On Apr 22 2005, 8:01, der Mouse wrote:
> >>> You don't need the ['fiche viewer] screen to form the image, you
> >>> only need the (virtual) image from the viewer's lens system to be
> >>> focussed in the same plane as the scanner's optics.
> >> Pointing the scanner at the plane in space that happens to be the
> >> viewing plane of the fiche viewer isn't going to result in an
image.
> > It doesn't make any difference to the focussing of the scanner
optics
> > whether it's seeing an image produced by light reflected from a
> > plane, or light from some other source producing an image in that
> > same plane.
>
> Ah, but it does.
Well, yes and no. I was actually thinking of the image produced in a
microscope, which *is* different. Still, if you could put the scanner
sensor in the same plane as the viewing screen was supposed to be,
you'd form the right sort of image on the sensor. The sensor width
would of course need to be the same as the screen width, and would need
to not have any optics. I haven't looked at a scanner sensor for a
long time so I don't know if that's possible. It probably isn't.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
On Apr 21 2005, 21:55, John Foust wrote:
> At 07:21 PM 4/21/2005, you wrote:
> >You could just remove the fiche viewer screen. You don't need the
> >screen to form the image, you only need the (virtual) image from the
> >viewer's lens system to be focussed in the same plane as the
scanner's
> >optics. Actually, since the image is usually focussed on the back
> >surface of the viewer screen, you'd want to remove it anyway.
>
> Pointing the scanner at the plane in space that happens to be the
> viewing plane of the fiche viewer isn't going to result in an image.
> The scanner wants to see reflected light. Focusing the fiche
> projection at the scanner's sensor is a different sort of problem
> that would involve changing the scanner's optics, no?
It doesn't make any difference to the focussing of the scanner optics
whether it's seeing an image produced by light reflected from a plane,
or light from some other source producing an image in that same plane.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
> > Sheesh, why is everyone treating fiche as a horrible thing?
> Like it's
> > some terrible, embarrassing obsolete medium that needs to
> be converted
> > out of as quickly as possible?
> <snip>
>
> Yeah, but there's at least two problems with it.
>
> One, it's really hard to make fiche available to other people
> without scanning or giving out the original, and loaning out
> fiche is potentially risky and a pain in the ass to track.
Duplicating a fiche is cheap and simple. There are many Diazo based
fiche duplicators that use autofeed hoppers and make about a 2
dupes/minute. Any service bureau can do this really cheaply.
On Apr 21 2005, 22:35, Eric Smith wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> > Sheesh, why is everyone treating fiche as a horrible thing? Like
> > it's some terrible, embarrassing obsolete medium that needs to be
> > converted out of as quickly as possible?
> >
> > Fiche is great. Keep in clean and dry in a dark place and it will
> > last for hundreds of years.
> [...]
> > Not everything need exist inside a computer.
>
> Because if Alice has fiche in a clean dry dark place, that doesn't
> necessarily help Bob. But if Alice's fiche is scanned and put on a
web
> site, it may help everyone.
Exactly.
I'd add that when you're actually using the documents, paper is almost
always easier to handle. I've used DEC fiche to look up XXDP listings,
technical manuals, and maintenance docs, and it's a pain going
backwards and forwards between the machine (or board on the bench, or
whatever) to the fiche reader. The fiche just happens to be a compact
and effective way to store the data.
> When was the last time you saw the IPB (Illustrated Parts Breakdown)
> for a PDP-11T55?
Probably yesterday, when I was looking through some of my microfiche
:-)
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
> Randy McLaughlin <cctalk at randy482.com> wrote:
>
> I don't remember all the details but I read that while NASA always tried to
> solve problems with $ and technology.
>
> The Russians used something better: thought. The biggest problems were
> heat and pressure. Solid state devices shut down when heated. The
> spacecraft was open on the flight to Venus and sealed up before landing.
> This kept the insides under vacuum which slowed down heat transference.
>
> Smart, very smart.
