 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/05/2010 10:38 PM, Orchid XP v8 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).
>
> Not the GPO!! >_<
>
Yes, the GPO.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/05/2010 9:13 PM, andrel wrote:
>>
>> 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.
LOL
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 11/05/2010 10:33 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Think about how a transistor works: You have one circuit that controls
>> another. So how hard would it be to rig up a valve where pressure from
>> one pipe moves the valve allowing (or blocking) water from flowing
>> through a seperate circuit? In principle it ought to be pretty trivial.
>> (Of course, making a valve that actually works well in practise probably
>> requires far more equipment than I personally have...)
>
>
> You probably want a three port shuttle valve.
That sounds about right.
> Did you know that using
> pneumatics you can make amplifiers, integrators, switches etc.?
I don't see why not... although I would imagine achieving good linearity
might be tricky.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Good luck and photos are required. :-)
Pictures or it didn't happen. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yes, obviously it hadn't occurred to me that these days the data is
>> probably online.
>
> Indeed, there are quite a few things online that answer the sorts of
> questions you're prone to asking. ;-)
Back when I used to watch TV, nobody had Internet access yet. To find
out if there was anything on, you switch the TV through all 6 channels
and see if you see anything good. It hadn't occurred to me that times
have changed since then.
>>>> I think meeting Mr Fry might possibly be almost as interesting as
>>>> meeting Einstein. ;-)
>>> I'm quite sure he'd be more interesting. :-)
>> I'm not so sure... but neither claim is falsifiable, so...
>
> It depends on the person. Did you know that Stephen Fry writes about
> open source software?
I imagine Mr Fry writes about quite a few things.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> In a recent interview, Mario Batali was quoted as saying:
>
> "On any level to watch someone else do something they're good at is
> entertaining, whether it's playing violin, cooking or playing baseball."
>
> (This in the context of watching cooking shows). I think it could apply
> here as well.
Well, I don't know. Watching somebody staring at a piece of paper and
thinking really hard doesn't sound entertaining to me, but then again I
haven't tried it with somebody who's really awesome at thinking...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Did you know that using pneumatics you can make amplifiers, integrators,
>> switches etc.?
>
> I don't see why not... although I would imagine achieving good linearity
> might be tricky.
Just use plain mechanisms (rotational/linear motion) then, no need for any
not-very-linear fluid to transmit the data :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
I find Sky's TV guide best (even if you don't have Sky). You search for
programs by typing the name into the search box. It also shows times in
your local time zone (rather than UK time like most others) which is useful
if you are watching from abroad...
http://tv.sky.com/tvlistings
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, I don't know. Watching somebody staring at a piece of paper and
> thinking really hard doesn't sound entertaining to me, but then again I
> haven't tried it with somebody who's really awesome at thinking...
The awesome bit is when they finish thinking and write something down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Did you know that using pneumatics you can make amplifiers,
>>> integrators, switches etc.?
>>
>> I don't see why not... although I would imagine achieving good
>> linearity might be tricky.
>
> Just use plain mechanisms (rotational/linear motion) then, no need for
> any not-very-linear fluid to transmit the data :-)
Well yes, this is the other possibility: Instead of flowing liquid (or
gas), use rotating beams. If the beam is being driven to rotate, that's
1. If it's being held still, that's 0.
Only problem is... what sort of clutch do you use to enguage a gear if a
beam is rotating above a certain speed? ._.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
