On 11/12/2024 16:20, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2024 13:34, D wrote:
>>>> I did, and my conclusion was that a pipe bombs with gun powder would be
>>>> lighter, cheaper and more dangerous.
>>>>
>>> A bit, but gunpowder is by no means the best explosive.
>>>
>>> Ammonium nitrate is way better.
>>>
>>> As is nitroglyerine - although that is notoriuously unstable.
>>
>> True, and the precursor chemicals are likey on a 'watch for purchasers'
>> list somewhere, like a lot of otherwise useful chemicals from the past
>> are now.  So if one starts buying up enough precursors, one likely ends
>> up with a visit from men in dark suits, wearing dark sunglasses, and
>> driving blackout windowed black SUV's.
>
> This is the truth, but the chemicals for those are more difficult for me
> to acquire. Coal is easy,

Charcoal is even easier

I think I extracted sulfur from some kind of
> pesticide (don't remember exactly), and potassium nitrate can be bought
> en masse in the form of stump remover (?). Easy as pie!
>
Oh ho. Can it?

> What I did not test was to buy some alcohol to purify the gun powder. I
> also had bad quality coal as well, so that's something I would change
> til next time.

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 11/12/2024 16:43, John Ames wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:51:47 -0500
> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
>> Better innovate SOMETHING, otherwise we're gonna see 'peak computing'
>> when it's become clear we need thousands of times that for the Really
>> Cool Stuff.
>
> I've long been of the opinion that things're gonna get Real Interesting
> when Moore's Law finally his the wall and "throw a beefier rig at it!"
> is no longer a viable pitch for any "your X isn't delivering Y fast
> enough for project Z!" problems.
>
We have already hit it.

Hence the proliferation of multiple cores.

Which works for multi-user and multi-threaded operations, but not
necessarily for linear single thread code.

--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

The Natural Philosopher <...@invalid.invalid> [TNP]:

TNP> Bribery and corruption.

.... and the occasional kneepads (as a recent anti-Kamala meme claimed)

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 00:07:04 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> However to get good efficiency you couldn't burn the hydrogen - huge
>> FUEL CELLS would be required.
>> Even then, considerable loss.
>
> It has infrastructure problems but Toyota's fuel cell vehicle is feasible.
> Excluding catastrophic tank failure I don't think hydrogen would be more
> of a problem than propane.

Typical propane tank pressure: 100-200psi [1]

Typical hydrogen tank pressure (for cars): 350 - 700bar which is 5,000
- 10,000 psi [2]

A 5k to 10k psi tank rupture will impart much more kinetic energy into
the shrapnel thrown off than a 100-200 psi tank rupture will impart.
And that ignores the impact of the pressure wave created by the
decompression of the stored gas itself.

[1] https://www.ferrellgas.com/tank-talk/blog-articles/how-much-pressure-is-in-a-propane-tank/

[2] https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/physical-hydrogen-storage

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 11/12/2024 16:17, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/12/2024 09:58, D wrote:
>> steam turbine, sadly.
>>>>
>>>> Sigh... ok, a ship then! 😉
>>>
>>> Not only possible, has been done and is almost certainly the global
>>> freight and possibly passenger transport of the future.
>>
>> Yes! It would be a shame of subs and aircraft carriers would be the only
>> ones to have this.
>
> There is an international group of shipping people looking into what stands
> in the way. Regulations mostly...
>
> The economics are somewhat unclear. The rising cost of bunker oil has made
> cruising at lower speeds the optimal balance. With nuclear, uranium costs are
> negligible so full speed at whatever the weather will allow may be optimal
> leading to less ships being needed overall.
>
> Probably a large container or cruise ship could top out at 50mph (80kph) or
> so. So something like a 3 day transatlantic crossing time.
>
> I think that is very acceptable as part of a holiday package.

It is fascinating how ancient these ideas really are. By pure chance, I
once found an old family history in my fathers apartment typed up by my
grandmother.

