when an ad came up on his radio^Winfotainment centre. The car
then pulled over to the side of the road, locked the doors, and refused
to let him out until he bought whatever they were selling. Fortunately
a friend came along and got him out - but it's coming soon, I'm sure.

Recommended reading: _Unauthorized Bread_ by Cory Doctorow.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415988 is a reply to message #415987] Fri, 05 August 2022 18:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ibmekon is currently offline  Ibmekon
Messages: 39
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On Fri, 05 Aug 2022 21:40:43 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2022-08-05, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2022-08-05, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll take a modern car anyday.
>>>
>>> So will I - they sure start more easily on a cold day.
>>> Or any day, for that matter. I might change my mind
>>> with the current genration, though - at least until
>>> someone hacks the onboard computers and disconnects
>>> the surveillance equipment.
>>
>> I don't have anything that modern but stopping the surveillance should
>> be as simple as failing to pay the monthly fee. (Leave your cell phone
>> at home if you really care.)
>
> Of course, if you stop paying the monthly fee, the car might refuse
> to start. Maybe not this generation, but probably the next one.
>
> I'm not too worried about cell phones; I'll give up my flip phone
> when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
>
> About 10 years ago I read a science fiction story about someone driving
> along when an ad came up on his radio^Winfotainment centre. The car
> then pulled over to the side of the road, locked the doors, and refused
> to let him out until he bought whatever they were selling. Fortunately
> a friend came along and got him out - but it's coming soon, I'm sure.
>
> Recommended reading: _Unauthorized Bread_ by Cory Doctorow.

I got a demented Nissan NV200 van.

Early on in my driving it went crazy - six lights starting flashing on
the display screen - including "dangerous engine fault, pull over
immediately and get it towed."
So, I pulled over , switched it off and on again.
Maybe one light less - but the engine started, so I tried to drive.
But it seemed limited in revs, speed to about 50 kph - it has a manual
gearbox.
So I guessed it was a computer fault - not mechanical.
I put on the hazard lights and crawled home.
Checking on the net I found that there is a push button at knee height
that switches in/out ABS traction control.
And if you dare to go manual - the van goes apeshit.

The Nissan equivalent of CTR+ALT+DELETE is this -
------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Open the driver's side door and get into the drivers seat.

Insert the key into the ignition and turn it a quarter turn so the
ignition turns on, but the engine doesn't start.

Step on the accelerator and quickly release it.
Do this 5 times in less than 5 seconds.
When you step on the pedal, press it down as far as it can go.

Wait 10 seconds.

Press the accelerator completely down with your foot and hold it there
for 10 seconds, or until the SES light blinks on and off.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------

This is what you get with kids trained on Windoze.
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415989 is a reply to message #415988] Fri, 05 August 2022 18:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Fri, 05 Aug 2022 23:35:43 +0100, Ibmekon <Ibmekon@google.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2022 21:40:43 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-08-05, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-08-05, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I'll take a modern car anyday.
>>>>
>>>> So will I - they sure start more easily on a cold day.
>>>> Or any day, for that matter. I might change my mind
>>>> with the current genration, though - at least until
>>>> someone hacks the onboard computers and disconnects
>>>> the surveillance equipment.
>>>
>>> I don't have anything that modern but stopping the surveillance should
>>> be as simple as failing to pay the monthly fee. (Leave your cell phone
>>> at home if you really care.)
>>
>> Of course, if you stop paying the monthly fee, the car might refuse
>> to start. Maybe not this generation, but probably the next one.
>>
>> I'm not too worried about cell phones; I'll give up my flip phone
>> when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
>>
>> About 10 years ago I read a science fiction story about someone driving
>> along when an ad came up on his radio^Winfotainment centre. The car
>> then pulled over to the side of the road, locked the doors, and refused
>> to let him out until he bought whatever they were selling. Fortunately
>> a friend came along and got him out - but it's coming soon, I'm sure.
>>
>> Recommended reading: _Unauthorized Bread_ by Cory Doctorow.
>
> I got a demented Nissan NV200 van.
>
> Early on in my driving it went crazy - six lights starting flashing on
> the display screen - including "dangerous engine fault, pull over
> immediately and get it towed."
> So, I pulled over , switched it off and on again.
> Maybe one light less - but the engine started, so I tried to drive.
> But it seemed limited in revs, speed to about 50 kph - it has a manual
> gearbox.
> So I guessed it was a computer fault - not mechanical.
> I put on the hazard lights and crawled home.
> Checking on the net I found that there is a push button at knee height
> that switches in/out ABS traction control.
> And if you dare to go manual - the van goes apeshit.
>
> The Nissan equivalent of CTR+ALT+DELETE is this -
> ------------------------------------------------------------ --------
> Open the driver's side door and get into the drivers seat.
>
> Insert the key into the ignition and turn it a quarter turn so the
> ignition turns on, but the engine doesn't start.
>
> Step on the accelerator and quickly release it.
> Do this 5 times in less than 5 seconds.
> When you step on the pedal, press it down as far as it can go.
>
> Wait 10 seconds.
>
> Press the accelerator completely down with your foot and hold it there
> for 10 seconds, or until the SES light blinks on and off.
> ------------------------------------------------------------ --------
>
> This is what you get with kids trained on Windoze.

