Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [cosmacelf] Re: CDP1806ACE - ISA Standard committee

Expand Messages
  • David Keith
    email truncated the embedded image, this time with the image attached ________________________________ From: David Keith To:
    Message 1 of 25 , Apr 13 5:39 PM
    email truncated the embedded image, this time with the image attached


    From: David Keith <beloved_wind@...>
    To: "cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com" <cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com>
    Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 7:42 PM
    Subject: Re: [cosmacelf] Re: CDP1806ACE - ISA Standard committee

    Very Interesting Bobby,

    I too am interested in Retro Vintage Logic, I have a long term project to rebuild the ALU logic in the Atanasoff–Berry Computer (ABC). It is mainly Resistor-Triode Logic, but I have created some retro-50s artwork that you may like, it is either 8 AOI Gates or 4 FFs with Neon lamp output, depending on how I place the components.


    There is Art in all things
    Dave


    From: country_robot <rlnansel@...>
    To: cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com
    Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:34 AM
    Subject: [cosmacelf] Re: CDP1806ACE - ISA Standard committee



    I know this may seem esoteric, but I'm operating under a different technical regime -- an aesthetic one, to be accurate.  I want to create an 180X-upward-compatible design that a (perhaps gifted) computer hobbyist could have designed and built circa 1983-1984. I'm a sculptor, so the point of this is explicitly artistic, and I have a set of rules I'm following. The rules don't have to make sense for here and now, but they do have to make at least some sense for the target era.

    In simplest terms, if the part wasn't in data books and available for sale to mere mortals in that period, then I'm not using it. The computer is going to be used to control a retro-robot sculpture, also designed under this same rule.

    In the long term I'm sculpting a whole series of robots that I call (rather unimaginatively) Twentieth Century Robots, each of the robots set within what I find to be an interesting time period roughly corresponding to each decade of the twentieth century. Last year I built the mechanical shell of a retrobot set in the sixties, and next year I'm building one firmly set in the fifties (complete with electron valve electronics). This year I'm doing a robot straddling 1975-1985, hence the 1802 focus.

    For each of these robots in this series I also create ancillary artefacts to go with the installation, things such as photos and documentation, even creating a fictional builder with a back story to explain why he/she went to all the trouble. The psychology of the builder and his/her goals are just as important as the technology involved.

    Each robot will technically function properly, in some sense, but perhaps not as well as the fictional builder might have hoped.

    Anyway, like I said, it's an aesthetic thing.

    -Bobby


    --- In cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com, David Keith <beloved_wind@...> wrote:
    >
    > I admit,   I was quite taken back when this 1802 ALU serialization was brought back into the light again.  But future implementations of the 1802 Instruction Set does not have to use this technique.  I proposed the ISA committee so we as a group of 1802 assembler programmers can have a common future version to use and share program.  There are many ways to implement it, and several have already been done by this group. I believe even Lee suggested implementing an 1802 using fet transistors :-)  a month or so back.  But what matters is that we have a standard expanded set of instructions that would ease certain programming issues.  
    > -- David Keith






  • William Donnelly
    Yeah. I didn t frame my Elf2K board like I threatened to, but it s sitting here on my desk as a piece of art at the moment. – Bill ... {snip} Yeah. I didn t
    Message 2 of 25 , Apr 13 5:59 PM
      Yeah.
      I didn't frame my Elf2K board like I threatened to, but it's sitting here on my desk
      as a piece of art at the moment.

      – Bill


      On 4/13/2013 4:42 PM, David Keith wrote:
       
      {snip}

    • jdrose_8_bit
      ... Sounds wonderful.
      Message 3 of 25 , Apr 13 6:18 PM
        --- In cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com, "urrossum@..." <mark@...> wrote:
        >
        > All of these sound like great ideas. In my mind, one could keep verbatim the existing instruction set, but just speed it the heck up
        >
        > How about a 50 MHz 1802, with every instruction only taking one clock cycle?
        >
        >

        Sounds wonderful.
      • David Keith
        Lee, The ABC was amazing for it s time. They did not get credit for being the first electronic computer until much later.  I have attached two circuit diagram
        Message 4 of 25 , Apr 14 7:10 AM
        Lee,

        The ABC was amazing for it's time. They did not get credit for being the first electronic computer until much later.  I have attached two circuit diagram which I am not following exactly for my PCB layout.  I'm trying to do it with one VCC source and ground, so I may have to redo the PCB if my prototyping of the circuit fails.  Using a PCB is me just being lazy, I am not worried about an exact replica, someone else has already done that.  They do make 9 pin PCB tube sockets that hold the 12AU7 tubes about 3/8 inch above the board for cooling. However, I am concern with the thickness of the power supply leads, so they are both on both top & bottom layers. 

