Quothe ben franchuk, from writings of Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 11:00:04AM -0600: Why give a child a toy telephone anyway? Wouldn't it be better to give a child a broken, or cheap, real telephone along with a set of screwdrivers and, if at least six or seven years sold, a soldering iron as well? -- Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals: All Rights Reserved | My VAX | an unnatural belief that we're above Nature & www.rddavis.org | runs VMS & | her other creatures, using dogma to justify such 410-744-4900 | doesn't crash!| beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

Or give him _2_ telephones, a suitable impedance (the primary of a small mains transformer) and 2 or 3 9V batteries... It's not hard to work out how to link them up :-). Oh, and try to find a copy of 'Telephony' :-) Seirously, I learnt by taking real things apart and reading the books, I don't see why children today whould be denied the chance to learn too... -tony

2D or 3D Photography? :^) Zane

I've collected a few holograms, but never seriously considered attempting to make one. I've been known to do my own Stereo cards, as well as Realist and Viewmaster format slides (I have 3D projectors for both types of slides). Unfortunately this is one hobby that's really suffered in recent years. Zane

I Vmade one as an undergraduate practicsl (lab session?) at university. Wasn't hard, but you do need a stabke bench on vibration isolators. Why? It can't be that hard to get the materials. -tony

Yes, but well-made photographic equipment doesn't really wear out, so the old stuff can still be repaired and used. Is there anything particuarly odd about the bulbs? Projector bulbs in general are not that hard to find. Why on earth would you want to use modern cameras??? There have been several adapters made to take 2 normal camera boddies. CZJ made one that takes 2 Werra cameras (that's one Werra accessory I've not found yet). And of course there were those sliding devices where you take 2 pictures with a single camera, moving it between exposures. Only works for static subjects. Or the prism attachements that fit on the front of the lens and take the 2 images on a single 35mm frame. The Russians made a thing called a Sputnik. A _triple_ lens reflex camera. 2 taking lenses coupled to a viewing lens. Took 6 sterao pairs on a 120 roll film. I've never seen one at a sensible price, though. -tony

Unless it's something seriously obscure, I'd not worry too much about it. Anyway, is it impossible to modify the projector to use some other bulb? Err... I am not tlaking about the horrible point-n-shoot things made in the late 70's/early 80's. I am talking about quality old cameras. Many of them had a good range of shutter speeds, and the shutter will still give repeatable timing (much more important than accurate times for most work) if it's cleaned and lubricated _properly_ (note that flooding a shutter with lubricant will do a lot more harm than good, I am talking about putting 1 drop of watch oil on the arbors of the escapemnet mechanism, and so on). And some older cameras haev pretty decent lenses. Put it this way : I am sure a good 1950's or 1960's camera will give better resolution than a consumer-grade digitial thing! Hmmm.. Most old focal plane shutters will do 1/1000 s. Some will do 1/2000. Leaf shutters are generally limited to 1/500 (and cheaper ones to 1/250 or 1/300), although the Prestor shutter in the Werra does 1/750 (that's one interesting shutter...) But if the only reason you need faster shutter speeds is to be able to use fast film in daylight without stopping the lens down too much (if, indeed it will stop down far enough) then consider using neutral density filters. I am going to have to try this. Yes, and indeed it does hold them base-to-base. I've never seen it, so I can't comment on how well it works (I do have at least 2 Werras...) It shouldn't be that hard to make one. What about the focussing slide be the only person who digs in the junk box at camera shops looking for items to mofify...) I have a book which gives strip-down and repair instructions for it (along with many other Russian cameras), and I've seen _one_ on sale at a rather high price. -tony

