25 Jan
2012
25 Jan
'12
9:28 p.m.
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Brent Hilpert wrote:
On 2012 Jan 24, at 12:20 PM, Mike Loewen wrote:
When in doubt, go to the source:
"Symposium on Williams'-Tube Storage"
http://dome.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.3/39201/MC665_r05_M-1380.pdf
"Initial Testing of a Computer Electrostatic Storage System"
http://dome.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.3/39822/MC665_r11_R-195.pdf
"Storage Tube Program, Project Whirlwind"
http://dome.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.3/38916/MC665_r04_M-102.pdf
Mike Loewen mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/
An early version of the Whirlwind computer also used Williams Tubes:
"Initially Whirlwind used a modified form of the Williams tube. An
additional flood gun maintained the pattern of dots while a writing gun was
used to alter the pattern. Thirty two such tubes were needed to provide the
4KBytes of storage that the Whirlwind needed. Given a tube life of one
month and cost $1000 the running cost of the machine was very high, $1 per
bit per month."
Whirlwind never used Williams-tube storage, at least as I understand the
definitions. I don't believe it is even historically accurate to say "..
Whirlwind used a modified form of the Williams tube".
Williams-tubes memory (or the preferred "Williams-Kilburn-tubes") and the
first memory system of Whirlwind were both electrostatic CRT-based storage.
The design approach of the Williams-Kilburn-tube-memory was intended to
enable the use of standard or off-the-shelf CRTs, while the Whirlwind design
used specialised holding-beam CRTs.