 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:39:44 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Ah, well, that would explain it then. I don't watch TV. :-)
>>>
>>> (The irony is that I don't watch TV because there's never enough
>>> science to watch...)
>>
>> You would probably find QI interesting, not always about sciencey
>> stuff, but a good programme to watch.
>
> I do sometimes watch that, yes. Although it's not especially easy
> figuring out when it's actually on TV. But if somebody else discovers
> that it's on, I'll sometimes sit and watch it.
http://bbc.co.uk/qi seems to be a pretty definitive source for that
information. But googling "qi schedule" turns up some good hints as
well. ;-)
> I think meeting Mr Fry might possibly be almost as interesting as
> meeting Einstein. ;-)
I'm quite sure he'd be more interesting. :-)
>> But that also would explain why you haven't heard of some fairly well
>> known scientists or be aware of what their achievements are, things
>> like that tend to be newsworthy, and people often hear the names while
>> watching the news or various news commentary.
>
> You could live in a dark hole under a rock somewhere and you'd still
> know who Einstein is. ;-)
Have you talked to someone who lives in a dark hole under a rock
somewhere and asked them? ;-)
I could argue that you could live in a dark hole under a rock somewhere
and still know who Jane Goodall or Richard Dawkins was, too.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/05/2010 8:37 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> Still more complicated than my own 1984 design. ;)
>
> Anybody else attempted this crazy task?
In the mid sixties I built a binary adder using a couple of relays and a
uniselector (from the GPO).
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:42:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Carl Sagan and Dr. Hubble are alive?
>>
>> Technically not.
>
> FEYNMAN ZOMBIE!!!
Here's a published list of famous scientists who are still alive:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/10/
the_top_five_most_famous_living_scientists.html
That provides a pretty good start; I note that Dawkins, Goodall, and
deGrasse Tyson are mentioned in the article.
Stephen Chu would be well known now to the general public in the US
because he's part of the Obama administration.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/05/2010 1:41 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 5/9/2010 8:03 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> Hawking I'll give you. (I bet he's *really* fun conversation...)
>>
>
> From what I know of him, (which is to say not much... except he's a
> renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist) he also has a pretty
> wicked sense of humor. I once saw a picture of him with Jim Carey, posed
> so it looked like he was running over his foot with his wheelchair.
>
>
I've seen him twice at the ROH (Royal Opera House, London)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-5-2010 21:58, Stephen wrote:
> On 11/05/2010 1:41 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> On 5/9/2010 8:03 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>
>>> Hawking I'll give you. (I bet he's *really* fun conversation...)
>>>
>>
>> From what I know of him, (which is to say not much... except he's a
>> renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist) he also has a pretty
>> wicked sense of humor. I once saw a picture of him with Jim Carey, posed
>> so it looked like he was running over his foot with his wheelchair.
>>
>>
>
> I've seen him twice at the ROH (Royal Opera House, London)
I'd say that using a speech synthesizer to sing is a bit cheating.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/11/2010 8:43 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> They're cheaper to have around?
>>
>> Have you seen their salaries?
>
> Do you know what the likes of Einstein command? ;-)
>
He was a patent clerk. I'd venture to say at the time he was living his
salary was not above 5 digits...
>>> It's easier for the general public to comprehend a man kicking a hollow
>>> lump of cow hide than the concept that time and space are subjective?
>>
>> But, in my mind, infinitely more interesting than watching someone
>> kick a hollow lump of cow hide around.
>
> FWIW, I agree...
>
> You've got to admit, though, that mathematics and science are not
> spectator sports. It can be very interesting to do yourself, but
> watching the greats of the day doing it isn't particularly interesting.
True ... but seeing what they discover is very interesting :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/11/2010 12:05 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> On 5/10/2010 3:12 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Or Carl Sagan, for that matter.
>>>
>>> Who?
>>>
>>
>> Inventor of the communications satellite, physicist, cosmologist ...
>> and sci-fi writer....
>
> Also the narrator of Cosmos. I don't know anyone who didn't watch Cosmos.