Apparently, together with those papers, where some old notes from her job.
She used to be the secretary to some scientist at swedens first nuclear
research program around 1954.

In those notes, I read speculations about nuclear powered ships and I
think they mentioned aircraft, but ships for sure.

Here is an image of the "cave" where they had their research reactor:

https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.1300045.1701333137!/image/Reaktorhallen419.jpg

about 25 meter under the city campus of the royal institute of technology.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 11/12/2024 16:20, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:
>>
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2024 13:34, D wrote:
>>>>> I did, and my conclusion was that a pipe bombs with gun powder would be
>>>>> lighter, cheaper and more dangerous.
>>>>>
>>>> A bit, but gunpowder is by no means the best explosive.
>>>>
>>>> Ammonium nitrate is way better.
>>>>
>>>> As is nitroglyerine - although that is notoriuously unstable.
>>>
>>> True, and the precursor chemicals are likey on a 'watch for purchasers'
>>> list somewhere, like a lot of otherwise useful chemicals from the past
>>> are now.  So if one starts buying up enough precursors, one likely ends
>>> up with a visit from men in dark suits, wearing dark sunglasses, and
>>> driving blackout windowed black SUV's.
>>
>> This is the truth, but the chemicals for those are more difficult for me to
>> acquire. Coal is easy,
>
> Charcoal is even easier

Really?

> I think I extracted sulfur from some kind of
>> pesticide (don't remember exactly), and potassium nitrate can be bought en
>> masse in the form of stump remover (?). Easy as pie!
>>
> Oh ho. Can it?

Yes! Have a look at this:

https://weibulls.com/weibulls-stubborttagare-1-25kg-6st-krt-stubb-x

1.25 kg of potassium nitrate for about 30 EUR.

>> What I did not test was to buy some alcohol to purify the gun powder. I
>> also had bad quality coal as well, so that's something I would change til
>> next time.
>
>

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:35:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> How long have Intel been struggling with 7nm?

It would be wonderful if '7nm' referred to some real dimension.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16823/intel-accelerated-offensive-process-
roadmap-updates-to-10nm-7nm-4nm-3nm-20a-18a-packaging-foundry-emib-foveros

"It is no secret that having "Intel 10nm" being equivalent to "TSMC 7nm",
even though the numbers actually have nothing to do with the physical
implementation, has ground at Intel for a while. A lot of the industry,
for whatever reason, hasn’t learned that these numbers aren’t actually a
physical measurement. They used to be, but when we moved from 2D planar
transistors to 3D FinFET transistors, the numbers became nothing more than
a marketing tool. Despite this, every time there’s an article about the
technology, people get confused. We’ve been talking about it for half a
decade, but the confusion still remains."

The full article is worth reading.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 03:50:32 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

>> There is another golden oldie. The 5120 was a strange beast, selectable
>> for either BASIC or APL. It's successor, the System/23, had an 8085
>> rather than IBM's homebrew but had a similar look. Familiarity with the
>> 8085 was one of the factors for using the 8088.
>
> Umm ... 5120 came well after the 8088. Got yer numbers right ?
>
> The 8085 was a pretty fair predecessor for the 8088 however. Not THAT
> much diff. However, for the time,
> the Z80 was maybe a tad better.
>
> Would still like to get my hands on a working S-100 Z80 system .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_5120

Technically the 8088 processor was released in '79 while the 5120 was
released in Feb '80. The System/23 with the 8085 was released in July
'81. The 5150 PC was released in August 1981 more than a year after the
5120. The 5100 itself was released in '75, and the 5110 in '78. Same PALM
processor throughout. The 5110 had more I/O like floppy interfaces, while
the 5120 had a larger screen and 2 built in 8" floppies.