        --David Keith


        From: Lee Hart <leeahart@...>
        To: beloved_wind@...
        Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:03 AM
        Subject: Re: [cosmacelf] Re: CDP1806ACE - ISA Standard committee

        David Keith <beloved_wind@...> wrote:
        > Atanasoff–Berry Computer...

        This is amazing! I had never heard of this computer before. It is quite
        a remarkable invention, and way ahead of its time.

        The circuit board you showed: Where did you find the circuit diagrams of
        it? Are you building a reproduction of the ABC? Are you worried that
        PCBs weren't invented at the time, and in fact don't work all that well
        with tubes (because the heat of the tubes tends to damage the board and
        solder joints).

        --
        If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?
            -- Albert Einstein
        --
        Lee A. Hart, http://www.sunrise-ev.com/LeesEVs.htm




      • ajparent1
        ... the power as in plate voltage is low and in the milliamps area. the killer is the heater power as even at 12.6V that .15A per tube. Put ten of them on the
        Message 5 of 25 , Apr 14 8:30 AM
          --- In cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com, David Keith <beloved_wind@...> wrote:
          >
          > Lee,
          >
          >
          > The ABC was amazing for it's time. They did not get credit for being the first electronic computer until much later.  I have attached two circuit diagram which I am not following exactly for my PCB layout.  I'm trying to do it with one VCC source and ground, so I may have to redo the PCB if my prototyping of the circuit fails.  Using a PCB is me just being lazy, I am not worried about an exact replica, someone else has already done that.  They do make 9 pin PCB tube sockets that hold the 12AU7 tubes about 3/8 inch above the board for cooling. However, I am concern with the thickness of the power supply leads, so they are both on both top & bottom layers. 
          >
          >

          the power as in plate voltage is low and in the milliamps area.

          the killer is the heater power as even at 12.6V that .15A per tube.
          Put ten of them on the board and the lines need to be large enough for 1.5A. G10 board will tolerate the heat fine with good airflow.

          Cooling, fans are a great idea. you want to remove the heat as
          tubes themselves were fairly reliable but the heat could cook the local electronics (caps, resistors, and the like.) Orienting the board so the tubes are horizontal and the board vertical with good airflow upward (fan forced will help) can mtigate the heat things.
          build strong (use 2W resistor where 1W will work).

          If you have never worked with tubes, two things running them at 12.3V
          (tightly regulated) will greatly increase life especially if you bring them up slowly. Power cycling them tends to kill the heater.

          The other item is they do not like to be sitting at cutoff for long periods of time (cumulative days) as that poisons the cathode and emission goes down. There were special variants that were more tolerant of that.

          Doing a functional tube computer in this day is very possible.
          I understand a British group rebuilt and flat out made a copy of
          one of the code breaking machines (tubes).

          Allison



          > --David Keith
          >
          >
          >
          > ________________________________
          > From: Lee Hart <leeahart@...>
          > To: beloved_wind@...
          > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:03 AM
          > Subject: Re: [cosmacelf] Re: CDP1806ACE - ISA Standard committee
          >
          >
          > David Keith <beloved_wind@...> wrote:
          > > Atanasoffâ€"Berry Computer...
          >
          > This is amazing! I had never heard of this computer before. It is quite
          > a remarkable invention, and way ahead of its time.
          >
          > The circuit board you showed: Where did you find the circuit diagrams of
          > it? Are you building a reproduction of the ABC? Are you worried that
          > PCBs weren't invented at the time, and in fact
          > don't work all that well
          > with tubes (because the heat of the tubes tends to damage the board and
          > solder joints).
          >
          > --
          > If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?
          >     -- Albert Einstein
          > --
          > Lee A. Hart, http://www.sunrise-ev.com/LeesEVs.htm
          >
        • jdrose_8_bit
          ... What are the differences between regular 2N2222 transistors and Field Effect transistors when implementing logic gates?
          Message 6 of 25 , Apr 17 6:14 PM
            > --- In cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com, David Keith
            >
            > I proposed the ISA committee so we as a group of 1802
            > assembler programmers can have a common future version to use and share.
            >
            > There are many ways to implement it, and several have already
            > been done by this group. I believe even Lee suggested implementing an
            > 1802 using fet transistors :-) a month or so back.
            >

            What are the differences between "regular" 2N2222 transistors and Field Effect transistors when implementing logic gates?
          • Lee Hart
            ... Quite a bit! Bipolar transistors are current-controlled; a current into the base (at negligible voltage) turns them on. FETs (including MOSFETs) are
            Message 7 of 25 , Apr 17 7:21 PM
              On 4/17/2013 8:14 PM, jdrose_8_bit wrote:
              >
              >> --- In cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com, David Keith
              >>
              >> I proposed the ISA committee so we as a group of 1802
              >> assembler programmers can have a common future version to use and share.
              >>
              >> There are many ways to implement it, and several have already
              >> been done by this group. I believe even Lee suggested implementing an
              >> 1802 using fet transistors :-) a month or so back.
              >>
              >
              > What are the differences between "regular" 2N2222 transistors and Field Effect transistors when implementing logic gates?