Yeah, that sounds dumb for the car makers to do that.
--
Jim
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415990 is a reply to message #415989] Fri, 05 August 2022 19:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ibmekon is currently offline  Ibmekon
Messages: 39
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On Fri, 05 Aug 2022 17:51:28 -0500, D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2022 23:35:43 +0100, Ibmekon <Ibmekon@google.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2022 21:40:43 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-08-05, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2022-08-05, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I'll take a modern car anyday.
>>>> >
>>>> > So will I - they sure start more easily on a cold day.
>>>> > Or any day, for that matter. I might change my mind
>>>> > with the current genration, though - at least until
>>>> > someone hacks the onboard computers and disconnects
>>>> > the surveillance equipment.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have anything that modern but stopping the surveillance should
>>>> be as simple as failing to pay the monthly fee. (Leave your cell phone
>>>> at home if you really care.)
>>>
>>> Of course, if you stop paying the monthly fee, the car might refuse
>>> to start. Maybe not this generation, but probably the next one.
>>>
>>> I'm not too worried about cell phones; I'll give up my flip phone
>>> when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
>>>
>>> About 10 years ago I read a science fiction story about someone driving
>>> along when an ad came up on his radio^Winfotainment centre. The car
>>> then pulled over to the side of the road, locked the doors, and refused
>>> to let him out until he bought whatever they were selling. Fortunately
>>> a friend came along and got him out - but it's coming soon, I'm sure.
>>>
>>> Recommended reading: _Unauthorized Bread_ by Cory Doctorow.
>>
>> I got a demented Nissan NV200 van.
>>
>> Early on in my driving it went crazy - six lights starting flashing on
>> the display screen - including "dangerous engine fault, pull over
>> immediately and get it towed."
>> So, I pulled over , switched it off and on again.
>> Maybe one light less - but the engine started, so I tried to drive.
>> But it seemed limited in revs, speed to about 50 kph - it has a manual
>> gearbox.
>> So I guessed it was a computer fault - not mechanical.
>> I put on the hazard lights and crawled home.
>> Checking on the net I found that there is a push button at knee height
>> that switches in/out ABS traction control.
>> And if you dare to go manual - the van goes apeshit.
>>
>> The Nissan equivalent of CTR+ALT+DELETE is this -
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ --------
>> Open the driver's side door and get into the drivers seat.
>>
>> Insert the key into the ignition and turn it a quarter turn so the
>> ignition turns on, but the engine doesn't start.
>>
>> Step on the accelerator and quickly release it.
>> Do this 5 times in less than 5 seconds.
>> When you step on the pedal, press it down as far as it can go.
>>
>> Wait 10 seconds.
>>
>> Press the accelerator completely down with your foot and hold it there
>> for 10 seconds, or until the SES light blinks on and off.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ --------
>>
>> This is what you get with kids trained on Windoze.
>
> Yeah, that sounds dumb for the car makers to do that.
> --
> Jim