The company I worked for bought the 5120 and I created an inventory
control system on it but my personal machine at the time was an Osborne 1
CP/M 'portable' that I bought in April '81. I don't remember when I got
around to buying a PC clone, maybe '84? It was one of the brand x mystery
boxes with the turbo switch.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 11:04:24 +0100, D wrote:

> But I would be careful if I were you. Isn't oregon a democrat
> stronghold?
> It you go there and they find you out, you might not be able to leave.

It depends... There is an invisible line running down the Cascade range;
west of it brains turn to mush. There is a fairly serious movement for the
area east of the range to secede and join Idaho.

https://www.greateridaho.org/

A better representation from the recent election:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Oregon

Like the rest of the US the large urban centers are Democratic. Go global
warming. Say a 30' rise in the sea level and the people of Portland,
Seattle, NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, LA, and so forth will be too busy
swimming to vote.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:26:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Sizewell nuclear power station is right next door to a major bird
> sanctuary (Minsmere)
> It's due to have another big reactor built alongside.

The Seabrook nuclear plant's initial design projects a need for 850,000
gpm of cooling water, which would be pumped from the Atlantic, run through
the heat exchangers, and discharged back into the ocean. Both the intake
and discharge ports would be a mile offshore.

PSNH replied to concerns about the discharged heat 'The lobsters will love
it!'

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:20:37 +0100, D wrote:

> What I did not test was to buy some alcohol to purify the gun powder. I
> also had bad quality coal as well, so that's something I would change
> til next time.

Sourcing the potassium nitrate and sulfur was no problem in the '50s but
trying to grind down charcoal was a miserable task. During one of the
times in grade school chemistry class when I wasn't daydreaming I learned
the formula for sucrose was C12H22O11. Hmmm, that looks like a lot of
carbon and stuff that should turn into water vapor. Rocket candy was born!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_candy

It was many years later I found out about it. It wasn't much of an
explosive but back then dry gas came in about a 12 ounce can with a
conical top that necked down to a screw cap. Filling one of those and
lighting it lead to a very satisfactory fountain of flame. I never thought
to try launching a rocket with it.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 21:59:20 +0100, D wrote:

> Yes! Have a look at this:
>
> https://weibulls.com/weibulls-stubborttagare-1-25kg-6st-krt-stubb-x
>
> 1.25 kg of potassium nitrate for about 30 EUR.

Amazon has 5 pounds for USD 27.98, free delivery. Speaking from experience
it sucks as a stump remover. You're supposed to drill holes, pour the
solution in, wait a few weeks, and set fire to the stump. Good luck with
that.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 20:54:21 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

>> Excluding catastrophic tank failure I don't think hydrogen would be
>> more of a problem than propane.
>
> Typical propane tank pressure: 100-200psi [1]
>
> Typical hydrogen tank pressure (for cars): 350 - 700bar which is 5,000 -
> 10,000 psi [2]
>
> A 5k to 10k psi tank rupture will impart much more kinetic energy into
> the shrapnel thrown off than a 100-200 psi tank rupture will impart. And
> that ignores the impact of the pressure wave created by the
> decompression of the stored gas itself.

'Excluding catastrophic failure' includes rupturing. By that I meant
hydrogen leaks will be more likely to disperse rather than a heavier than
air gas that is prone to pooling.

On 12/11/24 8:58 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 03:50:32 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>>> There is another golden oldie. The 5120 was a strange beast, selectable
>>> for either BASIC or APL. It's successor, the System/23, had an 8085
>>> rather than IBM's homebrew but had a similar look. Familiarity with the
>>> 8085 was one of the factors for using the 8088.
>>
>> Umm ... 5120 came well after the 8088. Got yer numbers right ?
>>
>> The 8085 was a pretty fair predecessor for the 8088 however. Not THAT
>> much diff. However, for the time,
>> the Z80 was maybe a tad better.
>>
>> Would still like to get my hands on a working S-100 Z80 system .....
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_5120
>
> Technically the 8088 processor was released in '79 while the 5120 was
> released in Feb '80. The System/23 with the 8085 was released in July
> '81. The 5150 PC was released in August 1981 more than a year after the
> 5120. The 5100 itself was released in '75, and the 5110 in '78. Same PALM
> processor throughout. The 5110 had more I/O like floppy interfaces, while
> the 5120 had a larger screen and 2 built in 8" floppies.

