f



wearable computers from the sixties - who knew?

The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to 
increase their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.

<http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
0
M
1/17/2016 10:23:13 AM
comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc 4192 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

21 Replies
585 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 3

On 17/01/2016 10:23, M. John Matlaw wrote:
> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to
> increase their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
>
> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
>
The trick was to bet after the ball was thrown. When and how hard the 
ball is thrown produces most of the randomness in roulette. There after 
it is simple mechanics.
0
Andrew
1/17/2016 2:20:10 PM
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:20:10 +0000
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 17/01/2016 10:23, M. John Matlaw wrote:
> > The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to
> > increase their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that
> > possible.
> >
> > <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/
> > >
> >
> The trick was to bet after the ball was thrown. When and how hard the 
> ball is thrown produces most of the randomness in roulette. There after 
> it is simple mechanics.

	It reads like they were timing the ball against the wheel and
predicting which segment of the wheel the ball would land in by way the
timing was changing. The uncertainty caused by the way the ball kicks
at the end would prevent certainty but a boost in probability should be
easy like that. I wonder if someone with a good sense of rythm could learn
to do this without aid - any drummers here want to try ?

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/
0
Ahem
1/17/2016 3:14:21 PM
In article <n7fpte$43h$1@dont-email.me>,
 "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> wrote:

> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to 
> increase their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
> 
> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/
> >

He was not the only one:

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

The book is a good read.

Isaac
0
isw
1/17/2016 6:25:57 PM
On 17/01/2016 15:14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:20:10 +0000
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/01/2016 10:23, M. John Matlaw wrote:
>>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to
>>> increase their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/
>>>>
>>>
>> The trick was to bet after the ball was thrown. When and how hard the
>> ball is thrown produces most of the randomness in roulette. There after
>> it is simple mechanics.
>
> 	It reads like they were timing the ball against the wheel and
> predicting which segment of the wheel the ball would land in by way the
> timing was changing. The uncertainty caused by the way the ball kicks
> at the end would prevent certainty but a boost in probability should be
> easy like that. I wonder if someone with a good sense of rythm could learn
> to do this without aid - any drummers here want to try ?
>
The casinos learnt to close the table before throwing the ball so this 
method no longer works.

The computer in the shoe needed to know the speed of the ball, the speed 
of the wheel and the location of the wheel.
0
Andrew
1/17/2016 7:24:58 PM
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:24:58 +0000
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 17/01/2016 15:14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:20:10 +0000
> > Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 17/01/2016 10:23, M. John Matlaw wrote:
> >>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to
> >>> increase their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that
> >>> possible.
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> The trick was to bet after the ball was thrown. When and how hard the
> >> ball is thrown produces most of the randomness in roulette. There after
> >> it is simple mechanics.
> >
> > 	It reads like they were timing the ball against the wheel and
> > predicting which segment of the wheel the ball would land in by way the
> > timing was changing. The uncertainty caused by the way the ball kicks
> > at the end would prevent certainty but a boost in probability should be
> > easy like that. I wonder if someone with a good sense of rythm could
> > learn to do this without aid - any drummers here want to try ?
> >
> The casinos learnt to close the table before throwing the ball so this 
> method no longer works.
> 
> The computer in the shoe needed to know the speed of the ball, the speed 
> of the wheel and the location of the wheel.

	Yes all this from a single timing pulse.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/
0
Ahem
1/17/2016 8:15:56 PM
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, M. John Matlaw wrote:

> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to increase 
> their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
>
> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
>
That wasn't really a computer, just a timer of some sort.

I thought the article was going to be off by a decade, and it would turn 
out to be the story related in "The Eudaemonic Pie", a book that came out 
in the eighties, and wikipedia has an entry about it.  The story actually 
happens in the mid-seventies, and by then they did have an actual 
computer, one that was wearable.

   Michael

0
Michael
1/18/2016 1:01:01 AM
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Lewis wrote:

> In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601172311120.26926@darkstar.example.org>
>  Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, M. John Matlaw wrote:
>
>>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to increase
>>> their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
>>>
>>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
>>>
>> That wasn't really a computer, just a timer of some sort.
>
> It was certainly more than a simple stopwatch. It computed. So...
>
The article mentioned a specific number of transistors, I think five.

You really can't do much with 5 transistors.

   Michael

0
Michael
1/18/2016 1:01:01 AM
In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601172311120.26926@darkstar.example.org> 
  Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, M. John Matlaw wrote:

>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to increase 
>> their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
>>
>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
>>
> That wasn't really a computer, just a timer of some sort.

It was certainly more than a simple stopwatch. It computed. So...