Reminds me of joke I was told when I visited my relatives in Canada:
"One of the first big problems of manned space flight was that ball-point pens
would not work reliably in zero gravity.
NASA started a huge research project and after more than a year the 'space pen'
was developed.
This was a ball point pen that could write upside down and in zero gravity.
(BTW: These pens were sold to the public and widely advertised when I was a kid)
The russian cosmonauts, on the other hand, simply used a pencil :-)
> "James Fogg" wrote:
> >
> >If anyone here has contacts at MIT, or wanted to contact them about
> >scanning services, you might find that they still have the
> ability to
> >scan fiche and *may* be affordable.
>
> If no one else wants to, I'll sign up for this. I'd love the
> excuse to see the scanner :-)
>
> I've spoken to the nice ladies in the CSAIL reading room.
> I'll bet they can point me in the right direction. They seem
> to be very sympathetic to those of us into archiving.
>
> -brad
Let me know if they still have it. I'd love to know.
BTW - TDC was bought by Banctec, so it may be called a Banctec fiche
scanner now.
On Apr 21 2005, 17:33, Eric Smith wrote:
> Pete wrote:
> > Similarly, you don't need to remove the scanner's lamp, except
perhaps
> > to eliminate stray reflections that would cause glare and reduce
> > contrast. You would just disconnect its power if that were the
> > requirement.
>
> Many scanners do a calibration on the lamp. Some will refuse to scan
if
> they think the lamp isn't working correctly.
You're right; I'd forgotten about that.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
9000 VAX <vax9000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is going to be a hard work. If it is me, I'd rather look at any
> readily available SBC (PC104 or whatever that does not need a fan, or
> even an severely downclocked PC), and add the keyboard support
> hardware and software for LK201, to meet your expectation.
The problem with this is that I absolutely positively cannot stand the
PeeCee architecture. My design will have a non-8086-compatible CPU, a
non-PeeCee design of system registers, and a ROM monitor that bears no
relation to the PeeCee BIOS, instead it'll have the look and feel of a
VAX console (chevron prompt)!
MS
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Tom Jennings <tomj at wps.com> commented:
>> Each "tube"
>> consisted of an Americium cathode, the necessary grids (perforated
>> plates),
>> and a plate evaporated on the wall of the cavity.
> .... But this is fairly amazing, and I've never heard of it before.
>
> Why Am for cathodes?! Alpha particles instead of electrons? (I'm
> kidding there.)Or did they somehow come up with a nasty, toxic an
> short-lived way to produce clouds of electrons? Or another way to
> lob our toxic waste at our 'enemies' ala 'depleted' (sic)
> uranium?!
Because of a head-fart. I've been disecting smoke detectors in the
recent past and I'm afraid the alpha radiation has left an imprint.
What was used was a soft beta emitter in place of a heated filament. If
interested, look up the HIBEX missile.
CRC
I have a box of 9-track tapes (total weight is 65 lbs)
>from that I no longer need.
- 27 x 2400' 3M Black Watch No.700 6250 CPI
- 1 x 1200' Scotch 700 6250 CPI
- 3 x 1200' Graham Magnetics Epoch 480
- 2 x write-enable rings
The whole lot is available for free if you pay for the
shipping (or pick them up in Albuquerque). I would
prefer to send all the tapes at once rather than
sending single tapes to people. If you are
interested, please contact me at
cfnelson_87111 at yahoo.com. If no one is interested,
they are going in the media disposal box at work.
By the way, I read the entire set twice using
different tape drives (both were Sun-labelled HP 88780
drives). A byte-for-byte comparison showed not a
single changed bit for the sets (>1 Gbyte of data)that
were read 5 years apart. I found that somewhat
amazing for tapes that are at least 15 years old and
have not been in special storage. Maybe writing the
data at only 1600 bpi made them more reliable
(originally written by a Masscomp UNIX system using a
Cipher F880 tape drive).
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
