28 Oct
2015
28 Oct
'15
5:10 p.m.
On 2015-Oct-28, at 4:41 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
No, it doesn't, without more research (that's why I qualified the observation
with "not a proof in entirety").
I'm just noting:
- A source describes this type of memory as being used in the Gemini computer.
- It's a very unusual form of core memory - I had never heard of it before either -
so there's not a lot of other equipment for it to have come from.
The techique may even only ever have been used in Gemini.
- The matrix size of 4096 is consistent with that described for Gemini, although that is
a common matrix size.
On Oct 28,
2015, at 7:32 PM, Brent Hilpert <hilpert at cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
On 2015-Oct-28, at 2:45 PM, Geoffrey Oltmans wrote:
I didn't realize there is any such thing as non-destructive read core memory.
Google does turn up a few obscure articles about such things. It doesn't seem to
have caught on, and I wonder why it was used here.
So that phrase actually may be accurate. But does that clearly tie it to Gemini? And
even if it does, that doesn't amount to provenance as a flight item; it might just as
easily have been a spare, or a failed test module, or something similar that never left
the ground.
paul On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Paul Koning
<paulkoning at comcast.net> wrote:
Not a proof in entirety of the claim, but from a ref and looking at the closeup pics from
the auction website, it is an unusual form of core memory where the cores have two holes
through them, like a blocky figure 8, apparently an aspect of a technique to achieve
non-destructive readout. This is quite unusual and would go some ways to showing a
provenance to the Gemini project.
> On Oct 28, 2015, at 12:58 PM, feldman.r at
comcast.net wrote:
>
> A core memory unit from Gemini 3 is up for auction:
http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2015/10/auction-memory-first-comput…
Comical. "Chip" indeed. And "first use of core memory ... in an era of
rotating drum memory" -- in 1965? I wonder why they have such a clueless
person write their blurbs.
paul
Seems like it's worth is totally dependent on its provenance...how
do you
prove that?