              Quite a bit! Bipolar transistors are current-controlled; a current into
              the base (at negligible voltage) turns them on. FETs (including MOSFETs)
              are voltage-controlled; a voltage into the gate (at negligible current)
              turns them on.

              You can built the same sort of circuits with either type, but the
              details of the circuit are quite different. Compare the internal
              schematic for a bipolar gate (7400 etc.) which is built with bipolar
              transistors, to that of a CMOS gate (4011 etc. built with MOSFETs. (The
              internal circuits are on the older data sheets.)

              If you wanted to build an 1802 from individual transistors, n-channel
              and p-channel MOSFETs would work with exactly the same circuits used in
              the 1802. The MOSFETs would cost you around 5-10 cents each.

              If you wanted to build an 1802 with bipolar transistors, you would have
              to replace each type of gate (inverter, NAND, NOR, flip-flop, etc.) with
              its equivalent bipolar circuit. It would wind up requiring more
              transistors and be faster; but use more power. Bipolar transistors are
              3-5 cents each, but you'd need more of them so the price probably comes
              out about the same.

              Either way, it would be a major project; like building a model Eiffel
              tower out of toothpicks. :-)

              --
              If you would not be forgotten
              When your body's dead and rotten
              Then write of great deeds worth the reading
              Or do these great deeds, worth repeating.
              -- Ben Franklin, from Poor Richard's Almanac
              --
              Lee A. Hart, http://www.sunrise-ev.com/LeesEVs.htm
            • David Keith
              A couple months ago I was recovering from double knee replacements (6 weeks apart) I had a lot of time on my hands that I could not work, I have been doing a
              Message 8 of 25 , Apr 17 9:19 PM
              A couple months ago I was recovering from double knee replacements (6 weeks apart) I had a lot of time on my hands that I could not work,  I have been doing a lot experimenting with Diode Transistor Logic for a while now, so I decided to design a PCB and have some madeDTL is much easier and cost effective than a pure transistor circuit.  I decided to redesign an IBM SMS card using today's discreet components LOL.(I was on some very good drugs)  The original only SMS card I have contained 6 NAND circuits, while my new design uses 48 AOI (and-or-invert) gates (I prefer AOIs because I can design much tighter logic, with much less transistors). I have attached several pictures, of comparing the SMS basic form to my AOI board.  With another with a card almost populated, The last is the layout showing a 1 bit-slice CPU with 8 registers, full functional ALU (74181 equivalent), and data register to memory interface.  Overall it was just something to do that was not work related.  I plan to populate a board a month to get an 8-bit CPU/ALU core.

              --David Keith


              From: Lee Hart <leeahart@...>

              On 4/17/2013 8:14 PM, jdrose_8_bit wrote:
              >
              >> --- In cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com, David Keith
              >>
              >>  I proposed the ISA committee so we as a group of 1802
              >> assembler programmers can have a common future version to use and share.
              >>
              >>  There are many ways to implement it, and several have already
              >> been done by this group. I believe even Lee suggested implementing an
              >> 1802 using fet transistors :-)  a month or so back.

              >> What are the differences between "regular" 2N2222 transistors and Field Effect transistors when implementing logic gates?

              >You can built the same sort of circuits with either type, but the
              >details of the circuit are quite different. Compare the internal
              >schematic for a bipolar gate (7400 etc.) which is built with bipolar
              >transistors, to that of a CMOS gate (4011 etc. built with MOSFETs. (The
              >internal circuits are on the older data sheets.)

              >If you wanted to build an 1802 from individual transistors, n-channel
              >and p-channel MOSFETs would work with exactly the same circuits used in
              >the 1802. The MOSFETs would cost you around 5-10 cents each.

              >If you wanted to build an 1802 with bipolar transistors, you would have
              >to replace each type of gate (inverter, NAND, NOR, flip-flop, etc.) with
              >its equivalent bipolar circuit. It would wind up requiring more
              >transistors and be faster; but use more power. Bipolar transistors are
              >3-5 cents each, but you'd need more of them so the price probably comes
              >out about the same.


