Slashdot Mirror


It's Time To Build the Analytical Engine

macslocum writes "John Graham-Cumming is launching a project to finish Charles Babbage's dream and build an Analytical Engine for public display. The goal: inspire future generations of scientists to work on their own 100-year leaps."

27 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Is it just me? by Colourspace · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reading TFA sent a very real chill down my spine. Who knows what we are overlooking everyday with all the science and engineering going on in the world? The shocking thing about this whole story is that in retrospect, his idea seems obvious and is scientifically sound, but was ignored. The real point I'm trying to make is how much CAD software and man hours will it take to simulate this - but he did it all without even a pocket calculator.

    1. Re:Is it just me? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's just you. Programmable machinery has been around a long time.

      Babbage's step to develop a generic, programmable machine was innovative, but not out of the blue.

      It's complex and pretty amazing (and loud), and we shouldn't take anything away from the achievement of the Analytical Machine, but it was still an evolution atop existing designs.

    2. Re:Is it just me? by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One thing to keep in mind, it's entirely possible that his detractors were right. I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of effort that would have gone into designing, building, operating, and maintaining an analytical engine would have been higher than hiring humans to do the work in the first place. One thing with being 100 years ahead of your time is that... well, your idea is 100 years ahead of everything else; a surprising number of inventions would be totally worthless if taken 100 years out of context.

    3. Re:Is it just me? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      All programmable machinery designs. Pascal had a mechanical tabulator, for example.

    4. Re:Is it just me? by Combatso · · Score: 2, Informative

      why, Jacquard's loom ofcourse

    5. Re:Is it just me? by darkstar949 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Jacquard looms had been around for awhile and used punch cards to control how the machine operated. Likewise, changing the punch cards would allow for a different pattern to be made. However, these were by no means general purpose computers and were also not capable of preforming calculations.

    6. Re:Is it just me? by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Whose designs did he build on?

      No ones. There will be ten posts listing jacquard looms, none of which do arithmetic or control flow beyond making a big ole loop.

      There will be a couple posts about theoretical ideas that were eventually implemented in IBMs unit record punch card data processing gear. It only took half a century to implement his ideas in that regard.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:Is it just me? by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Informative

      By that argument, the Colossus and contemporaries were just a logical evolution of the telephone exchange.

      I disagree. Babbage's ideas were out of the blue. So much so that in the 100 years following, no one working on the numerous calculator (and related) projects had the same idea. Babbage was working on a Turing-complete machine a century before Turing put that concept to paper.

    8. Re:Is it just me? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but he did it all without even a pocket calculator

      The pocket calculator was invented 350 years ago. The engineers at NASA that sent men to the moon used the same kind of pocket calculators available to Babbage; the same pocket calculator I used to cheat in math class with in Jr. high.

    9. Re:Is it just me? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And it lends further credence to the fact that in order to have your genius recognized and have your ideas propagate, you need to know how to interact with people. Tesla is another example. Brilliance means nothing if no one understands you and no one wants to understand you.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    10. Re:Is it just me? by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's been pretty well established. Being brilliant is one thing, but it's extremely rare for an individual to get anything meaningful accomplished alone. At a bare minimum the process of procuring the resources to put it into place is nigh impossible. Let alone cases where you need others to help test the hypothesis.

    11. Re:Is it just me? by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why doesn't that qualify as "building on"?

      Just that the looms didn't do any math doesn't mean they weren't a a programmable device. Surely realizing that a programmable mechanical machine can be built is one of the steps on the way of figuring out how to make a machine that can solve arbitrary problems.

      And can it be a complete coincidence that Babbage decided to use the same storage medium?

    12. Re:Is it just me? by edremy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course, you could use the Jacquard loom to print out Life patterns, then scan those back in and create a new set of Jacquard cards based on the next iteration of the pattern. With enough cells you could create a general purpose computer using glider guns for logic. Might be a bit slow though.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    13. Re:Is it just me? by vlm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just that the looms didn't do any math doesn't mean they weren't a a programmable device. Surely realizing that a programmable mechanical machine can be built is one of the steps on the way of figuring out how to make a machine that can solve arbitrary problems.

      The looms are about as programmable as a hydraulic tracing lathe... My mother was interested in looms although not enough to buy something like a full jacquard-style loom, so my info is based on limited personal experience and lots of second hand discussion. People with no experience with those looms, sometimes overestimate the looms ability... Trust me its not like they were writing C# code on those panels, or they ran them thru a compiler or something... Even modern machine tool G-code is staggeringly more advanced and most people will not lower themselves to calling G-code "programming".

      And can it be a complete coincidence that Babbage decided to use the same storage medium?

      Well, frankly, yeah, at that stage of technology it is the only possible solution. So any working solution must be identical, more or less, to all the other working solutions. No mass storage devices from our post-punchcard era had yet been invented...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  2. Much more... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is much more than just building it for public display. The idea is to demonstrate that it was, indeed, a fully functional device, and to give credit where credit is due.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  3. Analytical Engine: No Definitive Design Exists by wintermute1974 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doron Swade who wrote "The Difference Engine" (the non-fiction book, not the steampunk fiction by Gibson and Sterling) can tell you this:
    It's not possible to create The Analytical Engine. Why? Because Babbage never stopped creating the designs. There is no one clean, complete set of designs for the Analytical Engine.

