Re: Tape drive threading--right or left?

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Oct 20, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> I spent a lot of my early days threading CDC 60x and 65x tape drives.
> There, the supply reel, as you face the drive, is on your right side and
> takeup is on the left.   It's easy to thread--I could thread up a drive
> in 15 seconds or so.
> 
> But IBM and, it seems, much of the rest of the world swaps the reel
> positions, so that the tape unspools and is taken up on the *inside* of
> the facing reels.
> 
> Why is this?  The CDC positioning is simple and darned near foolproof.
> I realize with the rise of auto-threaders that the subject is moot, but
> I'm still curious.

It never occurred to me that it matters.  The first drives I encountered were 
IBM ones, on a 360/44.  Then a TU10.  Then CDC 607.  The TU10 is a bit of a 
hassle to load because of the reels one above the other; all the others seemed 
fine.

The one thing that always struck me as utterly nuts was the fact that those IBM 
tape drives had vacuum columns with the tape loaded oxide side out -- i.e., 
oxide rubbing against the side walls of the columns.  Everyone else did it the 
right way.

paul

Tape drive threading--right or left?

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

I spent a lot of my early days threading CDC 60x and 65x tape drives.
There, the supply reel, as you face the drive, is on your right side and
takeup is on the left.   It's easy to thread--I could thread up a drive
in 15 seconds or so.

But IBM and, it seems, much of the rest of the world swaps the reel
positions, so that the tape unspools and is taken up on the *inside* of
the facing reels.

Why is this?  The CDC positioning is simple and darned near foolproof.
I realize with the rise of auto-threaders that the subject is moot, but
I'm still curious.

--Chuck

Re: Is it really that quiet out there?

[jim stephens via cctalk]

Last one of those was a couple weeks ago.  Then there were a bunch of 
backed up ones.


List has been steady and in real time (from what I've seen).
thanks
Jim

On 10/20/2017 11:30 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

   Lately, I've received
message "belches"

Re: Is it really that quiet out there?

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 10/20/2017 11:09 AM, Ian S. King via cctalk wrote:
> I haven't seen any list messages since the 16th.

My last batch of messages are from the 18th.   Lately, I've received
message "belches" that include messages from days before that I've
already received.

--Chuck

Re: Is it really that quiet out there?

[Alexandre Souza via cctalk]

Shhh.. people are sleeping!

Enviado do meu Tele-Movel

On Oct 20, 2017 4:11 PM, "Ian S. King via cctalk" 
wrote:

> I haven't seen any list messages since the 16th.
>
> --
> Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate
> The Information School 
> Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical
> Narrative Through a Design Lens
>
> Principal Investigator, "Reflections on Early Computing and Social Change",
> UW IRB #42619
>
> Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal 
> Value Sensitive Design Research Lab 
>
> University of Washington
>
> There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."
>

Re: OT: the death of shortwave / Re: Hallicrafters S-85

[Diane Bruce via cctalk]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 01:12:03PM -0400, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> 
> > On Oct 20, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > Was looking at the digital repeater modes this morning
> > http://www.mikemyers.me/blog/2016/2/19/d-star-dmr-fusion-which-is-right-for-you
> > 
> > Pretty disappointing that the most popular ones use proprietary comms 
> > protocols.
> 
> I see that Yaesu's "Fusion" is closed, but D-Star is open.  For DMR it 
> doesn't say; is it published but with license fees, as is sometimes done?
> 
> I've suggested to the ARRL in the past that they should treat closed 
> protocols as non-existent, so for example Yaesu radios would show in their 
> review articles as analog only.  That might help somewhat to fix this issue.

*grumble* You forgot the elephant in the room. PACTOR. 

Diane va3db

> 
>   paul, ni1d
> 
> 

-- 
- d...@freebsd.org d...@db.net http://www.db.net/~db

Re: Is it really that quiet out there?

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

There would appear to be a problem with your email.  There has been plenty of 
activity.

Zane


> On Oct 20, 2017, at 11:09 AM, Ian S. King via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> I haven't seen any list messages since the 16th.
> 
> -- 
> Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate

Is it really that quiet out there?

[Ian S. King via cctalk]

I haven't seen any list messages since the 16th.