Alas many of the 3D cameras _were_ consumer-grade P&S's. I think the better quality cameras took the prism attachments I mentioned (I've seen one for the Contaflex (couldn't afford it, though), I think Leica may have made one at one time). That's smaller than the _film_ size I want to use. Seriously, I have a few 5*4" sheet film cameras. Perhaps that's why I don't think digital cameras have even marginally useable resolution. Kodak cammeas had better have improved since the ones I've worked on, then. I can't think of a single Kodak -- including the Retina and Retina Reflex -- that's well built. I can well believe that a Kodak digital camera produces results about as good as a Kodak P&S, but I will not believe that a 3M pixel camera can produce results as good as a _good_ 35mm camera (Leica, Nikon, old Contax, etc), let alone medium or large format film cameras. I've enlarged a slide from a cheap-ish 35mm SLR up to 24*16, and it still looks pretty respectable.... You need to find a real camera shop... Perhaps I'm lucky, but I know of 4 in the local area that sell second-hand stuff, and even non-working second-hand stuff. The latter is just what I want, as it provides useful bits at a low price. There must be others like me, since I've occasionally not bought some total wreck, decided I should have done, gone back, and found it has been sold. FWIW, doing your own camera repairs is not that hard, and great fun. Keep away from electronic cameras (I speak as somebody who's not normally put off by electroics!) -- they're all custom chips on flexible PCBs, and are painful to work on. But the tools needed to fix old mechanical cameras are not difficult to get or expensive, and if you like tinkering with fine machienry, you'll actually enjoy assembling a leaf shutter (yes, I have done this...) I would recomend reading the 6 books by Thomas Tomosy. I don't agree with everything he says or does, but when you'd read them and practiced on a few cameras [1], then you'll know what you should be doing. Maizenberg's book 'All you need to know about the design and repair of Russian cameras' is worth reading too -- it has the clearest explanation of the Kiev (and therefore Contax II) shutter I have ever read. [1] Note that working on really cheap cameras -- like Kodak Instamatics -- is a painful expeerience. THe parts do not fit well, there are no proper adjustments, etc. Working on better-quality cameras (just about _any_ 35mm SLR, for example) is a lot easier. THere may be more parts, but they fit in placer properly. -tony

I am not sure if plates (that's what we call them in the UK) are still made. However, sheet film certainly is, and you can back it with a piece of _flat_ glass or similar. I think there used to be proper converters to load sheet film into plate cameras. You'd be suprised. I don't think there's _any_ film-type camera that can't be used somehow, even if not as the manufacturer intended (e.g. by loading sheet film in a darkroom for each shot rather than using a size of roll film that's not been made for decades). Becasue film is panchromatic you can't really use a safelight, you have to work in total darkness (at least for most common materials). It's therefore best to load the film into a light-tight tank and pour the chemicals in the light. THis means that having good ventilation in the darkroom is not that important. Which with the rate that new digital cameras come out over here only has to be until the end of next week ;-) This is a common moan... Agreed. I am quite happy to accept that digital cameras have their uses (press work, when you have to send a picture across the world in seconds, is an obvious one). They're just not what _I_ want for my photography. Ditto for architecture (my main non-scientific photographic interest) and scientific work. NO!. Many times I've read letters and articles in photographic magazines that point out that because you can take dozens of pictures with a digital camera and not worry about the cost, then delete the duds later, you don't bother to think about each picture, you don't bother to compose it properly, look for the best viewpoint, and so on. The result is that _all_ your pictures are poor. There's also no real incentive to learn to do things properly if you can just delete the misexposed (etc) shots. You don't have to learn to get the exposure right first time. Conversely, when you use large format film (which is more expensive per shot, of course), you spend a long time setting up the camera for each picture (for those who've never used such a camera, not only do you have the normal focusisg, aperture and shutter speed controls, you also have the 'movements' where you can swing and shift the film holder and lens to correct for having to tilt the camera (say you're photograpging a tower and have to tilt the camera upwards to get it all in the frame, the tower will appaer to lean in the photograph), to increase the effective depth of field, and so o), you get virtually 100% good photographs once you've learnt to use said camera correctly. I prefer to do this on stable land :-) Each to his own, I suppose... However, don't believe the commonly-stated idea that you can't work on your own camera. They're _not_ that complicated -- certainly if you can assemble an ASR33, or do a complete disk drive alignment, or something like that, you'll not find most cameras any worse. -tony

With the some proceses -- the one nicknamed 'wet plate' for example -- yes you did. The checmicals had to be wet during the exposure. But the 'dry plate' processes used pre-coated plates, you used to be able to buy these ready-made (in fact when I made the hologram I mentioned a couple of days ago, the sensitive material was a very slow (and hence fine grain) plate. I find that hard to believe, the Xerox process is essentially electrostatic. I've never heard of it being used in a normal camera. Depedns on what it's for. If it's to remind me which order to connect a bundle of wires, then I'll want a colour picture ;-) More seriously, I agree with you in general. Good B&W pictures _are_ good. -tony

Tony Duell wrote: How ever they use a lamp to scan photocopies, and I belive that is rich in ultra-violet. A pin-hole Camera works great for UV. Ben.