Ah - you were referring to a pc model number, not
a chip number ! :-)

Didn't the 5120s have like a REALLY dinky monitor ?

And they wonder why nerds wear thick glasses :-)

> The company I worked for bought the 5120 and I created an inventory
> control system on it but my personal machine at the time was an Osborne 1
> CP/M 'portable' that I bought in April '81. I don't remember when I got
> around to buying a PC clone, maybe '84? It was one of the brand x mystery
> boxes with the turbo switch.

I've used an Osbourne and the competing Kaypro. For
the era, they really weren't bad. The 8088 more
smoothly accessed larger RAM space however, so it
became the worthy successor. 64/128k became obsolete
REAL quick.

As for Z80 :

https://z80kits.com/shop/rc2014-classic-ii/

http://cpuville.com/Kits/Z80-kits-home.html

https://feertech.com/microbeast/

https://www.budgetronics.eu/en/building-kits/z80-retrocomputer-building-kit/a-24691-20

You can STILL get 'em - it's one those chips that
refuse to die ... "good enough" for a lot of practical
uses and will run CP/M

I've got a ZX81 around somewhere, but those were 'toys'.

Still, always wanted my own S-100 box, but could never
afford one while they were still in use. I think they
were still made even for the 68000, maybe 68020, but
the buss wasn't meant for the higher clocks that soon
became prevalent and it became so easy to put the
periphs into ONE CHIP that there really wasn't the
need for 8/10/12 slot computers anymore.

Wonder how fast, with modern techniques, you could
REALLY make a Z80 ? Could prob fit a bunch on a
single die ....

On 12/11/24 5:08 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/24 8:38 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/9/24 8:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:58:47 -0800, John Ames wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Any chance of this conversation returning to anything even *slightly*
>>>>>> more relevant to *nix, computers in general, or, like, *anything*
>>>>>> else?
>>>>>> Maybe I should dig up some old Francis E. Dec rant for a more
>>>>>> coherent/
>>>>>> relevant refresher course...
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to start a thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Ummmmm ... I just TRIED with the "Bit-Slice" topic.
>>>>  Jumped IMMEDIATELY back to 'non-OS/Computer stuff'  :-)
>>>>
>>>>  Was HOPING for discussion/insight into 'alternative'
>>>>  schemes for 'CPU's and such derived from older solutions.
>>>>
>>>>  Houston, we have a problem .............
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your thread was perhaps not interesting enough? Try again! ;)
>>
>>
>>  Awwww .... OUGHT to be an interesting topic, especially
>>  as we're bumping up against Moore's end-point. One or
>>  two more gens and we're literally at the atomic scale ;
>>  where to go from there ?
>
> Quantum computing of course! Otherwise, we'll just continue to scale out
> I assume.

"Quantum" has NOT been going well. People are finding
ways to REDUCE the error rate, but it's still too much.
Cyro is also kinda required.

> Is there an established Moores end point?

I'm gonna say it's "at the few atoms" zone. However
you still need to make room for the connecting leads.
Gotta be able to FAB such things too ... and you're
well into the X-ray zone there.

So ... I think we're approaching A Problem here.

The kind/meaning of 'computing' has kinda shifted
recently due to 'AI' - Nvidia rules there - but
the chips are faster at "AI" sorts of stuff, not
general/all-purpose.

> I would imagine once we hit that end point in terms of regular cpus, the
> only direction left would be purpose built cpus on other technologies
> for niche use cases such as biological computing, quantum computing,
> optical etc.

Bio is gonna be too SLOW. Quantum, we've discussed that.