Not quite the words I used.
"dumb" I do not mind.
But this was "accidentally on purpose" management sabotage to force my
compliance illegally.
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415992 is a reply to message #415959] Fri, 05 August 2022 21:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 05/08/2022 04:29, 25B.Z969 wrote:
> On 8/4/22 11:23 AM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/3/22 9:41 AM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2022 01:07:52 -0400, 25B.Z969 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 8/2/22 3:09 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
>>>> >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>> Do you have something against those hardware geeks
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I don't know what you're talking about.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's OK, Scott, neither does he.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Oh, one of THOSE too I see ....   :-)
>>>> >
>>>> > No hardware, no programs. It's all one thing
>>>> > bottom to top to bottom. Babbage would have
>>>> > got it ...
>>>>
>>>> Lack of hardware did not stop Lady Ada Lovelace
>>>> from writing programs for Charles Babbage's
>>>> (never-built) "Analytical Engine"
>>>
>>>    Programs that DID nothing ...... just abstractions,
>>>    short 'stories' to amuse a non-existent audience.
>>>
>>>    These days the MONEY is in them DOING STUFF.
>>>
>>>    I won't knock Babbage - he DID have it right, just
>>>    lacked decent hardware. Lovelace saw it's possibilities
>>>    even more than Babbage. Alas it was all for naught,
>>>    an 'intellectual excercise' ........
>>>
>>>    Jobs or Woz ? I'll pick Woz - HE made it WORK.
>>>
>>>    Yer tofu-burger relies on a VAST chain - from
>>>    miners and geologists and farm-gurus to metallurgists
>>>    and engineers who made possible the engines for the
>>>    harvesters/processors/transport all the way on up
>>>    to the COBOL handling the cash transactions. It's
>>>    an INTEGRATED SYSTEM from one end to the other, all
>>>    the SAME THING, different parts of the SAME ANIMAL.
>>>    Can't remove any of the steps or it all falls apart.
>>>
>>>    Maybe that Big Picture isn't so "important" ... well ...
>>>    until one of those links in the chain fails .......
>>>
>>>    I hear GM now has over 100,000 vehicles just SITTING in
>>>    storage because one link in their chain failed - can't
>>>    get a few kinds of MPUs and sensor devices. I urged them
>>>    to go back to analog ..... everybody seems *shocked* at
>>>    the suggestion ... why, autos were IMPOSSIBLE before
>>>    digital ya know  :-)
>>>
>>>    Oh well, THINK about it. One day ......
>>>
>>
>> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>> engine control.
>
>
>   I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
>   features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
>   they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.
>
>
>> Apparently it’s impossible to meet current emission-control
>> standards without computers.
>
>   So change those standards. Just takes a few pen-strokes
>   from the right people - THAT simple. Actually with computer
>   sims, much more efficient carburetors or mechanical injectors
>   systems could be designed quickly - "less perfect" than digital,
>   but not bad at all and NOT dependent on tech imported from
>   enemy/vulnerable nations. The proverbial '57 Chevy was the
>   right idea - but, given the times, not refined quite enough.
>
>> As one who has spent time doing a tune-up on
>> an “analog” engine, I think the current situation is much better. No
>> more fooling around with setting points, etc.
>
>   You really don't even need "points" - Google "magneto
>   ignition". All small aircraft have TWO of them ...
>   each wired to a different set of spark plugs. You are
>   supposed to test each of them before take-off.
>
A magneto uses 'points', as well as an internal coil

All it is is a standard coil system with an inbuilt generator to replace
the battery



> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBEsrpSVFVY
>
> https://mechanicaljungle.com/magneto-ignition/
>
>   Modern magnetics can deliver a sharper, more robust spark
>   than the old AlNiCo or iron magnets.
>
>   Points/Distributors were invented because it was a little
>   bit easier to vary the spark according to RPM and load
>   conditions ... and you only needed 12volts and not an
>   entire magneto - about the size of a small alternator.
>   Yer lawnmower probably uses magneto ignition - it's
>   just a magnet fitted into the flywheel that whizzes
>   past a little coil. All very low-tech. No Chinese
>   chips required.
>
My lawnmower uses an electronic ignition.

Its simply more relatable

>   So it CAN be done, and WAS done for 100 years.


--
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415993 is a reply to message #415960] Fri, 05 August 2022 21:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 05/08/2022 04:33, John Levine wrote:
> According to 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net>:
>>> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>>> engine control.
>>
>> I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
>> features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
>> they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.
>
> So did I. They got 19 MPG and fell apart after 75,000 miles. No thanks.
>
I remember the manuals. new big ends at 30,000, new mains AND big ends
at 60,000 and new pistons and a rebore at 120,000 plus a reground crank

New carb at 75,000.

In general electronic ignition/injection doesn't wear out, it just
works, or it fails. And it has pretty comprehensive diagnostics .