              --
            • bill rowe
              Keith: what does the card do? To: cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com From: beloved_wind@yahoo.com Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:19:46 -0700 Subject: Re: [cosmacelf] Re:
              Message 9 of 25 , Apr 18 4:55 AM
                Keith: what does the card do?


                To: cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com
                From: beloved_wind@...
                Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:19:46 -0700
                Subject: Re: [cosmacelf] Re: 2N2222 ++ 1N914 DTL (off topic) [4 Attachments]

                 
                [Attachment(s) from David Keith included below]
                A couple months ago I was recovering from double knee replacements (6 weeks apart) I had a lot of time on my hands that I could not work,  I have been doing a lot experimenting with Diode Transistor Logic for a while now, so I decided to design a PCB and have some madeDTL is much easier and cost effective than a pure transistor circuit.  I decided to redesign an IBM SMS card using today's discreet components LOL.(I was on some very good drugs)  The original only SMS card I have contained 6 NAND circuits, while my new design uses 48 AOI (and-or-invert) gates (I prefer AOIs because I can design much tighter logic, with much less transistors). I have attached several pictures, of comparing the SMS basic form to my AOI board.  With another with a card almost populated, The last is the layout showing a 1 bit-slice CPU with 8 registers, full functional ALU (74181 equivalent), and data register to memory interface.  Overall it was just something to do that was not work related.  I plan to populate a board a month to get an 8-bit CPU/ALU core.

                --David Keith


                From: Lee Hart <leeahart@...>

                On 4/17/2013 8:14 PM, jdrose_8_bit wrote:
                >
                >> --- In cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com, David Keith
                >>
                >>  I proposed the ISA committee so we as a group of 1802
                >> assembler programmers can have a common future version to use and share.
                >>
                >>  There are many ways to implement it, and several have already
                >> been done by this group. I believe even Lee suggested implementing an
                >> 1802 using fet transistors :-)  a month or so back.

                >> What are the differences between "regular" 2N2222 transistors and Field Effect transistors when implementing logic gates?

                >You can built the same sort of circuits with either type, but the
                >details of the circuit are quite different. Compare the internal
                >schematic for a bipolar gate (7400 etc.) which is built with bipolar
                >transistors, to that of a CMOS gate (4011 etc. built with MOSFETs. (The
                >internal circuits are on the older data sheets.)

                >If you wanted to build an 1802 from individual transistors, n-channel
                >and p-channel MOSFETs would work with exactly the same circuits used in
                >the 1802. The MOSFETs would cost you around 5-10 cents each.

                >If you wanted to build an 1802 with bipolar transistors, you would have
                >to replace each type of gate (inverter, NAND, NOR, flip-flop, etc.) with
                >its equivalent bipolar circuit. It would wind up requiring more
                >transistors and be faster; but use more power. Bipolar transistors are
                >3-5 cents each, but you'd need more of them so the price probably comes
                >out about the same.


                --

              • jdrose_8_bit
                Thank you. Great explanation. I knew how bipolar transistors worked but FETs were a mystery to me.
                Message 10 of 25 , Apr 18 10:42 AM
                  Thank you. Great explanation. I knew how bipolar transistors worked but FETs were a mystery to me.

                  --- In cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com, Lee Hart <leeahart@...> wrote:

                  > >
                  > > What are the differences between "regular" 2N2222 transistors and Field Effect transistors when implementing logic gates?
                  >
                  > Quite a bit! Bipolar transistors are current-controlled; a current into
                  > the base (at negligible voltage) turns them on. FETs (including MOSFETs)
                  > are voltage-controlled; a voltage into the gate (at negligible current)
                  > turns them on.
                  >
                  > You can built the same sort of circuits with either type, but the
                  > details of the circuit are quite different. Compare the internal
                  > schematic for a bipolar gate (7400 etc.) which is built with bipolar
                  > transistors, to that of a CMOS gate (4011 etc. built with MOSFETs. (The
                  > internal circuits are on the older data sheets.)
                  >
                  > If you wanted to build an 1802 from individual transistors, n-channel
                  > and p-channel MOSFETs would work with exactly the same circuits used in
                  > the 1802. The MOSFETs would cost you around 5-10 cents each.
                  >
                  > If you wanted to build an 1802 with bipolar transistors, you would have
                  > to replace each type of gate (inverter, NAND, NOR, flip-flop, etc.) with
                  > its equivalent bipolar circuit. It would wind up requiring more
                  > transistors and be faster; but use more power. Bipolar transistors are
                  > 3-5 cents each, but you'd need more of them so the price probably comes
                  > out about the same.
                  >
                  > Either way, it would be a major project; like building a model Eiffel
                  > tower out of toothpicks. :-)
                  >
                  >
                  > Lee A. Hart, http://www.sunrise-ev.com/LeesEVs.htm
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.