-- 
Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate
The Information School 
Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical
Narrative Through a Design Lens

Principal Investigator, "Reflections on Early Computing and Social Change",
UW IRB #42619

Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal 
Value Sensitive Design Research Lab 

University of Washington

There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."

Re: OT: the death of shortwave / Re: Hallicrafters S-85

[Brian L. Stuart via cctalk]

On Fri, 10/20/17, Al Kossow via cctalk  wrote:

> I've noticed since I've gotten into this again that there is a lot of 
> closed-source thinking

It's pretty disturbing when you think about how the amateur
radio world developed and that it was given legal status
in part to encourage experimentation.

Personally, I wish people would wake up to the reality that
any proprietary protocol is actually a violation of the prohibition
against encrypted traffic.  Any protocol that is not published
is a shared secret (i.e. a key).  The original plaintext cannot
be recovered without the secret.  That's pretty much the
definition of symmetric encryption.

Of course, some would claim that a proprietary protocol is
not "encoded for the purpose of obscuring the meaning."
However, I would argue that such protocols exist for the
purpose of obscuring the meaning in such a way that those
who have not paid the key ransom (purchase of proprietary
equipment, paying licensing fees, etc) are prevented from
understanding the traffic.  In other words, a proprietary
protocol exists precisely to obscure for the purpose of
monatary gain.

This same reasoning is also one of the reasons that I
summarily reject any proprietary file formats, closed
source software, etc.

BLS
wd4awy

Re: OT: the death of shortwave / Re: Hallicrafters S-85

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

I've noticed since I've gotten into this again that there is a lot of 
closed-source thinking


in the ham world. A lot of devices with microcontrollers released as 
binary only, for example.


Not very good if you want to build something the guy no longer makes 
available.



On 10/20/17 12:12 PM, Paul Koning wrote:

On Oct 20, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk  
wrote:

...
Was looking at the digital repeater modes this morning
http://www.mikemyers.me/blog/2016/2/19/d-star-dmr-fusion-which-is-right-for-you

Pretty disappointing that the most popular ones use proprietary comms protocols.

I see that Yaesu's "Fusion" is closed, but D-Star is open.  For DMR it doesn't 
say; is it published but with license fees, as is sometimes done?

I've suggested to the ARRL in the past that they should treat closed protocols 
as non-existent, so for example Yaesu radios would show in their review 
articles as analog only.  That might help somewhat to fix this issue.

paul, ni1d

Re: OT: the death of shortwave / Re: Hallicrafters S-85

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Oct 20, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> ...
> Was looking at the digital repeater modes this morning
> http://www.mikemyers.me/blog/2016/2/19/d-star-dmr-fusion-which-is-right-for-you
> 
> Pretty disappointing that the most popular ones use proprietary comms 
> protocols.

I see that Yaesu's "Fusion" is closed, but D-Star is open.  For DMR it doesn't 
say; is it published but with license fees, as is sometimes done?

I've suggested to the ARRL in the past that they should treat closed protocols 
as non-existent, so for example Yaesu radios would show in their review 
articles as analog only.  That might help somewhat to fix this issue.

paul, ni1d

RE: HP 21mx/whatever processor works with doublesided key... i forgot model#

[Jay West via cctalk]

Ed wrote...
--
HP 21mx/whatever   processor   works  with double  sided  key... (I forgot 
model#)
--
Given the way you phrased it, the correct replacement for 'whatever' is M
series. E and F never used the double sided key.
However, even that is not entirely correct. Older M's used the double sided
key. Later M's used the single sided key that is the same as the E and F.
 
And
---
It has ... of all things  3  tty  boards in it? what  is  with that? Multi
user without  a  mux?
---
Didn't you sell and support these things in a prior life? It was always far
more common to see the 21MX machines with 'discrete' tty boards rather than
muxes. There were only two mux boards, the one in 2000/Access which was very
uncommon as far as 21mx's go... and the one that RTE commonly used which was
also not super common to find in the wild. If you had a mux board, then I
would have been a bit surprised. Multiple tty boards? Not surprised, that
was the far more common thing more often than not, the 21mx's weren't
really used/targeted for multiuser (except 2000 TSB of course). RTE did
multiuser well, but... still was probably most often used in situations that
really didn't require it. Mux's weren't super common.
 
And

Has  2  memory boards   think I  remember   64k total.

64kb or 64kw? Remember, the M.E.M. option is required to support more than
32kw. On the M, MEM was optional. I believe it was standard on E & F.

