> So what are the other options?
> * Trying to repair the unit. Every plane is soldered together with the ones
> nearby to convey the X/Y signals. This can probably be undone with a
> patience and soldering braid. But what are the chance that the X/Y wires
> gets lose then? Are those soldered or welded into place?
>
> Then it would be quite tricky to just identify where it is actually broken.
> Any ideas for how to do this? A microscope of course. Any other ideas?
> Applying an electrical field between the wire and something else and try to
> detect it?
A stereoscopic microscope and a lot of patience is a good staring point.
> Repair. If the wire is broken in the mat it is probably not to difficult to
> pull out the broken parts. But then the new wire has to be spliced in. What
> is t he best technique to do that?
> How to push in the new wire in the matrix? I now that Anders was able to do
> this with a broken X-wire in a PDP-8/L stack.
I used a pair of tweezers to push the new thread in, one core at a time.
You should try to change as small part as possible. I just changed the
thread thru the first 64 cores, then I joined the two threads together
in the middle of the core plan. I then used nail polish as an isolatur.
I didn't thought I had something to lose to try to repair the existing
core stack. Without it the computer is really not working at all. I'll
think you should try to repair it. Start to bring out the core stack
and then turn it around for a while until you are brave enough.
I found some pictures on stacks to the 8/L in pieces before I started on
the internet, that helped me to understand what I had to master.
/Anders
Is there engineering drawings online for the DEC 871 or 874 power
controllers?
I have one with a failed solid state relay and I cannot figure out the spec.
One is an Opto-Film OFA-2402H and the other is a CLARE 203A05A3A
But I cannot find a data sheet for any of those. Does anyone know a
compatible replacement device? The pinout is not something I can find
amongst the ones at Mouser.
/Mattis
I am finally getting recovered from my trip to VCFMW... the 2-day
(basically non-stop) drive each way was somewhat taxing. And I too
wanted to say thanks to everyone who attended along with Jason and crew
who made it happen.
This was my first VCFMW and the spirit and camaraderie at the whole
event reminded me very much of the early VCF events. It was a pleasant
surprise to find it a lot larger than what I expected. I got the
opportunity to renew old acquaintances, put faces with people I only
knew by name, and make a number of new friends. The big bonus for me was
reducing the amount of unneeded "stuff" and having the trip pay for
itself! (It could have all disappeared and would not have made a dent it
the stuff here at the house.)
And like Jay, I already have my reservations in for next year.
Many thanks to everyone who attended and made it happen!!!
Marvin, KE6HTS
> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 11:17:52 -0500 From: "Jay West"
> <jwest at classiccmp.org>
>
> I just wanted to say a huge thanks to Jason and crew for putting on
> an incredible event last weekend. Last year was fantastic, and this
> year the bar was raised again in every area.
> From: Guy Sotomayor Jr
> Why? What does the width of the ALU have to do with the "bitness" of
> the architecture? If the programmer's view is 8-bits .., what does it
> matter (other than performance) what the width of the internal data
> paths or ALU are?
> It's interesting from an implementation point of view but not really
> anything else.
What he said (and others made the same point).
When talking about processors, "Architecture" = 'what the programmer sees'.
> From: Fred Cisin
> There are more than a hundred different parameters involved. There is
> no definitive agreement as to which parameter is to be used for the
> classification, nor even which parameterS. ... a product that has one
> classification by one parameter, and a different classification by
> another parameter, there will be disputed classifications, since
> different parameters are more or less important to each viewer.
And this too.
(Which is why, for the 68K, I listed several of the main user-visible
parameters, and noted that they were all 32 bits.)
Noel
Christian, Thanks for those links1
Yes the packard bell wegge corner computer
I actually need one of those for a display here....
ed sharpe archivist for smecc _www.smecc.org_ (http://www.smecc.org)
In a message dated 9/17/2016 8:25:46 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
captainkirk359 at gmail.com writes:
On 17 September 2016 at 01:38, <COURYHOUSE at aol.com> wrote:
> look at both these HP desktops - style come to the computer!
>
If we're going to talk about "modern" computers... I'd like to direct
the list to these YouTube videos by Clint, of the Lazy Game Reviews
channel (is he on this list?):
"Strangest Computer Designs of the '90s": <https://youtu.be/rqyoO4eajXo>
"Strangest Computer Designs of the 2000s": <https://youtu.be/fQEOvLeLfTw>
There's also actual classic computer stuff on his channel too. Here's
an example of him talking about his IBM 5160 PC/XT:
<https://youtu.be/VfvGS7qJr4M>
Cheers,
Christian
--
Christian M. Gauger-Cosgrove
STCKON08DS0
Contact information available upon request.
Hi, All,
I unearthed what appears to be a Tektronix X terminal, marked on the bottom:
MODEL: X221CHT
SERIAL: <serial number>
LAN: 08 00 11 <xx> <xx> <xx>
KEY: <17 digit alphanumeric>
The connectors on the back are:
8-pin DIN marked +5VDC/+12VDC
PS/2 Mouse
PS/2 Keyboard
15-pin VGA
2x DE9-M serial
"RJ45" Ethernet
10Base2 BNC
several empty rectangular openings presumable for expansion mods
Inside is:
Sonic-T DP83934CVUL-25
TI TLC34076-135FN Video
SRAM
LSI LR33020MC-25 "GRAPHX PROC"
Tektronix 160-9461-00
29F010 FLASH EEPROM
2x 72-pin SIMM sockets with on SIMM installed, appears to be 4MB
Chip dates are frequently last 60 days of 1996. Two minor SOIC parts
have the newest visible date code, 9701.
I do not have the PSU for it and have not tried powering it on. I can
probably solder some wires to the back of the PCB to feed it +12V and
+5V, but I'm a little surprised to find zero information on the web
searching for variants of the vendor and model number.
Anyone here have any info? If it is an X terminal, it's probably a
brick without a somewhat sizable tftp area for it to slurp up.
Thanks for any tips, comments or pointers.
-ethan
> From: Al Kossow
> done.
Thanks!
I've spent a while poring over them, and I can report that the tape interface
on the TMA11 and TMB11 is exactly identical. (Oddly enough, there are very
minor differences between those of the TM11 and TMA11. Go figure.) So I
expect that report of a TU10 plugged into a TMB11 is accurate.
I've also compared the TM11 and TMA11, and they have the ssme complement of
Flip Chips, with one exception: the TMA11 adds an M7854 "OPI/BTE Detector" -
not sure what that might be. It does not seem to be, as I had guessed, for
support of 1600 bpi, because the TMA11 only supports 800.
I'll put together a brief page on the Computer History wiki containing all
i've gleaned covering the TM11/TMA11/TMB11 (pinouts of the drive cable, Flip
Chip backplane chart, etc).
Noel