--
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire
Re: COBOL and tricks [message #415994 is a reply to message #415983] Fri, 05 August 2022 21:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 05/08/2022 21:50, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 05/08/2022 04:35, 25B.Z969 wrote:
>>    But you don't have to. Digital ignition controllers are,
>>    or can be, burned into PROMs, mask-programmed chips - get
>>    it right the first time and you'll never need to change it.
>>
>>    And you don't NEED an "engine controller". '57 Chevy's didn't
>>    have any - and were robust driving machines. Model-T's don't
>>    have them, and STILL run. The engines weren't super-refined
>>    of course - but modern sim tech and materials can easily
>>    make a very efficient motor.
>>
>>    And not one chip, or even transistor or tube, required.
>
> Let's see.
>
> Google tells me a '57 chevy does about 13MPG for 140HP.
>
> The current Honda Civic does nearly 60MPG for 180BHP, and I'm sure other
> modern cars are similar.
>
> I don't think "efficient" is the right term.
>
> Andy

I get 33mpg for 285 bhp
Nice compromise


--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”

– Ludwig von Mises
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415995 is a reply to message #415960] Fri, 05 August 2022 21:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/4/22 11:33 PM, John Levine wrote:
> According to 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net>:
>>> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>>> engine control.
>>
>> I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
>> features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
>> they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.
>
> So did I. They got 19 MPG and fell apart after 75,000 miles. No thanks.

Metallurgy & machining tech, and they weren't trying very
hard anyway. The electronics had nothing to do with it.
An all-digital '57 Chevy would still get 19mpg and have
to be rebuilt after 70,000 miles.
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415996 is a reply to message #415971] Fri, 05 August 2022 21:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: 25B.Z969

On 8/5/22 10:05 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>> According to 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net>:
>>>> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>>>> engine control.
>>>
>>> I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
>>> features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
>>> they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.
>>
>> So did I. They got 19 MPG and fell apart after 75,000 miles. No thanks.
>
> You were lucky to get 19MPG, 8 to 10mpg was common until
> the late 70s.
>
> And you needed new tires every 10k miles (pre radial) and they
> burned oil like locomotives. Frequent tuneups, poor cabin
> acoustics, rough rides, thrown rods.
>
> I'll take a modern car anyday.

But again, NONE of those issues had ANYTHING to do
with whether they were 'digital' or not. It was just
loosey-goosey manufacturing and Babbit bearings.
Re: cars and COBOL and tricks [message #415997 is a reply to message #415981] Fri, 05 August 2022 23:20 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
maus <maus@dmaus.org> writes:

> On 2022-08-05, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2022-08-05, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > According to 25B.Z969 <25B.Z969@noda.net>:
>>>> >
>>>> >>> There are too many things you need digital for, from anti-lock brakes to
>>>> >>> engine control.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I drove cars for decades that didn't have those "luxury
>>>> >> features" ...... they got you from A to B just fine,
>>>> >> they WORKED, they could be MADE, SOLD and BOUGHT.
>>>> >
>>>> > So did I. They got 19 MPG and fell apart after 75,000 miles. No thanks.
>>>>
>>>> You were lucky to get 19MPG, 8 to 10mpg was common until
>>>> the late 70s.
>>>>
>>>> And you needed new tires every 10k miles (pre radial) and they
>>>> burned oil like locomotives. Frequent tuneups, poor cabin
>>>> acoustics, rough rides, thrown rods.
>>>
>>> You might be exaggerating a bit. My 1970 Suburban got 15 MPG
>>> with its 350-cubic-inch engine and 4-barrel carburetor. Mind
>>> you, those were Imperial gallons. And I figured you could get
>>> 30k miles from a set of tires - but I much prefer radials.
>>> (At one point I found myself with a mix of radial and bias-ply
>>> tires. It did _not_ handle well.)
>>>
>>>> I'll take a modern car anyday.
>>>
>>> So will I - they sure start more easily on a cold day.
>>> Or any day, for that matter. I might change my mind
>>> with the current genration, though - at least until
>>> someone hacks the onboard computers and disconnects
>>> the surveillance equipment.
>>
>> I don't have anything that modern but stopping the surveillance should
>> be as simple as failing to pay the monthly fee. (Leave your cell phone
>> at home if you really care.)
>
> My daughter cannot get into her flat unless she has her mobile with her.

Wow. No key or she lost it?
If one really cared, put the cell in a metal box in the car.

--
Dan Espen
Pages (21): [ «    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: R.I.P. Terry Davis - TempleOS and Holy C
Next Topic: Satan's Digital Butthole - R.I.P. Mr. P.J. O'Rourke
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu Mar 28 09:08:12 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.30998 seconds