Hello all,
I am trying to replace some rubber feet on a couple of items and it appears
the OEM used 3M Bumpons. I've been trying to find a source that will sell
small quantities but all I can find is one box minimum (which is a couple of
thousand!). I am willing to buy as much as a whole sheet but prefer less if
possible. Looking for models:
SJ5780 and SJ5023 both in Grey (not black).
The SJ5023 is available on eBay but not the round SJ5780s (in Grey).
Any help is appreciated. TIA!
-Ali
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 03:51:14PM -0300, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
> There are a lot of people who would like to buy people's votes
It's a good thing this does not happen in any other countries <cough>.
:-)
mcl
Subject line covers it; the M2372K manual isn't on Bitsavers (the 2382K
is, but it's significantly different) and all I've found is this
covering the basics, and I'm not 100% sure it's correct:
http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/hard-drives-hdd/fujitsu/M2372K-824MB-8-0-FH-HSM…
Anyone have this manual? Can you confirm that the settings listed on
stason.org are valid? I'm trying to get this drive to format using an
Emulex UD33 (UNIBUS SMD) controller, and I'm not having much luck. (I'm
also not certain that the 2372K isn't too new for the controller;
another place a manual would be of immense help.)
Thanks,
Josh
Hi Mouse - Yes we know that 545 scope and have one in storage to be
refurbished
If you can get it to we guarantee it will be loved and perch in the
display with the display of the scope.
Many Thanks in advance -
Ed Sharpe archivist for SMECC _www.smecc.org_ (http://www.smecc.org/)
In a message dated 10/12/2015 2:10:55 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
mouse at Rodents-Montreal.ORG writes:
I have a Tektronix "OPERATORS' MANUAL" for "CATHODE-RAY OSCILLOSCOPES
TYPE 535 AND 545" (those are quotes from the front cover) which says it
"applies to standard Type 535 Oscilloscopes having serial numbers
between 6045 and 7552, to rack-mounted Type 535 Oscilloscopes having
serial numbers 4048 and 4072, to standard Type 545 Oscilloscopes having
serial numbers between 5946 and 7400, and to rack-mounted Type 545
Oscilloscopes having serial numbers between 1740 and 1775". (I suspect
there is a "between" missing before "4048".) It is a small 45-page
booklet and is definitely a user's manual; it is not a repair document,
not even what tony calls a boardswapper guide.
It apparently got wet at some point in its history; the first and last
few pages are stained green, presumably from the covers (which are
green). (Not stained to the point of illegibility.)
I do not have any device it applies to, do not really expect to, and am
inclined to doubt I would need it even if I did, so I would cheerfully
pass it along to someone who actually wants it. It's currently in
Ottawa (Ontario, Canada); I could pop it in the post easily enough.
Anyone?
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
unique keys? I am not sure of that Unless he lettered in CTL
looked like weird Mohawk data sciences keys or something.... I have
seen this type of keyboard before... or some other place in a scrap
environment post 1799..... Ed Sharpe archivist for SMECC
In a message dated 10/12/2015 10:01:15 P.M. US Mountain Standard Tim,
unclefalter at yahoo.ca writes:
Hey there,
I'm currently working on a replica of Don Lancaster's prototype TV
Typewriter (pic here:
http://s1381.photobucket.com/user/unclefalter/media/20151011_125748_zpssu7yy
ujf.jpg.html?o=0 ) and I was wondering - does anyone know where the unit
that appeared on the cover (with the more refined keyboard) ended up? I've
asked around, including Don and nobody seems to know where it got to.
I'm also wondering if anyone knows a source that might have the keytops
that
unit used or something close (I understand they were made by Mechanical
Enterprises). I've enough parts here to build two or three TVTs and I
thought after I get the prototype replica done I might go for the cover
unit, esp. if it no longer exists anymore. But I understand those keytops
were kind of a one off deal for that article.
Thanks!!
Brad
I have a Tektronix "OPERATORS' MANUAL" for "CATHODE-RAY OSCILLOSCOPES
TYPE 535 AND 545" (those are quotes from the front cover) which says it
"applies to standard Type 535 Oscilloscopes having serial numbers
between 6045 and 7552, to rack-mounted Type 535 Oscilloscopes having
serial numbers 4048 and 4072, to standard Type 545 Oscilloscopes having
serial numbers between 5946 and 7400, and to rack-mounted Type 545
Oscilloscopes having serial numbers between 1740 and 1775". (I suspect
there is a "between" missing before "4048".) It is a small 45-page
booklet and is definitely a user's manual; it is not a repair document,
not even what tony calls a boardswapper guide.