Pure photonic - including some rough analog of photonic
transistors ... MAYbe. I keep hearing bits of news which
suggest those MIGHT be practical someday. Still, don't
see them being THAT much faster - the S-o-L in crystals
and fiber and such is a limiting factor. Who'd have ever
imagined the S-o-L would be TOO SLOW eh ? Indeed it's
already a communications pain in the ass.

Photonic switching elements don't switch instantly
either ... MAYbe some different def/tech that's not
really so much 'switching' per-se ? Interference
patterns ?

Now something that will properly support, say, deca-state
logic ... ? Transistors don't do that well, but smart
photonic design, perhaps. A lot more 'getting it done'
per gigahertz :-)

> Could regular cpu:s get some extended life by a change of materials or
> some other tweaks to the current design?

Could ... but instead they'll make new chips.

Oh, news today ... if you have an AMD box DO look into
the "BadRAM" exploit - a sneaky back-door way for Vlad
to spy on your 'protected' data.

>>  Better innovate SOMETHING, otherwise we're gonna see
>>  'peak computing' when it's become clear we need thousands
>>  of times that for the Really Cool Stuff.
>>

On 2024-12-12, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 11:04:24 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> But I would be careful if I were you. Isn't oregon a democrat
>> stronghold?
>> It you go there and they find you out, you might not be able to leave.
>
> It depends... There is an invisible line running down the Cascade range;
> west of it brains turn to mush. There is a fairly serious movement for the
> area east of the range to secede and join Idaho.

Suggested edit: "west of it many/most brains turn to mush."
There are a few right-minded thinkers west of the Cascades.

> https://www.greateridaho.org/
>
> A better representation from the recent election:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> 2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Oregon
>
> Like the rest of the US the large urban centers are Democratic. Go global
> warming. Say a 30' rise in the sea level and the people of Portland,
> Seattle, NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, LA, and so forth will be too busy
> swimming to vote.

Not sure 30 vertical feet would flood all of Portland. It is
somewhere in the vicinity of 60 miles inland. Elevations vary,
but a lot of it is > 100' up. Extent of flooding would depend on
the balance between rivers bringing in water from points higher
vs. the river taking water to the ocean.

https://en-us.topographic-map.com/map-dw257/Portland-Downtown/?center=45.54749%2C-122.69533&zoom=16&popup=45.54892%2C-122.70218

--
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

On 12/11/24 11:51 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/12/2024 16:43, John Ames wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:51:47 -0500
>> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Better innovate SOMETHING, otherwise we're gonna see 'peak computing'
>>> when it's become clear we need thousands of times that for the Really
>>> Cool Stuff.
>>
>> I've long been of the opinion that things're gonna get Real Interesting
>> when Moore's Law finally his the wall and "throw a beefier rig at it!"
>> is no longer a viable pitch for any "your X isn't delivering Y fast
>> enough for project Z!" problems.
>>
> We have already hit it.
>
> Hence the proliferation of multiple cores.
>
> Which works for multi-user and multi-threaded operations, but not
> necessarily for linear single thread code.

Very correct.

In some respects it's a "how do we DEFINE computing ?"
sort of thing. A bunch of Nvidia chips doing "AI" is
one way of looking at it. The peta+ FLOPS you may want
to solve a supernova implosion or horrific math equation
is another. In short 'performance' now has to take a cue
from "What We WANT done" rather than the olde-tyme
benchmarks.

Not everything can be 'parallelized' either ... some
jobs just require vast instructions-per ...

As said elsewhere, 'pure photonic' tech MAY provide
the ultimate - 10x to 100x what we're seeing with
the low-nanometer transistor designs. But, in this
universe, that's kinda IT.

We need a new universe.