It's high voltage (around 30-50kV IIRC -- a lot higher than that used in photocopiers). The plate/paper is conventional silver-based film normally, I think. AFAIK the process is fairly different from Xeroxography -- Kirlian photography does not depend on toner sticking to charged areas of an object (the photoconductive drum in a copier or laser printer). Well it would be if I had a way of either printing colour digital images, or a colour monitor near whatever I was working on. Since neither is the case, I'll just make notes on a bit of paper. Old-fashioned, but reliable. Apart from details like 'which way round to these 8 wires go', I never have a problem putting things back together with quite minimal notes. I did my first ASR33 (total strip-down) without any official manuals, and the only notes I made were things like the order of the rails in the stunt box. I think about 4 sheets total. I also mentioned I keep well away from modern electronic cameras! Normally the front panel (used to be a casting, presumably plastic now :-() and mirror box come out as a unit. Assuming this is a vertically-mounted metal shutter, it'll then come out from the body (OK, a few Minolta and Leica SLRs have the shutter on the back of the mirror box). You'll almost certainly have to peel off the leatherette covering flexiprint. I didn;t say that digital cameras have no uses, just that I have no use for one. I take almost entirely static subjects, and I want high resolution (to be honest 3.1 M pixels is worse than 35mm (I estimate that as being about 12M pixles), let alone medium or large format). Plus the PC and printer, and software. It's getting towards 10 grand. You can get a very nice large format camera, enlarger, and a lot of sheet film for that amount of money! -tony

A $2 comment ("worthless" canadian money) My brother is into photography specializing in B&W photos and while ago hosted a small galley to invited-only group including our family and sold few of them, my parent also bought few of his pictures. It was a big thing for him especially for him bec this is first time he did this. Cheers, Wizard

True, but I'd like to wait at least another couple years before I replace it. By that time I'm hoping that the High End models are to such a point where I feel that it is worth buying one. You raise very valid points (that I've cut), however, the photo's I'm talking about are the ones you don't have time to compose. The ones where you might have time to quickly grab the camera and shoot the picture, but only if you're lucky. A slightly off-key counter argument to this might be that a Digital Camera can be a good learning tool for a person, in that it doesn't cost anything to learn what does work well. Thus allowing them to shoot better pictures with both digital and film cameras (the problem with this argument is that film cameras react differently). I have taken some time to learn how to shoot good pictures with the Kodak we have, though not as much as I should, and where possible I do attempt to get the best picture possible. Zane -- -- | Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator | | healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast | | | Classic Computer Collector | +----------------------------------+----------------------------+ | Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, | | PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. | | http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |

Most of the pictures you take (or should be taking) when you're starting out can be composed. Yes, you want to try some action shots, but you should try static subjects as well. Maybe, maybe not. It'll work well if you have the discipline to use it properly. If not, then you'll never bother to learn to do it properly, and will never take a good picture. -tony

Hi, ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) said: There still are, any profeesional camera supplier can supply. They can offer you a wide variety of new plate cameras as well... I keep thinking about getting a new 5x4 field camera - in rosewood, I think. 10x8 would be beter, but those things a big! I still use my old Rolleiflexes and Reid (a high quality English Leica copy), but I've been using digital since I got my Apple Quicktake 100 - nearly 10 years ago so almost on topic :-) -- Cheers, Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com The future was never like this!

Hi, ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) said: That's one problem with the Reid, it's getting too darn valuable to take out and use! -- Cheers, Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com The future was never like this!

Hi, "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org> said: Apart from the risk of theft, I worry about damaging or marking it in some way. I'm notoriously hard on cameras :-) (I dropped one off a boat and smashed a long telephoto by swinging it into a metal post while panning on a racing car passing!) It does get taken out and used though, old cameras benefit from regular exercise, it keeps the shutters in good order. As for value, the last Reid I saw sold went for 1250 pounds, say $2200. -- Cheers, Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com The future was never like this!

Tony Duell wrote: Tony, I have a 5*4" enlarger here that's, um, surplus to requirements. I used it a few years ago for 6*7cm enlargements, but I don't have that camera any more. Do you want the enlarger? -- John Honniball coredump(a)gifford.co.uk

if anyone has a 5x7 dicroic head for the durst 5x7 Drust graphics arts enlarger let us know... we have an old agfa color head but it has gel filters in it.... ed sharpe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Other collecting activities?

