Purposefully fudged schematics (was: Wire Rope ROMs (Was: back to the AGC, was Re: TTL 7400's Available))
4 Jan
2007
4 Jan
'07
9:49 a.m.
In article <B9639BAE3F34504E83FEEDD71D4AFB460A660A
at mail.bensene.com>,
"Rick Bensene" <rickb at bensene.com> writes:
This is a very old practice. Some of Babbage's drawings had
intentional errors. As I recall, he drew some parts in mirror image.
The group that did the difference engine reconstruction in London
ran into this. And the practice wasn't new when Babbage used
it.
BLS
[...] Wang is also
famous for purposefully putting errors into published schematics to
throw off competitors who would use such schematics to reverse-engineer
how the machines work. [...]
Wow, I'd never heard that story before. Interesting!
How many other companies did this back when schematics were pretty
much leaving the machine laying naked in front of you? 
4 Jan
4 Jan
10:59 a.m.
New subject: Purposefully fudged schematics (was: Wire Rope ROMs (Was: backto the AGC, was Re: TTL 7400's Available))
Leonardo DaVinci put errors in the drawings for his "tank."
From: "Brian L. Stuart" <blstuart at
bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic
Posts"<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic
Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: Purposefully fudged schematics (was: Wire Rope ROMs (Was:
backto the AGC, was Re: TTL 7400's Available))
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 8:49:54 -0600
This is a very old practice. Some of Babbage's drawings had
intentional errors. As I recall, he drew some parts in mirror image.
The group that did the difference engine reconstruction in London
ran into this. And the practice wasn't new when Babbage used
it.
BLS
_________________________________________________________________
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline2
In article
<B9639BAE3F34504E83FEEDD71D4AFB460A660A at mail.bensene.com>,
"Rick Bensene" <rickb at bensene.com> writes:
> [...] Wang is also
> famous for purposefully putting errors into published schematics to
> throw off competitors who would use such schematics to
reverse-engineer
how the
machines work. [...]
Wow, I'd never heard that story before. Interesting!
How many other companies did this back when schematics were pretty
much leaving the machine laying naked in front of you? 
1:49 p.m.
New subject: Purposefully fudged schematics
Robert Feldman wrote:
Leonardo DaVinci put errors in the drawings for his
"tank."
But then how many people have built it!
Ornithopter's are a lot more fun. :)
The unrealized dream of aviation -- man powered Ornithopter.
http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/kazuho/index-e.htm
------
To get back on topic about babbage's drawings,
from what I read it was mechnical design that
could not be produced with 18th century mechanical
enginering.
4:15 p.m.
New subject: Purposefully fudged schematics
woodelf wrote:
To get back on topic about babbage's drawings,
from what I read it was mechnical design that
could not be produced with 18th century mechanical
enginering.
I thought the Science Museum rebuild showed that it
could be built with 19th century engineering? They
deliberately didn't make it any more accurate than
Babbage could have, and they only found a couple
of minor difficulties. One was that it was too
hard to turn the handle, so they geared it down.
Surely something that, if Babbage had finished the
Difference Engine, he'd have done himself?
--
John Honniball
coredump at gifford.co.uk
5 Jan
5 Jan
12:02 a.m.
New subject: Purposefully fudged schematics
To get back on topic about babbage's drawings,
from what I read it was mechnical design that
could not be produced with 18th century mechanical
enginering.
There is some vague truth to this, but basically no, the technology
was indeed there. Almost.
During the 19th century, British precision machining was lacking, as
the machinists at the time were very reluctant to use many of the new
tools. The Germans, and especially the Americans, at the time very
eagerly embraced the new tools and left the British machinists behind.
Very few British machinists took up the new tools, and those that did
could have done the work. There is a very good book I once read about
this, and it slips my mind right now.
For a practical example - look at mid 19th century firearms at the
time: British interchangable parts aren't.
--
Will
6408
days inactive
6409
days old
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
blstuart＠bellsouth.net -
coredump＠gifford.co.uk -
r_a_feldman＠hotmail.com -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com