And...
---
need to  find a  paper tape  basic   to   play  with.
---
There are plenty of those floating around. Google is your friend... I think
MU-BASIC may have been the one I heard people using? See below for a better
option
 
And...
--
Any other  advice?
--
You should probably start by reading an introduction to the 21MX to get some
basic background on the machines...
Go to: http://www.hpmuseum.net/exhibit.php?hwdoc=108
You should start with 02108-90004 followed by 02108-90002

Finally - for you (and anyone else) that has just a cpu or a cpu and minimal
peripherals, the best thing you can use to play with the machine is Terry
Newtons HP-IPL/OS.
See http://www.infionline.net/~wtnewton/oldcomp/hp2100/ and
http://newton.freehostia.com/net/hpiplos.html
Yes, you can run BASIC like you mention above. But it is a very well done
"Forth-like" system that is well developed/flushedout. So in addition to
BASIC, you get oh-so-many-wonderful-things. I very highly recommend that
anyone messing with 21mx/1000 systems take a good look at HP-IPL/OS.

Best,

J

Re: HP 7970 1/2" 9-Track Reel-to-Reel Tape Drive...

[Anders Nelson via cctalk]

Just FYI that dual 7970 has been reduced to $679 OBO...

--
Anders Nelson

+1 (517) 775-6129

www.erogear.com

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 10/18/2017 06:19 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
>
> > Yes, I had a 3500 Lb lathe shipped from NJ to MO for $600 (although that
> > was some years ago.)
> > I had a 1700 Lb pick and place machine shipped from Boston to MO for
> > somewhat less than that.
> > FedEx and UPS have arrangements for boxes up to 170 LBS, I think. There
> > is a surcharge for overweight
> > boxes, but it isn't that bad.  If palletized, you may need to pay for a
> > lift gate truck at the receiving end, or have your own fork lift.
>
> I simply have the LTL freight delivered to the same people I trust for
> shipping large objects.   They charge $25 to receive and unload a
> shipment and will even help get it into my truck.   They've got the
> forklift and will even inspect the freight on the receiving end.
>
> Good people.
>
> --Chuck
>

Re: OT: the death of shortwave / Re: Hallicrafters S-85

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 10/19/17 9:15 PM, Ed Thierbach via cctalk wrote:

I'd be interested in a classic computing net as well.  I have 40 - 10
meters available on HF.  Our area is lagging in digital repeater coverage,
so no Fusion or DMR or D*Star for me just yet.
73,
-Ed- AB8OJ

I took an analog VHF/UHF radio and a SDR with me while I've been on 
vacation in WI

Drove out here up through NV,ID,MT,SD,MN. Amer Comp Museum was closed by the
time I got to Boseman :-(

Probably was a mistake to bring a laptop with me though, been spending 
too much

time on the web.

Was looking at the digital repeater modes this morning
http://www.mikemyers.me/blog/2016/2/19/d-star-dmr-fusion-which-is-right-for-you

Pretty disappointing that the most popular ones use proprietary comms 
protocols.


Haven't scanned the VHF/UHF bands since I worked in 2-way radio in the 
70's. Wow
things have changed. Almost everything is digital/scrambled with the 
exception of the

AM aviation band.

You can also see a huge difference in the noise floor in populated areas.

Re: RT11 Disk Partitioning and RQZX1 SCSI controller

[Camiel Vanderhoeven via cctalk]

On 10/19/17, 6:22 PM, "cctalk on behalf of Douglas Taylor via cctalk"
 wrote:

>Is there a potential problem here?
>
>I have an 11/53 microPDP11 with a RQZX1 controller connected to a single
>DEC DSP3043 drive (535MB) and a single RX33 floppy.
>
>The autoconfigure setup in the RQZX1 puts the hard disk at DU0 and the
>Floppy as DU1.  OK.  I boot RT11 from the disk, V5.7. Works fine.
>
>I would like to use some of the extra space on the disk by setting up
>RT11 disk partitions.
>
>However, one of the partitions is DU1, but that is what the Floppy is
>called.  How do I stay away from what seems like a conflict?
>
>Doug

SET DU2: UNIT=0,PART=1
SET DU3: UNIT=0,PART=2
...

** reboot **

INIT DU2:
INIT DU3:
...