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 12:55:54PM -0700, Zane H. Healy wrote: Not mine - if I want to chew up memory, I can save as raw or as TIFF. I think all of the 4MP+ cameras do TIFF. I have both kinds with me - a Pentax P3 with a stable of lenses (50mm, 30mm-70mm, 70mm-300mm and 19mm), and an Olympus E-10 with an equivalent 35mm-140mm plus a 1.5x magnifier. I'm happy with my E-10; it was $600, factory refurbed. The zoom is *mechanical* (I have had issues with all these electric zooms giving me grief in the cold), and has a good range for most uses. The other really nice feature is that I have the "bulb" attachment. I was photographing the Aurora Australis yesterday with a 30 sec exposure. The other guys here with digital cameras are limited to 16 seconds, which is not enough. Incidentally, that's why I have the 19mm lens on my 35mm camera - big sky pix. My boss is into 3D photography. Personally, I'd love to get one of those old Russian slit-type panoramic cameras; that's where _my_ real interest is - formats with proportions other than 3x5. -- Ethan Dicks, A-130-S Current South Pole Weather at 19-Apr-2004 02:30 Z South Pole Station PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -71.2 F (-57.4 C) Windchill -82.40 F (-63.6 C) APO AP 96598 Wind 4.6 kts Grid 082 Barometer 689.5 mb (10270 ft) Ethan.Dicks(a)amanda.spole.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html

Remember, I'm talking about the quality of lenses used in 3D cameras, not in something like a Leica or Nikon. It's a combination of lens quality, overall camera quality, and the size of the resulting slide image. A View-Master slide chip is roughly 1/4th, the size of a 35mm slide. A Realist format is the same height, but a smaller width than a 35mm slide (width actually varies depending on the mounting of the shot). What I've seen results in a "fuzzed" dividing line between the two images, and you have to use what is normally a pretty poor looking viewer. Actually one of these with a little time in Photoshop might be fairly good for people that view their 3D images on computers, which are a surprisingly large number these days. Zane -- -- | Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator | | healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast | | | Classic Computer Collector | +----------------------------------+----------------------------+ | Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, | | PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. | | http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Zane H. Healy wrote: OK I was thinking of two Leicas bolted together, as that's the only still system that I have duplicated of. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, David Woyciesjes wrote: Is that the one where your character could be a plant (plant-based lifeform mutated from nuclear radiation), an animal (same deal), a big-assed human (genetically engineered to be extrasize), etc.? I think I played that for a couple sessions with some nerd associates back in highschool. I wish I could've played more but our group was rather dysfunctional. -- Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org [ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ] [ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]

Well, you need to scale it down, and even then, are you saying you have a 7'-tall humanoid with 2'6" forearms? That seems rather out of proportion. Or are these claws nonretractable (unlike Logan's)? I'm actually considering dropping him from the titles I follow. Too much "tune in same time next month for a new set of villians in a more or less indistinguishable story". /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 03:29:03PM -0400, David Woyciesjes wrote: I used to play that in about the same timeframe. I still have all of my old RPG books, including G-W. They went through several major rule changes; I think I have two of them. -ethan -- Ethan Dicks, A-130-S Current South Pole Weather at 17-Apr-2004 01:30 Z South Pole Station PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -72.2 F (-57.9 C) Windchill -103.8 F (-75.5 C) APO AP 96598 Wind 7.5 kts Grid 064 Barometer 682.4 mb (10536 ft) Ethan.Dicks(a)amanda.spole.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, William Donzelli wrote: To get totally off-topic in a wholly geek way, I think it really depended on the imagination of the DM or GM to make the world fun and interesting. I always had this fantasy of putting together a real-life D&D where you'd have a big cave filled with all sorts of people playing scary creatures or something. There was a TV movie in the 80s that featured a theme like this where a group of kids went into a cavern to play D&D but then the fantasy turned real and they were being chased by some evil creature of some sort. I can't remember if my idea came before or after that. -- Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org [ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ] [ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]

I'm guessing you're talking about the original AD&D rules. I'm personally not convinced that the D20 rules (3rd Edition or the newer 3.5) are much more realistic. I am convinced they're WAY to complex (though there ones that make D20 look simple). I tend to run games with little or no rules (except for character generation). Right now I'm running a Call of Cthulhu game using the 5.6 rules (aka BRP aka Basic Role Playing), and I *REALLY* like the system, it is lean to the point of leaving a couple important things out, and more importantly it's simple enough that it doesn't matter if you have to wait three months between game sessions. As for the standard Character Invulnrabilty problem, not in BRP, one good hit can kill you. It's the only system where I've had to fudge rolls to keep from killing a character. Zane