>
Yyyeah... that's how I knew he was the inventor of the communications
satellite ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/11/2010 8:56 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Perhaps you would have enjoyed a visit to Stoney Stratford telephone
> exchange. It's a sprawling building, filled with rack after rack after
> rack of cases, each case filled with dozens of relays. And they're not
> in cases or anything, just "naked", so you can see (and if you desire,
> move) the working components. There is also several tonnes of wire
> overhead feeding this equipment. And all of it is as silent as death.
> It's like a museum or something.
Some time ago I was reading a Wikipedia entry about some of the relays
in a central office. Someone described the sound as deafening back when
everything was electromechanical. Especially on heavy phone traffic days.
> Myself, I visualised a computer made of pressurised water fed through a
> series of simple mechanical valves. Sadly, I fear that for reliable
> operation, you would need inside water pressure. And if you wanted a
> clock speed of more than about 0.02 Hz, you would have to use steel
> piping and pyrotechnics to sustain the necessary pressure! It would be a
> very "kinetic" experience though.
Hmm. Water hammer. I can't imagine it working purely on water pressure
alone, though. I keep thinking solenoids to control the valves. Would
that be cheating?
> Also... when I tried to build my own machine out of 7400s, I quickly
> discovered that the gates don't appear to function as their truth table
> indicates that they should. (!) I also looked into playing with FPGAs,
> but the cost is prohibitive. (And, knowing me, I'd just make something
> that doesn't even work, and then spend months trying to find out why!)
> Plus, Xilinix (?) have a free simulation tool available, and it's just
> painful to use. I dred to think what actually synthesizing with it would
> be like...
They do. If, however you have the gate connected to a switch, and the
switch opens the circuit, you'd better have a pull-down resistor, or the
gate will float. TTL is rather forgiving of this, the input will float
high (e.g. it will be interpreted as a 1) CMOS, on the other hand, can
potentially self-destruct if an input is left floating ;)
>> The TTL version should be fun, too. I plan to have lots of LEDs to
>> show what's happening inside the machine.
>
> In solomn truth, it's probably simpler and easier to code a small peice
> of JavaScript that controls a little Flash animation on a computer
> screen. But there's something impressive about being able to pick up a
> physical object in your hands and see that there really are no tricks...
Yes, but, as you say ... there is something impressive about a physical
object. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/11/2010 2:31 PM, Stephen wrote:
> Feck! About 35 years ago I built a digital clock out of TTL. It used 30
> amps at 5 volts Vcc. The power supply was bigger than a modern PC.
30 AMPS? O_o
Umm, you sure that's not 30mA? I mean... for a digital clock 30 amps
seems like an unreasonably huge power draw! Were you using nixie tubes
for the display?
From this data sheet:
http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/Products/ProdDS/48119.pdf
A max if 15mA for a decade counter. 66 of these would draw one amp of
current. To draw 30 amps you'd need:
~2000 chips.
Of course, if a classic 7400 series, it's a different story:
http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/Products/ProdDS/50690.pdf
Still, that's over 700 chips to get that kind of current draw.
> You are mad, you know ;-)
Yeah, I know ;)
> Does your wife know about this ?
She does. She's surprisingly tolerant of my antics. ;)
>> The TTL version should be fun, too. I plan to have lots of LEDs to show
>> what's happening inside the machine.
>
> I hope that you have comprehensive fire insurance :-P
We do! I think ... I better read my policy closer... I expect the relays
will use quite a bit of current, which is why I want to be able to keep
the thing as small as possible in the number of relays.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 May 2010 15:53:14 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:42:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>>> Carl Sagan and Dr. Hubble are alive?
>>>
>>> Technically not.
>>
>> FEYNMAN ZOMBIE!!!
>
> Here's a published list of famous scientists who are still alive:
>
> http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/10/
> the_top_five_most_famous_living_scientists.html
>
> That provides a pretty good start; I note that Dawkins, Goodall, and
> deGrasse Tyson are mentioned in the article.
>
> Stephen Chu would be well known now to the general public in the US
> because he's part of the Obama administration.
Larry Page and Sergey Brin come to mind now as well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
