Slashdot Mirror


Building Babbage's Analytical Engine

An anonymous reader writes "Anybody think 3-D printing technology will have enough moxie to pull off a construction of Babbage's analytical engine by 2021, the 150th anniversary of Babbage's passing? The Guardian reports, 'Plan 28 – named after one set of Babbage's plans – has assembled the leading technical experts on his designs and just started fundraising. The first stage of the project involves studying the thousands of pages of handwritten notes that Babbage left behind, to determine what exactly needs to be built. Once the study is complete, we'll be building a 3D physical computer simulation of the analytical engine to verify that his design is workable. Reaching that stage is likely to cost about £250,000. Only once the feasibility of building the machine has been established will the much larger fundraising effort needed for the actual construction to begin. But what we hope to do is create a working monument to the man who conceived the computer, and to inspire today's scientists and engineers to dream a century into their future.'"

17 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. Already underway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Another rebuild that has progressed way further: http://www.meccano.us/analytical_engine/index.html I suspect this will end up a lot cheaper too....

    1. Re:Already underway by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tim Robinson, the man behind the Meccano construction you link to, is a trustee of the Plan 28 charity mentioned above.

  2. Bayonets and horses by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mitt Romney says the military doesn't have enough Babbage Computing Devices. We gotta catch up to the Bolsheviks!

  3. Re:i don't get this by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Their time and skills are free but the dongles, wow do they add up???

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. A pixelated engine by Evil.Bonsai · · Score: 4, Funny

    No one has built this in Minecraft, yet!?

  5. Just take J.S.Bach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last great finished work: B minor mass. Big CATHOLIC mass in old rite. Inconceivable to play in his own protestant church. Inconceivable to play in catholic churches any more. At that point of time, inconceivable to play sacred music in secular circumstances. He was dead for longer than he had lived (and he lived to a reasonably long age) when this thing saw its first full performance.

    And what a work.

    As contrasted to Babbage, he most certainly was aware that the time for his magnum opus was quite not ready.

  6. It's not hard to do, just moderately expensive by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That project is starting to sound like a boondoggle. Lots of PR and fundraising, no hardware. They have a contribution system, a mailing list, a Twitter feed, and press coverage. They've been blithering about this for two years now. But they haven't built so much as one single demo part.

    We know what the Analytical Engine was supposed to do computationally. There's a simulator. It's a rather straightforward machine. It's roughly comparable to a programmable calculator of the 1970s. There are 1000 memory locations, each of which stores a 50-digit decimal number. These are separate from the program and data, which are on chains of punched cards. It can add, subtract, multiply, divide, shift, and compare, which is all you need.

    Parts of the Analytical Engine have been built, and there's a working Difference Engine. So the components are understood.

    There's no good reason for the 50-digit precision, and 1000 memory locations is too much for the compute power available (about 1 IPS). Like programmable calculators, 10 digits and 100 memory locations would have been enough for most problems. Babbage's own trial model of the "mill" (the ALU) has only 25 digits. Building a memory of 50,000 wheels about 3 inches in diameter means building something the size of a locomotive, most of which will just sit there. Trimming it down to 25 digits and 100 locations would make for a large desk-sized machine.

    A question I once asked of the project was "how many part numbers"? That is, how many different parts are required? They didn't know. I suspect not that many. The existing model of the mill doesn't have a high part number count. The "store" (the memory unit) is inherently repetitive. Most of the parts can be die-cast and finish-machined, which is the most economical way to produce good metal parts in medium quantity. Many of the lever-type parts are cut from flat sheets of brass. Those you make with a CNC mill or a water jet cutter. 3D printing isn't really appropriate as a way to make brass parts, and making a plastic copy of the Analytical Engine would be rather tacky.

    1. Re:It's not hard to do, just moderately expensive by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are quite correct that we have not built a single demo part. In the two years since I started talking about this project the following has happened:

      1. Persuaded the Science Museum to digitize all of Babbage's plans and notebooks (this in itself was a non-trivial task involving a great deal of effort at all levels and they should be thanked for taking on the task).
      2. Got the leading Babbage experts to join and work with me (Doron Swade who built the Difference Engine No. 2 and Tim Robinson)
      3. Started a UK-based charity (again these things take time as there are legal requirements and the recruitment of a board of trustees)
      4. Started research on the Babbage archive itself
      5. Begun fund-raising.

