Slashdot Mirror

Doesn't the "living" part of Living Computer make it a zoo?

No, they obviously meant "living" in the "literal" sense (as the word is commonly used).

living : Living Computer Museum :: literally : "I literally died when I heard the news!"

The sad part is that my initial presumption was that this museum was about the female computers that helped to create Allied ballistic tables in WWII. I was literally sad to see that they meant "living" in the "literal" sense.

But until there's more specific information, this is "interesting" but not very helpful.

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120628/srep00481/full/srep00481.html

There's a direct link to the more specific information linked to in TFA. There's even 7 graphs showing .... something I don't understand.

Also, you understand there is always a gap between laboratory research and industrial application, right? When Smalley and Koto synthesized buckminsterfullerene the practical applications weren't immediately realized, but now we have nanotubes used in microscopes, molecular filters and semi-conductors.

Being that small won't pose a hazard. I can't find a good link to the development of anti-aircraft radar before world war II. But the development team got a message during the first field test from the field engineers: 'It tracked seagulls' or something like that, and it took them a while, trying to figure out what the field engineer meant, it being a top secret project and they thought the FE was being cryptic. No he was being completely open. The nearest link I could find to that story is: http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Oral-History:Lee_Davenport

On another note, I'm not sure why the US would bother shooting a sea to air missile at the drone. Five inch flak shells are cheaper. I think that's one of the standard gun armaments the Navy carries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/54_caliber_Mark_45_gun

All the Navy would have to claim is they were test firing the gun, and the drone just got in the way. Radar tracked shells are fairly accurate after the first one has been fired, and they would probably only need two of them, most likely they'd only need one. Much cheaper than expending a missile, and it would probably just hit the budget as: Ordinance expended during training. Just like a 5.56mm round fired out of a rifle.

It's been a while since I read Frankenstein, but I think electricity had some hand in giving the monster life. After all, Mary Shelley was inspired to write the book from the electrical experiments of Galvani.

Yep, "Galvanism" in biology is the contraction of muscle via electrical current and is what (I think) Shelley generally referred to electricity in the book as. Apparently very similar real life experiments using dead tissue were carried out in the day. A Dr. Wilkinson was one such experimenter, but it might have been a German physician and alchemist by the name of Dippel that Shelley more closely modeled Dr. Frankenstein after.
No wonder some people freaked out about it.

It's been a while since I read Frankenstein, but I think electricity had some hand in giving the monster life. After all, Mary Shelley was inspired to write the book from the electrical experiments of Galvani.

JVC didn't invent the VCR. VHS didn't even come along until 5 years after the first home videocassette recorder with TV tuner and timer, and reel to reel units without tuner/timer existed before that.

First there was audio reel to reel tapes. Those were more or less replaced with audio cassettes.

There were various generations of video tape recorders.

First video tape recorder, 1956, Ampex, commercially produced in 1961, with 2" video tape, transverse scan
1964 Phillips 1" reel to reel video tap recorder domestic/professional
1965 Ampex 1" reel to reel video tape recorders were released, 1" helical scan. domestic/professional
1967 Sony 1/2" reel to reel video tape recorders
1968 Phillips 1/2" reel to reel mass produced domestic
Then (1971) there was sony u-matic which used a 3/4" tape, helical scan, and a cassette. mostly pro use.
1971 Phillips N1500 with 3/4" tape cassettes, first TV tuner and timer
Then (1975) there was sony betamax. 1/2" tape cassette, 1 hour/tape initially. 1 loading pole.
Then (1976) there was VHS. 2 hour/tape cassete initially, trading quality for recording length. 2 loading poles. Note that they had been working on videocassettes for 6 years.
Then (1979) Phillips introduced V2000 which they had been developing for 15? years. 4 hours per side.
Then (1980) RCA introduces a play only format

Matsushita/Quasar/Panasonic, which was developing a competing format (working on video tape for 15 years), dropped it in favor of VHS. Matsushita was part owner of JVC, Quasar, and Panasonic. Telefunken, Thompson, Thorn, GE, and RCA licensed VHS. Sony and Phillips eventually did as well. JVC profits increased tenfold by 1982 and the video division went from 6% of company sales to 69%.

The very success of VHS was dependent on JVC encouraging companies to compete with it and on cutting margins to the bone. JVC wasn't big enough to supply the demand alone.

Not that there was actually that much original technology that was new to VHS.
        - The two loading pole mechanism
        - DL-FM system
        - PS Color process.
Basically, a not-so-innovative tape load mechanism and analog video compression.

The video-cassette would have happened without JVC. There were 4 companies working on it. And I suspect JVC could have paid off their R&D costs without collecting a dollar of royalties from other companies. JVC's strategy was to have a piece of a bigger pie.

Note that many of the other formats were superior for recording original material. VHS was good enough for home consumer use with over the air or commercial tapes.

I seriously doubt they spent a billion on VHS R&D. But they apparently made billions off of VHS.

http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Milestones:Development_of_VHS,_a_World_Standard_for_Home_Video_Recording,_1976
http://books.google.com/books?id=rgvGFiiYCXYC&pg=PA49
http://www.rewindmuseum.com/home.htm

Those are the obvious questions. Seems pretty basic tho, gotta build one I guess. The battery charging stage @ Instructables is only used to condition the battery, it works without that, just at a lower capacity... Think Lemon/Potato Battery. The Greeks were creating electricity rubbing amber circa 600 BC, so charging is not impossible. Heck, just drive the motor backwards and it will produce current. If you compare a Leyden Jar with a Baghdad Battery, they are similar. Some illustrations show an internal asphalt plug, but others don't. Batteries fit into things so I expect some kind of holder to complete it. The "battery" clay has also been described as porous, so contact completing the circuit (battery) could be external. Ben Franklin made a simple electrostatic (no magnet needed)electric motor powered by Leyden Jars

As far as I can tell without building one and metering it, The voltage/amperage required for a homopolar motor is very small, just enough to overcome the friction of the "bearing" point, When work is used then, of course it is the force of friction + the energy extracted for work. The fabrication "hack" of sticking a magnet on a battery is not required for a homopolar motor. I believe it is using the battery to extend the magnetic field lines such that the field from the current in the wire has something to push against. An iron rod on a magnet would suffice. The wire rotor does not need to contact the magnet (stator). It only needs current flowing through it to spin, or conversely, could be built with the wire as the stator and the magnet spinning.

Why has this not been done? We have lots of better motors, batteries and so on, so why would anyone dabble in less efficient ancient devices? We regularly dismiss our past as primitive, that is why we are surprised when we truly learn of their accomplishments.

It is so easy to do that I totally will build these as fun experiments...