On 12/11/24 5:10 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 12/9/24 7:56 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 14:15:21 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I still do not know why you are talking this and not Linux in a Linux
>>>> group, but for your info, there are countries that sell more electric
>>>> cars than IC, so it works for them.
>>>
>>> Desktop Linux works for many people including myself. However, Windows
>>> remains the dominant OS.
>>
>>  Dominant because of manipulative sales tactics - NOT merit.
>>
>>  Win is a MESS - a messy mess. At SOME point they're gonna
>>  have to do like Apple and just FLUSH it - make a seem-alike
>>  system on top of some kind of Unix.
>
> Also note that due to Apple, chromebooks and linux, windows has been
> losing market share, although very, very slowly.

Hey, Apple has an impressive sales strategy - go
for the elite snobs and wannabes. Coordinated
designer PCs/Phones/Etc. It WORKS.

If you don't have "i-Everything" then you're just
trailer trash ! :-)

Declines in Linux/Unix ... I suspect it relates to
a pair of things - ignorant i-Everything owning
pointy-haired bosses AND a dip in the number of
real systems/programming people. Complicated stuff ?
Hey, Apple/M$/Chat have an online solution for you,
so why bother to solve it yourself ???

Ever tried to grow a turnip or little patch of corn ?
Butchered a pig yourself ? Fewer and fewer have a
CLUE about such stuff. Food comes from the MARKET
after all, Harry Potter waves his wand. It's all
total dependence on the tech/infrastructure pyramid.

Vlad and Xi have PLANS for all that .....

On 12/10/24 3:19 PM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 09/12/2024 20:51, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If they had simply taxed carbon fuels  we would be all nuclear by
>>>> now...and be making synthetic diesel
>>>
>>> Is electricity the primary cost driver of synthetic diesel?
>>>
>> I think it would be, yes.
>>
>>
>> Lets say you can get to a 30% conversion ration of whatever energy
>> drives the synthesis, to the final diesl.
>>
>> Diesel and natural gas is around (UK money) 50p a litre or 5p /kWh
>>
>> Expected renewable electricity is 3-4 times that
>> Historic nuclear is a bit less - say 4p /kWh
>>
>> That puts synthetic diesel at a minimum of around 12p/kWh Which is
>> what we pay at the pumps but that is all tax.
>
> Ahh, yet another thing we don't have to worry about then. =)
>
>>> Germany managed to help the extreme left and the extreme right with
>>> their ridiculous nuclear policy. Given their history, I'm surprised
>>> they didn't see it coming. ;)
>>
>> The trouble with Germany is that the Greens got into coalition, and
>> the price of that was Germany's energy policy.
>> The problem seems to be that the broad political choice is between neo
>> Marxists and pro Russian  Neo Nazis.
>
> Yes!

Germany seems SCREWED - all ideology, no common sense.

Alas it's a HUGE economy .....

For now.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:26:29 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> Didn't the 5120s have like a REALLY dinky monitor ?

The 5100 and 5110 did. They were meant to be 'portable'. The 5120 bumped
it up to a magnificent 9". It was bigger than the Osborne 1 monitor. Like
a laptop if I was at home I plugged it into an external monitor. I sent it
back to the factory for the 100 column upgrade and the massive storage of
double sided, double density floppies. It paid for itself many times over.
I even build a EPROM programmer using the parallel port. It had just
enough lines to put out the data and toggle the necessary lines.

> I've used an Osbourne and the competing Kaypro. For the era, they
> really weren't bad. The 8088 more smoothly accessed larger RAM space
> however, so it became the worthy successor. 64/128k became obsolete
> REAL quick.

You could already get more memory for a Z80 using bank switching. iirc the
bottom 2K was reserved to do the switch. The 8088 just formalized it on
the chip. The best part was the five different libraries for the tiny,
small, medium, large, and huge memory schemes or whatever they were
called.

> I've got a ZX81 around somewhere, but those were 'toys'.