      No. 4 is non-trivial because there are literally thousands of pages of notes and > 230 large scale plans to decipher. Plus there's a hardware description language to work with. And the archive is not well documented. There are a number of different cross references that conflict with each other. I realize that all this stuff is boring and people would like to see an immediate result, but that's not going to happen. It's years of work to properly study this stuff and build a historically accurate machine.

      Note that we have not proposed building the 1,000 memory location machine. That's far too much to demonstrate that it would work and would add to the cost and size. As for the number of parts, until we've deciphered all the plans and come up with a definitive plan that it's hard to answer but we believe there will be roughly 40,000 to 50,000 components to be made.

    2. Re:It's not hard to do, just moderately expensive by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's no good reason for the 50-digit precision, and 1000 memory locations is too much for the compute power available (about 1 IPS). Like programmable calculators, 10 digits and 100 memory locations would have been enough for most problems.

      No, you are mistaken. Such programmable calculators have 10 digits of *precision* plus an exponent. In other words, they store floating point numbers. The analytical engine was fixed-point, so far more digits were required for many calculations.

      Floating point arithmetic wasn't invented theoretically until 1914. A working physical model didn't appear until 1938 or so.

      3D printing isn't really appropriate as a way to make brass parts,

      3D selective powder sintering can print 3D brass parts. Though you are correct, for sheets CNC jet cutting is better and for the quantity of gears required casting would be better.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:It's not hard to do, just moderately expensive by necro81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      3D printing isn't really appropriate as a way to make brass parts, and making a plastic copy of the Analytical Engine would be rather tacky

      Not to mention that an analytical engine made in 3d-printed plastic (ABS, nylon, etc., depending on the specific technology) probably wouldn't work. Back in the day I designed the mechanics of a grandfather clock in CAD. On a lark, I got to go-ahead to print off a number of parts on the school's stratasys (an FDM machine that extrudes hot ABS). When I started putting things together, I realized that the project would not work very well. The surface finish and dimensional tolerance made for high friction and occasional binding. Plus, the cost of most of these parts was really high - several times the cost of mass-produced gears from, say, stockdriveproducts.com. So, instead, I scrapped the fully custom design I had been working on, and remade it using slightly different-but-vastly-higher-quality-at-lower-price parts available off the shelf.

  7. Re:i don't get this by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The 19th century design was never built and probably wouldn't have worked. Machines which have been built from Babbage's designs have a tendency to jam.

  8. Can inanimate objects exhibit "moxie"? by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2

    Can an expert on modern English comment on the summary's use of the word "moxie" as presumably meaning "capable". I have always thought "moxie" to be something only a person could have and mean "strength of character" or similar. Is there a difference in American versus British English?

    1. Re:Can inanimate objects exhibit "moxie"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Presumably they mean a computer simulation which has a decent physics engine.

  9. Re:Linux? by Scarletdown · · Score: 2

    Just imagine a beowolf cluster of these.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  10. Do you know what really grinds my gears? by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 3, Funny

    Steampunk retro mechanical computing stories on Slashdot.

  11. Mechanical friction by waterbear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To be more specific: with so many toothed wheels it's not just a problem in recreating logical process flow. What are the allowable tolerances for the thing not to jam? What are the necessary tolerances for the thing to move at all, lubricated or not? Is there even a window of tolerance where the thing can complete its moves without jamming?

    -wb-

  12. Re:250k would have helped by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The British government funded Babbage ultimately to the tune of roughly 17000 Pounds, which would today be equivalent to somewhere between 1.3 and 1.6 million Pounds.

    Sooo... yeah. Babbage was a tinkerer. And while that's all good, turns out that at some point you have to sit down, declare feature freeze and just build something. Otherwise your investors will get tired of hearing about how many improvements you've come up with. And so will your machinist. Something, something, perfect, enemy, good...