-- 
Psychic convention cancelled due to unforeseen problems.
0
Lewis
1/18/2016 10:01:05 AM
In article <slrnn9rd95.t7c.g.kreme@amelia.local>, 
g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies says...
> 
> In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601181528070.28287@darkstar.example.org> 
>   Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Lewis wrote:
> 
> >> In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601172311120.26926@darkstar.example.org>
> >>  Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, M. John Matlaw wrote:
> >>
> >>>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to increase
> >>>> their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
> >>>>
> >>> That wasn't really a computer, just a timer of some sort.
> >>
> >> It was certainly more than a simple stopwatch. It computed. So...
> >>
> > The article mentioned a specific number of transistors, I think five.
> 
> > You really can't do much with 5 transistors.
> 
> Evidently you can build a computer to beat the roulette wheel with 5
> transistors.

If you define "computer" broadly enough.  But if you define "computer" 
that broadly then a mechanical stopwatch is a "computer".
0
J
1/19/2016 1:01:01 AM
In article <dg631jFr0clU1@mid.individual.net>, r124c4u102@comcast.net 
says...
> 
> "Michael Black" wrote:
> 
> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601181528070.28287@darkstar.example.org...
> > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Lewis wrote:
> >
> >> In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601172311120.26926@darkstar.example.org>
> >>  Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, M. John Matlaw wrote:
> >>
> >>>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to 
> >>>> increase
> >>>> their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
> >>>>
> >>> That wasn't really a computer, just a timer of some sort.
> >>
> >> It was certainly more than a simple stopwatch. It computed. So...
> >>
> > The article mentioned a specific number of transistors, I think five.
> >
> > You really can't do much with 5 transistors.
> 
> I read that book when it came out and I have been bothered by the factual 
> basis of this thread from the get go, it doesn't match my memory.  The 
> system included various bits and pieces, parts were in the shoe, parts were 
> strapped around the chest and there may have been even more.Here is a bit 
> from the book:
> 
>                         "[The unit] would hold the microprocessor, EPROM and
>                        RAMS needed for operating the roulette algorithm.
>                         The other unit would hold a clock, five logic chips,
>                       and the transistors and amplifier by which the
>                       compiler talked ... "

Cognitive dissonance here.  Thorpe's book came out in 1966.  Nothing 
that we would recognize as a "microprocessor" existed until 1970 and 
nothing that wasn't a classified part of a first-line combat system 
until 1971.
> 
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=Q9aOedEfOMMC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=Eudaemonic+five+transistors&source=bl&ots=ln_iGedyVU&sig=84MmvecsQs_PgHqtnJw1SsZ4MkE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-ha6imbXKAhUM5CYKHfbdCUEQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Eudaemonic%20five%20transistors&f=false

Wrong book.  That's about something that went on at UCSD ten years 
later.
-1
J
1/19/2016 1:01:01 AM
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Osmium wrote:

> "Michael Black" wrote:
>
> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601181528070.28287@darkstar.example.org...
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Lewis wrote:
>> 
>>> In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601172311120.26926@darkstar.example.org>
>>>  Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, M. John Matlaw wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to 
>>>>> increase
>>>>> their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
>>>>> 
>>>> That wasn't really a computer, just a timer of some sort.
>>> 
>>> It was certainly more than a simple stopwatch. It computed. So...
>>> 
>> The article mentioned a specific number of transistors, I think five.
>> 
>> You really can't do much with 5 transistors.
>
> I read that book when it came out and I have been bothered by the factual 
> basis of this thread from the get go, it doesn't match my memory.  The system 
> included various bits and pieces, parts were in the shoe, parts were strapped 
> around the chest and there may have been even more.Here is a bit from the 
> book:
>
There's two stories here, I thought initially it was one and they got the 
date wrong.

The story that started this thread seems to be about 1961, and they talked 
about a small number of transistors.

Starting in the mid-seventies, there was that project written about in 
"The Eudaemonic Pie", and they were actually using a microprocessor, 
things having changed enough that they existed by then.  Not an easy task 
getting what was needed into a small space, but an actual wearable 
computer, while the earlier project doesn't seem to be really a 
"computer".

