Listing of 60s mainframes/minis with CRT displays?

On 27/05/2014 20:31, Cory Smelosky wrote: Several of my activities may result in the correlation being perhaps slightly less strong than one might imagine, but in general when stationary its pretty strong... However it is the mass I am interested in. After all my fatness is measured by the Body Mass Index or BMI... When I climb stairs as Gravity obeys the inverse square law at the top my weight will have decreased by more than the loss of Mass from energy conversion. Not by much.. I recently visited Peru and reached the dizzy heights of 4700mtrs, at the height I would expect the change to be measurable, although from this page:- https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130827162749AAcPfU9 it looks like even at the top of Everest I would only be about 1lb lighter, so I guess at 4700mtrs only a few ounces lighter. In fact I don't actually need to change altitude. The force of gravity varies from place to place depending on the thickness of the crust. Probably get a bigger difference as I also travel up and down in lifts due to Newtonian physics... Looking at this Gravity isn't quite constant... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GRACE/page3.php so perhaps at the top of Everest the extra mass of the mountain restores the correlation... Then there are tides. The show that the gravitational force of the moon and sun change the apparent gravitational force... But again as the ground also experiences a tidal variation does that compensate for or exaggerate the changes due to change in altitude.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter Very high, so my wife says... -- Dave G4UGM