    If someone were to build it, they would first have to pick and choose from among Babbage's numerous sketches, then fill in any of the missing bits. It's not a true, 100% authentic, Babbage design, unlike the simpler Difference Engine, which had a clean set of engineering drawings for its creation.

  4. Re:What is today's "Analytical Engine"? by proc_tarry · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would put the underwire bra on that list.

  5. Re:Analytical Engine: No Definitive Design Exists by Sulphur · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then its like Difference Engine Forever then?

  6. Re:What is today's "Analytical Engine"? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What today stands out as something that is so immediately useful and complex and ahead of its time that we as humans are lucky to have been around at the very start of?

    Um, all technology starting with the wheel? If you mean "living humans", my grandmother's only been dead for 7 years, but she was born nine months before the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk and watched the moon landing (I was a teenager then, I watched it too -- EVERYBODY watched that).

    But sorry, I don't think much of your list. Fire and electricity were discovered, not invented. I'd say the wheel, agriculture, the steam engine, telephony, radio, aircraft, spacecraft, computers, and BEER.

  7. Re:Analytical Engine: No Definitive Design Exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, that's why the first step is "Figure out what the Analytical Engine is". The idea is that they would look over old drawings, use them where they make sense, and fill in the missing bits with whatever would have been available at the time. It would be *an* Analytical Engine rather than *the* Analytical Engine.

    dom

  8. oblig by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of them

  9. Re:Analytical Engine: No Definitive Design Exists by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes just the requirement for simulating it and debugging it says to me that Babbage didn't finish his machine. It smacks of when Bell and Curtis "debugged" Langley's aerodrome to show that he really "invented" the airplane first.
    As it is Babbage is known as the father of Computers which he does deserve. Just the fact that he dreamed up this massive machine when he did shows what a great mind he had.
    Now building one is a great idea. Shouldn't be too hard to simulate with modern cad and then use rapid prototyping to make the parts.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  10. Maybe could have been built different? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What I sometimes wonder in hindsight, is could Babbage's machines have been built with the technologies of the time using different techniques that would have been more easy to achieve. He was always pushing the envelope of machining technology with axles and gears, partly in an effort to gain speed. (For example, in the difference engine the gear system had a very complex look-ahead carry feature to make it much faster.) The machines required very tight tolerances and a good deal of force to operate.

    Gears work mostly on compressive forces. If instead he had built a machine based mostly on tension, like pulling strings wrapped around wheels and cogs, would the machines have been more practical to build? The machines might have been one or two orders of magnitude slower. However, the problems he was after, like computing logarithm tables, are highly parallelizable. Instead of trying to create one super machine (and never succeeding), would he have been better off with making a bunch of much slower, easier to build machines?

  11. Re:Question: If we had such a computer, or artific by melchoir55 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is an entire scientific discipline (cognitive science) devoted to the creation of an AI. It is nowhere near succeeding. Unless the US military has managed to perform its own research (and I mean including basics like underlying philosophy which isn't even settled) then it is not possible for the US military to be harboring an AI. I know this seems possible from the outside because they get so much money... but money can't really make a few closed door researchers produce something more significant than an army of thousands of researchers sharing their data (academia) unless the money is giving those closed door researchers access to requisite hardware for the science. Hardware isn't currently the problem with AI. Currently, the problem is just figuring out what the "I" in AI even means.

  12. Re:Would be really cool to see it built. by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Funny

    p'shaw! SCO will sell you a Open Babbageware license for a mere $699.

  13. Babbage wasn't overlooked. He blew his reputation. by Ga_101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a great difference between somebody who had a great idea, but was overlooked and somebody who blew it.

    Babbage was the latter.

    When he showed people a small prototype of his difference engine, they knew exactly what kind of potential it had. The TFA even said that the government backed him. I'll stop the press and let that sink in. The British government knew at the time just what a game changer this could have been. What TFA article doesn't say is the extent to which they backed him. In the prices of the day, they invested the equivalent of a fully kitted out and manned battleship in the project. A battleship. What happened?

    Babbage squandered the money, fell out with every metal-smith in the country capable of building the difference engine and committed the ultimate crime of changing his mind and plans time and time and time again. Sure, he had a lot of plans for the Analytical engine, but he couldn't stay focused/act civilly enough to build the machine everybody wanted to begin with. After such an investment and nothing to show for it, nobody would give him the time of day, let alone commission him to build an even more complex machine with an unfinished design.

    It could be said, rather than a man who had a great idea that wasn't realised. Babbage had a great idea that he killed so badly via his own incompetence, nobody touched it for another 100 years.

  14. Re:Analytical Engine: No Definitive Design Exists by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

    More than 150 years in coming. Beat that, 3D Reams.