Dan wrote:
Yes, but I think part of this hobby is also having
some level of
authenticity.
Although many of the original parts can't be available, some level of
hardware consistency is maintained.
Another group redesigned the ENIAC into a FPGA chip.
Part of an engineer's job is to design within constraints, you lose that
when using advanced technology.
Eliminating this factor when trying to replicate a system is making it
too easy.
...
Besides what fun is for all to stand around the table
and look down on
one lonely FPGA chip ?
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 21 Sep 2008 at 10:42, bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca wrote:
But that is what made it special - the components
at the time.
They have 3 input NOR's in tiny logic, so do smaller PCB's
if you want a smaller system. :)
One could also make use of transistor arrays to recreate the original
RTL part. Given that there were some 5000 of these packages in the
original (IIRC), that might make for a project a bit too large to
chew. Given that integration is used to decrease this package count
by 9/10ths, what's the problem with substituting some programmable
logic? How is that "less authentic" than substituting MSI TTL for
SSI RTL? One could use the extra space in the rack to store a six-
pack of one's favorite beverage. :)
I'd say it's just a matter of preference of where one wants to draw the line.
Just for the sake of discussion, I'd suggest using SMD CMOS 4025 triple 3-input
NOR gates, or 7410 triple 3-input NAND gates with negative logic, to fairly
closely mimic the original implementation. (Might depend on whether wire-AND
connections were used much in the original.)