I had a ZX80 that I bought in the kit form. I was already using the Z80
for embedded stuff and was curious what $100, iirc, would buy.
> Still, always wanted my own S-100 box, but could never afford one
> while they were still in use. I think they were still made even for
> the 68000, maybe 68020, but the buss wasn't meant for the higher
> clocks that soon became prevalent and it became so easy to put the
> periphs into ONE CHIP that there really wasn't the need for 8/10/12
> slot computers anymore.

I never had a S-100 but I designed a set of cards and a proprietary
backplane for a client with a real case of NIH. There were a bunch of them
in the industrial field including the STD Bus, which was anything but
standard. Everybody rolled their own.

The rumor was the S-100 came about when someone got a hell of a deal on
milsurp edge connectors.

On 12 Dec 2024 04:06:10 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

> Suggested edit: "west of it many/most brains turn to mush."
> There are a few right-minded thinkers west of the Cascades.

Sure. My ex is somewhat to the right of me and lives in New York City.
It's a lonely life and she has alienated more than one 'friend'.

There was a far right author who wrote a few novels about a Northwest
Territorial Imperative. He realized that a landlocked area of Montana,
Idaho, Nevada, and a few other states wasn't feasible and worked in ways
to capture the seaboard. They all seemed very optimistic.

On 12/12/24 3:43 AM, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:26:29 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> Didn't the 5120s have like a REALLY dinky monitor ?
>
> The 5100 and 5110 did. They were meant to be 'portable'. The 5120 bumped
> it up to a magnificent 9". It was bigger than the Osborne 1 monitor. Like
> a laptop if I was at home I plugged it into an external monitor. I sent it
> back to the factory for the 100 column upgrade and the massive storage of
> double sided, double density floppies. It paid for itself many times over.
> I even build a EPROM programmer using the parallel port. It had just
> enough lines to put out the data and toggle the necessary lines.

Try the IBM "portable" PC ... if you don't throw out
yer back lifting it :-) DID use one - but did most of
the software on a 286 box.

>> I've used an Osbourne and the competing Kaypro. For the era, they
>> really weren't bad. The 8088 more smoothly accessed larger RAM space
>> however, so it became the worthy successor. 64/128k became obsolete
>> REAL quick.
>
> You could already get more memory for a Z80 using bank switching. iirc the
> bottom 2K was reserved to do the switch. The 8088 just formalized it on
> the chip. The best part was the five different libraries for the tiny,
> small, medium, large, and huge memory schemes or whatever they were
> called.

I think the "formalized" bit - plus the IBM name - kinda
sealed it for the Z80s. Bank-switching on Z80's was kinda
too clunky - and all the banks were 64k.

Anyway, won't really diss the 8088 ... had it's good
time and place and uses and paved the way to Better.

EVER see an actual 8086 system ? I never did. Kinda
had to wait for the 286/386 era to see the promised
perks. I think Compaq had an 8086.

>> I've got a ZX81 around somewhere, but those were 'toys'.
>
> I had a ZX80 that I bought in the kit form. I was already using the Z80
> for embedded stuff and was curious what $100, iirc, would buy.

They made a ZX-80 *kit* ??? Never ever saw one
in the USA. Besides, the 80 keys were TOO tiny,
the '81 really was better and had more peripherials.

>> Still, always wanted my own S-100 box, but could never afford one
>> while they were still in use. I think they were still made even for
>> the 68000, maybe 68020, but the buss wasn't meant for the higher
>> clocks that soon became prevalent and it became so easy to put the
>> periphs into ONE CHIP that there really wasn't the need for 8/10/12
>> slot computers anymore.
>
> I never had a S-100 but I designed a set of cards and a proprietary
> backplane for a client with a real case of NIH. There were a bunch of them
> in the industrial field including the STD Bus, which was anything but
> standard. Everybody rolled their own.

Yep, the 'proprietary' era ... still, a lot of good ideas ....

> The rumor was the S-100 came about when someone got a hell of a deal on
> milsurp edge connectors.