:-) Not just imagination, but also skill. I used to RPG a good deal in years past. If you have a really good GM and players who are more interested in enjoying the roleplaying than in rules lawyering, you don't even really need a system. Once, at a gaming con, I played a more or less systemless adventure in which characters had just one stat, and it worked splendidly (of course, the adventure and what skeletal system there was were designed by the GM for the event). It's been done; indeed, I understand it still is done fairly regularly (though in the cases I know of, aboveground). I understand the groups that do it vary in how much they make the players and characters identical (for example, is combat handled a la the SCA or with dice and charts a la most gaming systems?), but the basic idea is as you say. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

This is why General Radio is really no longer with us. Even towards the end, they still produced high quality gear, but did not sell much because they couldn't see to ever cutting corners. When they retreated to the niche of VLSI test equipment, they still made great gear, but most other vendors did as well. It is a real shame, but General Radio was just a little too conservative. Don't mock too much - calibration is a pretty serious business, and is much more than just pushing a couple of buttons. There is actually a big infrastructure in many of the shops. While it seems like an industry based on the "rip off", it is not. William Donzelli aw288(a)osfn.org

I'm a rare coins collector, myself. One recurring, but still backburnered, project of mine is to scan them all in and make a currency museum. And, to the Europeans on this list, may I say that the euro is a thoroughly dull currency. It really took all the fun out of collecting European coins and bills. :( -- ---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ -- Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser(a)floodgap.com -- MOVIE IDEA: Ferris Bueller's E-mail Signature ------------------------------

Patrick wrote: My wife got me a 5 gallon brew kit from Midwest Supply for Christmas. Brewed a Scottish Light Ale, and a Belgian Trappist Ale so far; and both came out very nicely... -- --- Dave Woyciesjes --- ICQ# 905818

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ethan Dicks" <dickset(a)amanda.spole.gov> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> I wonder what temp. beer would be served at down there. Room temperature should be just about right. Wouldn't be any problem making it a tad cooler either, I suppose. :) bm

And you never offered me one Dave? Damn you, heh. -John Boffemmyer IV At 11:19 AM 4/19/2004, you wrote: ---------------------------------------- Founder, Lead Writer, Tech Analyst and Web Designer Boff-Net Technologies http://boff-net.dhs.org/index.html ---------------------------------------

Excellent, Dave! Your wife is obviously a loving and right-thinking person. I love the hobby, because you really can share it with friends. When I show most people my old computers, they just nod quizzically or manage to ask silly questions like "why" or "what do you do with them". And that's about the limit of the conversation. Give 'em a homebrew (or two or six), and they'll talk your ears off! :-) --Patrick

Well, let's see.... I also collect boxes, to hold smaller parts of computers in my computer collection. I also collect bookshelfs, to hold the documentation for items in my computer collection. I also collect old emails, of contacts who may have items I'm interested in for my computer collection. I also collect older electronic test equipment, so I can work on systems in my computer collection. I also collect recent vintage United States banknotes, so that I can pay for items to go in my computer collection. I also collect bungee cords and rope, to tie new items I get to the trailer bed to get them moved into my collection. :) --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Cameron Kaiser <spectre(a)floodgap.com> wrote: I got a 1934 $10 bill in change last week. I collect foreign coins, older ones preferred, and only (for the most part) in copper. You can get a 17th century British farthing for under $5 most times. I love the history more than the 'value' of the pieces. Same as I do with old computers.

Only if you count: Pocket Watches, Firearms, fossils and minerals, old radios, housecats, test equipment and a vast collection of rather expensive parts that fly in close formation known as my airplane (PA-28-180). But other than that, not really.