   Michael



>                       "[The unit] would hold the microprocessor, EPROM and
>                      RAMS needed for operating the roulette algorithm.
>                       The other unit would hold a clock, five logic chips,
>                     and the transistors and amplifier by which the
>                     compiler talked ... "
>
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=Q9aOedEfOMMC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=Eudaemonic+five+transistors&source=bl&ots=ln_iGedyVU&sig=84MmvecsQs_PgHqtnJw1SsZ4MkE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-ha6imbXKAhUM5CYKHfbdCUEQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Eudaemonic%20five%20transistors&f=false
>
>
0
Michael
1/19/2016 1:01:01 AM
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Peter Flass wrote:

> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601172311120.26926@darkstar.example.org>
>>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, M. John Matlaw wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to increase
>>>>> their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
>>>>>
>>>> That wasn't really a computer, just a timer of some sort.
>>>
>>> It was certainly more than a simple stopwatch. It computed. So...
>>>
>> The article mentioned a specific number of transistors, I think five.
>>
>> You really can't do much with 5 transistors.
>>
>
> Build a radio with  three.
>
Yes, but we were talking about "wearable computer".

With five transistors, someone says it was 12 which is still really low,
you could build 2.5 flip flops.

   Michael

0
Michael
1/19/2016 1:01:01 AM
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Lewis wrote:
> 
>> In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601172311120.26926@darkstar.example.org>
>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, M. John Matlaw wrote:
>> 
>>>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to increase
>>>> their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
>>>> 
>>>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
>>>> 
>>> That wasn't really a computer, just a timer of some sort.
>> 
>> It was certainly more than a simple stopwatch. It computed. So...
>> 
> The article mentioned a specific number of transistors, I think five.
> 
> You really can't do much with 5 transistors.
> 

Build a radio with  three.

-- 
Pete
0
Peter
1/19/2016 1:01:01 AM
In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601181528070.28287@darkstar.example.org> 
  Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Lewis wrote:

>> In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601172311120.26926@darkstar.example.org>
>>  Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, M. John Matlaw wrote:
>>
>>>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to increase
>>>> their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
>>>>
>>> That wasn't really a computer, just a timer of some sort.
>>
>> It was certainly more than a simple stopwatch. It computed. So...
>>
> The article mentioned a specific number of transistors, I think five.

> You really can't do much with 5 transistors.

Evidently you can build a computer to beat the roulette wheel with 5
transistors.

-- 
“The female of all species are most dangerous when they appear to retreat.” 
   ― Don Marquis
0
Lewis
1/19/2016 3:58:57 AM
"Michael Black" wrote:

news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601181528070.28287@darkstar.example.org...
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Lewis wrote:
>
>> In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601172311120.26926@darkstar.example.org>
>>  Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, M. John Matlaw wrote:
>>
>>>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to 
>>>> increase
>>>> their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
>>>>
>>> That wasn't really a computer, just a timer of some sort.
>>
>> It was certainly more than a simple stopwatch. It computed. So...
>>
> The article mentioned a specific number of transistors, I think five.
>
> You really can't do much with 5 transistors.

I read that book when it came out and I have been bothered by the factual 
basis of this thread from the get go, it doesn't match my memory.  The 
system included various bits and pieces, parts were in the shoe, parts were 
strapped around the chest and there may have been even more.Here is a bit 
from the book:

                        "[The unit] would hold the microprocessor, EPROM and
                       RAMS needed for operating the roulette algorithm.
                        The other unit would hold a clock, five logic chips,
                      and the transistors and amplifier by which the
                      compiler talked ... "


https://books.google.com/books?id=Q9aOedEfOMMC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=Eudaemonic+five+transistors&source=bl&ots=ln_iGedyVU&sig=84MmvecsQs_PgHqtnJw1SsZ4MkE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-ha6imbXKAhUM5CYKHfbdCUEQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Eudaemonic%20five%20transistors&f=false

0
Osmium
1/19/2016 6:22:43 AM
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.3107eee31da32adf989e43@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <dg631jFr0clU1@mid.individual.net>, r124c4u102@comcast.net
> says...
>>
>> "Michael Black" wrote:
>>
>> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601181528070.28287@darkstar.example.org...
>> > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Lewis wrote:
>> >
>> >> In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601172311120.26926@darkstar.example.org>
>> >>  Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, M. John Matlaw wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to
>> >>>> increase
>> >>>> their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
>> >>>>
>> >>> That wasn't really a computer, just a timer of some sort.
>> >>
>> >> It was certainly more than a simple stopwatch. It computed. So...
>> >>
>> > The article mentioned a specific number of transistors, I think five.
>> >
>> > You really can't do much with 5 transistors.
>>
>> I read that book when it came out and I have been bothered by the factual
>> basis of this thread from the get go, it doesn't match my memory.  The
>> system included various bits and pieces, parts were in the shoe, parts 
>> were
>> strapped around the chest and there may have been even more.Here is a bit
>> from the book:
>>
>>                         "[The unit] would hold the microprocessor, EPROM 
>> and
>>                        RAMS needed for operating the roulette algorithm.
>>                         The other unit would hold a clock, five logic 
>> chips,
>>                       and the transistors and amplifier by which the
>>                       compiler talked ... "
>
> Cognitive dissonance here.  Thorpe's book came out in 1966.  Nothing
> that we would recognize as a "microprocessor" existed until 1970 and
> nothing that wasn't a classified part of a first-line combat system
> until 1971.
>>
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=Q9aOedEfOMMC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=Eudaemonic+five+transistors&source=bl&ots=ln_iGedyVU&sig=84MmvecsQs_PgHqtnJw1SsZ4MkE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-ha6imbXKAhUM5CYKHfbdCUEQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Eudaemonic%20five%20transistors&f=false
>
> Wrong book.  That's about something that went on at UCSD ten years
> later.