MIGHT be true !!!

Anyway, it WORKED, well, for a long time. Alas it really
was a product of its time-slot ... lower clocks and the
need for really large complex peripherial cards.

Anyway, now, having 95% of all that on ONE chip is
kinda nice - and FAST. However there's still a
certain 'nostalgia' for S-100 ... wouldn't mind
owning a '33 Packard either even though a Subaru
is technologically superior ......

Ah :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromemco

I was right about the 68020's !

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 11:04:24 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> But I would be careful if I were you. Isn't oregon a democrat
>> stronghold?
>> It you go there and they find you out, you might not be able to leave.
>
> It depends... There is an invisible line running down the Cascade range;
> west of it brains turn to mush. There is a fairly serious movement for the
> area east of the range to secede and join Idaho.
>
> https://www.greateridaho.org/
>
> A better representation from the recent election:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> 2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Oregon
>
> Like the rest of the US the large urban centers are Democratic. Go global
> warming. Say a 30' rise in the sea level and the people of Portland,
> Seattle, NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, LA, and so forth will be too busy
> swimming to vote.
>

Wow, that's quite a different between the easter and western parts. Yes!
A potential benefit of "global warming" all democrats will be washed away.
;)

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:20:37 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> What I did not test was to buy some alcohol to purify the gun powder. I
>> also had bad quality coal as well, so that's something I would change
>> til next time.
>
> Sourcing the potassium nitrate and sulfur was no problem in the '50s but
> trying to grind down charcoal was a miserable task. During one of the
> times in grade school chemistry class when I wasn't daydreaming I learned
> the formula for sucrose was C12H22O11. Hmmm, that looks like a lot of
> carbon and stuff that should turn into water vapor. Rocket candy was born!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_candy
>
> It was many years later I found out about it. It wasn't much of an
> explosive but back then dry gas came in about a 12 ounce can with a
> conical top that necked down to a screw cap. Filling one of those and
> lighting it lead to a very satisfactory fountain of flame. I never thought
> to try launching a rocket with it.

Ah... childhood memories! This was the easiest thing in the world to
produce! Once I managed to stop a subway line with it. I think I was
around 12 or 13, and we were playing with this stuff under a bridge that
had a subway line.

The subway came, created a draft that sucked all the smoke into the
tunnel, and they thought there was a fire and stopped the subway. 10
minutes later the police arrived, discovered us (we didn't run) and said
"boys will be boys" and let us go.

I thought the police actually thought it was funny and were reminded of
their own childhood (although of course they didn't show any of this).

Ahh, those were better, more innocent times!

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 21:59:20 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> Yes! Have a look at this:
>>
>> https://weibulls.com/weibulls-stubborttagare-1-25kg-6st-krt-stubb-x
>>
>> 1.25 kg of potassium nitrate for about 30 EUR.
>
> Amazon has 5 pounds for USD 27.98, free delivery. Speaking from experience
> it sucks as a stump remover. You're supposed to drill holes, pour the
> solution in, wait a few weeks, and set fire to the stump. Good luck with
> that.
>

I wonder if anyone ever uses it as stump removed or if everyone who buys
just uses it for pyrotechnics? ;)

Sulfur is a bit more difficult to get though. I think it is on some kind
of "watch list" where you need a license or a specific reason to buy it.
=(

This I can buy without problems though:

https://www.blomsterlandet.se/produkter/tillbehor/vaxtskydd/bekampningsmedel/kumulus-nelson-garden-2700/

And contains 80% sulphur. So I had to mix it with water, and then wait for
the sulphur to sink to the bottom, pour off the other stuff that formed on
top, and then it could be used. I do have my doubts about the quality, but
it did work in the classic gun powder mix, although it was very slow
burning but I suspect that

1. Adding high quality coal and
2. Purifying it with alcohol

would increase the speed at which it burns. Maybe I'll try it again this
summer! =) It is a fun hobby!