It apparently got wet at some point in its history; the first and last
few pages are stained green, presumably from the covers (which are
green). (Not stained to the point of illegibility.)
I do not have any device it applies to, do not really expect to, and am
inclined to doubt I would need it even if I did, so I would cheerfully
pass it along to someone who actually wants it. It's currently in
Ottawa (Ontario, Canada); I could pop it in the post easily enough.
Anyone?
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
On 2015-10-12 2:51 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
> Paul Koning wrote on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:44:58 -0400:
>>> On Oct 9, 2015, at 5:39 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
>>> [noticed voter ID terminal had cable to voting machines!]
>>
>> That's not the real problem.
>
> Indeed, not *the* problem but just *a* problem I noticed while still in
> line to get into the voting station.
>
>> The real problem is that you had no way to be sure, no way to verify,
>> that the machine was recording your vote and would accurately report
>> it later. It might just as easily report numbers that someone had told
>> it to report, not connected to any reality. How would you know? If
>> anyone were to question this, how would you prove that the count is
>> honest?
>
> This issue was raised, so the third time these machines were used in a
> national election there was a pilot with modified machines that printed
> their results so that the voter could see (but not touch) and then
> dropped the paper version into an urn. Observers from all the different
> parties could use the paper trail to verify the numbers presented
> electronically by the machines. After that single trial, TSE declared
> that the result was that a paper trail was proved to be unnecessary and
> caused delays and added expense, so those machines were never seen again
> and elections in Brazil have been paper free ever since.
Leaving the vulnerability.
>
> There are several aspects of voting culture in Brazil that are quite
> different ...
>
> -- Jecel
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. <jecel at merlintec.com> wrote:
>
> Paul Koning wrote on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:44:58 -0400:
> ...
>> The real problem is that you had no way to be sure, no way to verify,
>> that the machine was recording your vote and would accurately report
>> it later. It might just as easily report numbers that someone had told
>> it to report, not connected to any reality. How would you know? If
>> anyone were to question this, how would you prove that the count is
>> honest?
>
> This issue was raised, so the third time these machines were used in a
> national election there was a pilot with modified machines that printed
> their results so that the voter could see (but not touch) and then
> dropped the paper version into an urn. Observers from all the different
> parties could use the paper trail to verify the numbers presented
> electronically by the machines. After that single trial, TSE declared
> that the result was that a paper trail was proved to be unnecessary and
> caused delays and added expense, so those machines were never seen again
> and elections in Brazil have been paper free ever since.
Cute. So that demonstrates that the results of that one election are accurate, but it tells you nothing about the later ones. And the claim that the paper is "unnecessary" shows either ignorance, or dishonest intent, on the part of the person making that claim. After all, you have no way to know whether the later machines are still honest, just because the ones used in that one election were.
paul
>
> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:44:54 -0500
> From: Jay Jaeger <cube1 at charter.net>
> Subject: Re: PDP-12 Restoration at the RICM
>
> Don't forget about the other more remote possibilities: cables,
> backplane, bad wrap, supply voltages at the actual card(s) for the
> mis-behaving channel, etc.
>
> JRJ
>
We used different control and data cables for the TU55 and the TU56 drives
and observed the same track 3 bad behavior.
The backplane appears to be in good shape.
My scope had a little trouble looking at 10-15mV signals in differential
mode using the math functions, but we looked at the head signals going into
the track 3 amplifier, and they looked reasonable.
The power supply voltages at the cards are within spec. The track
amplifiers are supposed to be differential, so they should be fairly immune
to power supply noise. We plan to connect a lab supply to the backplane
near the track cards and adjust it slightly higher than the PDP-12 power
supply. That should clean up any 60Hz noise on the power. Maybe that will
help?
We have swapped everything else between the tracks, including the logic
analyzer probe, and the issue always stays with track 3. Maybe it is a
backplane wiring problem?
--
Michael Thompson