You are right! I was following the tangential thread instead of the base 
thread. It didn't occur to me that there would be two accounts.

Thorp did field testing in 1961, much earlier than the "pie" people. My 
reading says it had 12 transistors, not that it makes that much difference. 
I can't tell what the thing was, the author calls it a computer, but, I 
would guess, for simplicity of discussion.  When the five transistors came 
up my first thought was an analog computer of some sort.

I believe a basic digital computer needs at least an algebraic add and a 
conditional jump to be what people think of as a computer today and I don't 
think that could be done with 12 transistors. 

0
Osmium
1/19/2016 2:32:42 PM
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:32:42 -0600
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:

> You are right! I was following the tangential thread instead of the base 
> thread. It didn't occur to me that there would be two accounts.
> 
> Thorp did field testing in 1961, much earlier than the "pie" people. My 
> reading says it had 12 transistors, not that it makes that much
> difference. I can't tell what the thing was, the author calls it a
> computer, but, I would guess, for simplicity of discussion.  When the
> five transistors came up my first thought was an analog computer of some
> sort.

	From the desriptions about pulsing as the ball went into each
octant and the final response being a tone representing an octant I'm
thinking it's something along the lines of an eight stage ring counter with
a decaying clock that's phase locked and tuned by the pulses. Even for
something that simple 12 transistors is pretty good going.

> I believe a basic digital computer needs at least an algebraic add and a 
> conditional jump to be what people think of as a computer today and I
> don't think that could be done with 12 transistors. 

	Quite so, I don't think this is anything we would consider a
computer now, but in the sense of being something that performed a
computation it was a computer - just not programmable or digital both of
which we assume these days but once had to be stated.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/
0
Ahem
1/19/2016 3:48:25 PM
"Michael Black" wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601172311120.26926@darkstar.example.org>
>>>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, M. John Matlaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The thing that piqued my interest was someone figuring out a way to 
>>>>>> increase
>>>>>> their chances in roulette.  Wouldn't have thought that possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/18/edward-thorp-father-of-wearable-computing/>
>>>>>>
>>>>> That wasn't really a computer, just a timer of some sort.
>>>>
>>>> It was certainly more than a simple stopwatch. It computed. So...
>>>>
>>> The article mentioned a specific number of transistors, I think five.
>>>
>>> You really can't do much with 5 transistors.
>>>
>>
>> Build a radio with  three.
>>
> Yes, but we were talking about "wearable computer".
>
> With five transistors, someone says it was 12 which is still really low,
> you could build 2.5 flip flops.

Oddly enough, you don't *have* to use flip-flops to be digital.  There were 
"counting" circuits, which were "stepwise". Just for fun I toyed with these 
for a while and had one working.  See p.607 of Frederick Terman's _Radio 
Engineering_ �1947.  That schematic is for vacuum tubes and uses a gas 
triode, which I don't recall as being part of the deal, but it's been a 
while.

I believe these circuits were actually used in the Eniac, perhaps mixed in 
with some flip-flops.  Google for <"counting circuits" eniac>.  Eniac was 
still digital, it was just not binary. To me, the "stepwise" qualifies it as 
digital.  The referenced page shows a convincing waveform drawing, which I 
don't have the patience to try to replicate. And I saw the waveform on a 
'scope in my palatial apartment.

0
Osmium
1/19/2016 10:37:05 PM
Hang  onto where first mention Thorpe the logics the clocks and look what you do,compute out the verse with clocked timings of the releases between other factors as time values deciding your logic,are you for real or exactly know this act?
0
Sbez (6)
3/4/2016 1:19:52 PM
On 2016-03-04, Sbez <Sbez742@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hang  onto where first mention Thorpe the logics the clocks and look
> what you do,compute out the verse with clocked timings of the releases
> between other factors as time values deciding your logic,are you for
> real or exactly know this act?

Is that supposed to be comprehensible English?

Are *you* for real?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
3/4/2016 4:24:39 PM
Reply: