If any of you have Kennedy tape drives this
might interest you.
I was at the local Junk store this morning and found
a box full of the rubber o-rings that are used on
the Tape reel retaining latch (both reels).
I bought a couple and compared them to my
originals and they appear to be exactly the same.
They are in good condition, still flexible and supple.
No dryness or cracking.
If anyone wants me to pick up any let me know.
They're 50 cents apiece plus shipping, which shouldn't
be much.
There were quite a few so I don't think that supply is a
problem.
Let me know soon.
Jon
On or about 05:23 PM 1/30/99 -0500, R. Stricklin (kjaeros) was caught in a
dark alley speaking these words:
>I had a '50s-ish Monroe electromechanical desk caluclator when I was in
>elementary school. I convinced my parents to buy it for me from a JC
>Penney firesale. I think it cost around $15. This would've been in the
>late 1980s.
I'm going to try to keep this on-topic (or at least close)... My parents
had a '60's Victor, which cost big $$$, but was no longer used, so they
kept it in the attic. Occasionally, they'd bring it down and let us kids
play on it, but I was the only one who had any interest in it whatsoever.
>I remember thinking it was pretty groovy, even if there were some things
>about it I didn't quite understand how to make work properly.
>
>My little brother pushed it off my desk on day and it stopped working, so
>I reluctantly threw it away.
When I was 11 or 12, I broke the Victor in a non-violent way, but had no
clue how until a few years later...
See, this Victor had the ability to divide, and at the time I broke it, I
had no idea that dividing by zero was a bad idea.....
Damn, the racket that thing made (and still makes today if you plug it in)
as it tries to keep dividing by zero whenever power is applied.
Can't do it on computers now, either. (Thank goodness for error trapping...
;-)
See ya,
"Merch"
=====
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- zmerch(a)30below.com
SysAdmin - Iceberg Computers
===== Merch's Wild Wisdom of the Moment: =====
Sometimes you know, you just don't know sometimes, you know?
Hi Geoff,
I think you'll find that you have 32K of additional memory for your 99/4A.
All of the expansion cards I ever saw for TI's Peripheral Expansion Box
(TM) were 32K.
Cheers!
Mark "A 99'er from way back" Gregory.
At 07:01 PM 1/30/99 +1030, you wrote:
>I vaguely seem to remember that the Plato Courseware also ran, or they had a
>version for, the TI99/4A.
>They were pushing it at schools and the like IIRC.
>My first real computer was a TI....Still got it here somewhere, complete
>with the expansion box and 24k of additional ram, and a 5.25" FDD.
>
>Cheers
>
>Geoff Roberts
>Computer Room Internet Cafe
>Port Pirie
>South Australia.
>netcafe(a)pirie.mtx.net.au
>
>
>
On Jan 30, 19:33, Tony Duell wrote:
> The names comes from the fact that if the film was perfect there's a
> reciprocal relationship between the exposure time and the aperture area
Exactly.
> In other words, bracket the exposures - take the same picture at several
> different exposures and use the best one.
> > The effect is that colour balance can be wildly different at very
short > > or very long exposure times.
> While undoubtedly true in theory, I don't think this will affect most
> people on this group. I've taken a lot of pictures inside buildings
> without flash (exposures of 20 seconds, perhaps), using Kodachrome.
Kodachrome is more tolerant than many films, but in general you'd need
exposures over a minute or so to see a serious cast develop.
> > Also, ordinary B/W film is "panchromatic" -- sensitive to most of the
> > visible colour range (and also to UV, which is why most professionals
tend
> > to put a UV or "skylight" filter on every lens as a matter of course).
>
> That, and a new filter is cheaper than a new lens if you happen to knock
> it against something ;-)
Or have it splattered with salt spray :-)
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
I picked up two drives at the MIT flea's last year... I was only
able to get two disks... if you find a source, please let me know
as well (yes, I have the 90 MB version too).
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry!zk3.dec.com |
| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg!world.std.com |
| Compaq Computer Corporation | addresses need '@' in place of '!' |
| 110 Spitbrook Rd. ZK03-2/T43 | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ |
| Nashua, NH 03062 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler |
| (603) 884 1055 | required." - mbg |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Sorry but this the only way to contact all the folks at the same time. We
would like to have get together at one the members home here in Burnsville
within the next couple weeks to discuss the classic's or whatever. We were
thinking of ordering pizza and you folks can bring your own drinks
(beer,soda). Please e-mail me at jrkeys(a)concentric.net if you feel this
something we would like to start on monthly or every two month basis.
Thanks and all others sorry for using list.
The "Pink Shirt" book was The Peter Norton Programmer's Guide To The IBM
PC, subtitled "The ultimate reference guide to the entire family of IBM
personal computers". It was first published, incidentally, by Microsoft
Press in 1985.
Mark.
At 09:19 AM 1/30/99, you wrote:
>At 08:45 PM 1/29/99 -0600, you wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Well well, people throw out the darndest things..
>>> >
>>> > I found a copy of a book by someone named Peter Norton. Looks to me
>like it
>>> > may have been his first book. Called 'inside the IBM PC'.
>>>
>>> Isn't this the well-known pink-shirt book (so called because of the cover
>>> picture).
>>>
>>
>>Nope, it has a circuitboard as a background, and some horizontal fake
>>lightning on the cover.
>
> That's his first edition. The second also showed a circuit board but
>without the lightning. I remember the pink shirt book it was also PN but I
>don't remember exactly what the book was.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
The Daily Laugh spam originated from the domain virgin.net, which is
hosted by cableol.net, a UK-based ISP.
I have sent a formal request to cableol.net to curb their customer.
Based on the very tough stance against spam that most UK ISPs seem to
take, I don't think we'll be hearing anything more from virgin.net.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Owner and head honcho, Blue Feather Technologies
http://www.bluefeathertech.com
Amateur Radio:(WD6EOS) E-mail: kyrrin(a)bluefeathertech.com
SysOp: The Dragon's Cave (Fido 1:343/272, 253-639-9905)
"Our science can only describe an object, event, or living thing in our own
human terms. It cannot, in any way, define any of them..."
On Jan 29, 17:31, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
> So, a picture taken at f16 (smallest apature) at 8 (1/8 second shutter
> speed) will let in the same amount of light as f11 at 15, f8 at 30,
[...]
> Now, what's the difference between f16/8 and f1.4/1000?
> Field of focus, or that part of the picture that is sharply in focus.
That's the most obvious difference, and the only one you'd need to consider
for a static subject with a camera on a tripod, at "normal" shutter speeds.
As Tony pointed out, a moving subject will be subject to greater blurring
at slow shutter speeds. For a hand-held camera, there will also be some
evidence of blurring due to the unsteadiness of the operator; for a normal
35mm SLR in competent hands you'll typically start to see this at speeds
below 1/125s. As Tony(?) also mentioned, at *really* small apertures (f/22
or smaller) the definition falls off, even though the depth of field
increases.
There is another difference, of particular importance to colour film, due
to what's know as "reciprocity failure". At very short and very long
exposures, the "double the aperture, double the speed" rule breaks down,
and you find that you need longer exposures than you might expect (because
of the particulate nature of the film emulsion, and the activation energy
of the silver halides and dye sensitisers in it). For B/W film, that just
means it seems slower outside the normal shutter speed range. Astronomers
are well aware of this, for exposures of a minute or so, speed can easily
drop by a factor of 2.
Worse still, colour film is actually made up of three or more layers
(typically 6 layers, plus a dye layer), and they aren't all the same.
Although they're balanced for "normal" eposures, reciprocity failure
begins to show itself at different times for the different layers. The
effect is that colour balance can be wildly different at very short or very
long exposure times.
> Also, film is more sensative to light than paper is (about an order of
> magnitude). Indoor light is cooler (redder) than outdoor light (bluer)
and
> there, you can balance the colors either in the film (special film for
> indoor use), filters on the camera (let's see if I remember here---a red
> filter for indoor use will cut down the reds and let more blue through,
thus
> increasing the tempurature of the scene if you ahve outdoor film and are
> trying to use it indoors) or during the print processing..
Also, ordinary B/W film is "panchromatic" -- sensitive to most of the
visible colour range (and also to UV, which is why most professionals tend
to put a UV or "skylight" filter on every lens as a matter of course).
Paper and process film is usually "orthochromatic" -- insensitive to reds
-- or "blue-sensitive", which is why darkroom safelights are usually
yellow.
By "indoor light" I assume you mean tungsten lighting? Yes, it's redder,
but you need a *blue* filter to compensate, if you're using "daylight" film
(which is what most ordinary colour film is). These filters usually have a
filter-factor of about 2 to 4, ie they cut the effective speed of the film
by between 2 times and 4 times.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Well, i figured it was about time I took my terminal out of the closet and
tried to get it to work again. Well, the good news is it still appears
to be working.
This beast is a Control Data Corporation Plato terminal. As far as I know,
its the original model of plato terminal. Touch screen, vector graphics,
square monitor area... big base unit a tad bigger than my IBM pentium
computer, with a video display unit that sits on top and merges with
teh base unit. Keyboard is about as non-standard as i've ever seen.
There are side panels on both sides of the base unit, which contain all
the circuit cards for the smart terminal. It looks like this was made
around 1975 since the proms are dated then, and some other board had a chip
dated 1974... 8080a cpu.. I have the optional modem card, not that i can
use it (1200 rcv, 150 xmt ;) ;)
This baby can support all sorts of baud rates, most of which are useless ;)
Lets see, if i recieve at 1260 baud, i can transmit at one of these rates:
1260, 630, 157.5, 126, 78.2 baud.
If I recieve at 1200 baud (yes! a useful rate) I can transmit at 1200, 600,
150, 120, 75 baud.
I only have 4K ram, does anyone have a spare 4k ram board for this ;) ;)
I can see why I havent been using this, it looks like I need to wire up
a rs-232 adapter box. Pin 3 is recieve, pin 14 is transmit, pin 7 is ground.
Am I correct in assuming that i just need to move 14 to 2, or am i getting
2 and 3 swapped around? I woudl want to connectthis termianl to a cp/m
computer as its console, and not to a modem.
Ok, time for the impossible question: Does anyone have a manual for this?
I had some leftover old 1000 speed film in teh old automatic-everything
el-cheapo 35mm camera, so i turned onteh flash and snapped a few photos,
so with any luck i'll have some poor images of this beast by tomorrow.
Hmm, if no manual is available, maybe an old termcap entry might make
this terminal useful again....
How many thousands of dollars is this beast worth? i may go broke buying
cloth covers for this stuff ;)
-Lawrence LeMay