Cameron Kaiser wrote: Well it either makes it easier or harder depending on the way you look at it. Dan

Well, I was pretty sure my hobbies would be pre-covered by other respondents. With some minor exceptions they were.... Model Rockets, anyone? The occasional bicycle tour? Mostly taking care of the house and family, though. -- - Mark 210-522-6025, page 888-733-0967

That used to be a HUGE hobby of mine. Haven't done anything with it in years. I want SO bad to get back into it, and design heavier rockets than balsa and cardboard. Need a better propellant though - love to try LOX. But that's not the the real goal that makes me want to get back into it. I want to program microcontrollers to launch inside of it and regulate movable control surfaces. I want to paint a huge target on the ground (grass), and the competition would be to see how close you could get the rocket to target (and hit) the bullseye. Twould be fun stuff. Jay

OK... little plug for another hobby of mine.... www.nar.org www.tripoli.org - and www.rocketcontest.org It's a blast <pun intended> George ========================================================= George L. Rachor Jr. george(a)rachors.com Hillsboro, Oregon http://rachors.com United States of America Amateur Radio : KD7DCX On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Jay West wrote:

That is a darn good idea. Often used in reverse for bringing 'Monsters' to life. :)

----- Original Message ----- From: "Zane H. Healy" &lt;healyzh(a)aracnet.com&gt; To: &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 12:53 AM Subject: Re: Other collecting activities? Personally According to the book I mentioned, the TX-0 wrote three scripts for a western 'playlet'. They were actually televised during the CBS show, The Thinking Machine. The computer used a script-writing program called SAGA II. According to this link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TX-0 the TX-0 became the PDP-1. bm

Good find, a truly great book. You mentioned Datamation. That had "Digits" by Roy Mengot as a regular cartoon column. Another goodie. FYI: see Playboy: Sep-1969, Feb-1967, Jan-1970 for a few more period Computer cartoons. I imagine some people here collect that <g>. John A.

Joe R. wrote: 11 Old Atomic power plant to power said computers.

On Friday 16 April 2004 23:50, ben franchuk wrote: While I'd personally love the idea, it seems the NRC (and probably some people form other 3-letter government orgs) don't like people posessing large amounts of radioactive materials; especially things like Pu-239 or U-235... And I don't think I'd want to maintain a large scale atomic power plant, either. It'd be interesting, however, to set up a small scale breeder reactor, like the PUR-1 that Purdue has, or maybe even something that would fit on a table top (although it's hard to go critical with that little of mass). Also, don't forget you'd have to cool the machines and power plant (unless you live in Alaska.. or northern Canada :). Of course, the gov't (and neighbors) probably also would have something to say about the x-ray equipment I've collected. I just wish I had the time to set up a nice lead-shielded box for making x-ray photos of stuff. I've got basically everything I need, I just need to form the box out of clumps of lead. What I need is a blast furnace to melt the lead; my stove sorta works, but not quite well enough. So I guess my "other" collections would include: 1) Video editing stuff 2) Electronic test equipment 3) Anything with tubes in it that I can get cheaply...which isn't too difficult around Purdue 4) "Nuclear" equipment, like geiger counters, scalers, x-ray tubes & power supplies (some of this overlaps with #3) 5) High-voltage gear, like power supplies (this overlaps with #3 and #4) At some point, I want to combine 4 and 5, and make a small linear accelerator, but I don't have any ideas on what to do for it (and would need somewhere to put it...underground would probably be a Good Idea (TM)). Pat -- Purdue University ITAP/RCS --- http://www.itap.purdue.edu/rcs/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

I needed to melt some lead recently, to make a weight [1]. I used a propane blowtorch -- one of those ones sold for light brazing jobs. It's like the typical home butane blowtorch [2], but the flame is considerably hotter. It took a bit of time to get it started, but once it did start to melt it was pretty easy to keep it molten. This was to cast a block about 6" * 3" * 3". [1] For a DeVere 504 enlarger. The copyback (copying camera attachment) is considerably lighter than the light source assembly, so you need this weight to counteract the springs in the column when you fit the copyback. [2] Tried a butane blowlamp first, didn't do anything much -tony

As a side line to my other hobbies I cast about 100 lbs of lead a year. (That's a LOT of bullets!) One of the best ways to melt lead is to find one of the old Coleman pump-up camp stoves that uses gasoline. They put out plenty of heat and have a good hot flame and they're small and lightweight and can be setup outside where there's plenty of ventilation. I have small single buner stove of that type that was made for the USMC during WW-II. It folds up into a cylinder about 5" in diameter and about 10" tall. The stove then fits inside of two stainless steel metal pots that fit together with a twist lock. It works great and it really puts out the heat! Joe At 04:16 PM 4/17/04 +0000, you wrote: