[HN Gopher] The Switch: How the Telegraph, Telephone, and Radio ...
___________________________________________________________________
The Switch: How the Telegraph, Telephone, and Radio Created the
Computer
Author : cfmcdonald
Score : 17 points
Date : 2021-05-27 18:38 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (technicshistory.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (technicshistory.com)
| Animats wrote:
| Nah. The computer was created as a follow-on to the IBM 601.[1]
|
| There's a whole line of development, the IBM 600 series, which
| gets no respect in computer history, yet led to the first mass
| produced business computers.
|
| IBM 601 (1939). IBM's first multiplier. All electromechanical.
| Punched cards in and out.
|
| IBM 602 (1946, World War II stalled development)
| Electromechanical. Added division. 6 memory locations.
|
| IBM 603 (1946, project resumed from 1937) Vacuum tube version of
| the 602. At last, electronics. Only about 20 made.
|
| IBM 604 (1948) A bigger, better 603. 5600 manufactured. First
| electronic computing product produced in volume. Things are
| getting serious. There are now one-off larger electronic
| computers, but they're too expensive for commercial use.
|
| IBM CPC. (1949) An IBM 604 or 605, cabled up to several other IBM
| tabulating machines, allowed programming via punched cards
| instead of plugboards. About 2500 made.
|
| IBM 650 (1953) Knuth's first computer. Tube computing, drum
| memory. This was a real general purpose computer, and the first
| one made in quantity. About 2000 made. Lots of accessories
| available - printers, card readers, card punches, and, in 1956,
| disks. Now we're getting somewhere.
|
| IBM 608 (1955) A successor to the 604/CPC line, made with
| transistors.
|
| That was the end of the IBM 600 line. Next was the IBM 1401
| (1959), which was a quite good computer. Over 10,000 made. The
| mainstay of business computing in the 1960s.
|
| These boring but useful 600 series machines were cost-effective,
| worked well, and sold well. IBM also did expensive one-offs and
| low-volume systems, as the 700 series (701 through 7094) that
| were more bleeding edge. Most early ones were for government-
| related "supercomputer" customers.
|
| In 1964, IBM announced the IBM System/360, which brought together
| the "supercomputer" 700 line and the workhorse 600 series. That
| lives on today as the IBM Z-series.
|
| And that's how computers became a volume product.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_601
| cfmcdonald wrote:
| Author here. Sure, there are lots of ways to tell the history
| of computers, because lots of different lines of development
| fed into their creation. I hint at this in the prologue.
|
| But I chose to highlight one particular aspect (the origins of
| the basic components used to build digital computers - relays,
| tubes, and transistors). This naturally downplays the
| importance of IBM relative to other possible ways of telling
| the story. There's a mea culpa somewhere in the footnotes about
| the neglect of IBM.
| ghaff wrote:
| The switch theme is really interesting because I've been
| thinking about it in the context of quantum--qubits--
| recently. There's nothing really inherent that makes binary
| logic rather than ternary logic or analog inherently
| superior. It just turns out that making on-off switches has
| historically been relatively easy and cheap. I plan to read
| the book.
| Animats wrote:
| Binary logic is usually composed of analog amplifiers
| designed to quickly hit some upper limit and saturate. In
| the off state, little power is dissipated, because current
| flow is tiny. In the on state, little power is dissipated,
| because resistance is low. In between, the "linear region",
| is where heat is generated. The goal is usually to spend as
| little time in the linear region as possible.
| Animats wrote:
| On the basic component end, the history of early electronics
| was a search for gain. Modern components have so much gain
| you can throw much of it away to make digital switches or
| negative feedback amplifiers. Early electronics struggled to
| get enough gain to drive headphones. Lack of good amplifiers
| limited the range of long distance telephones.
|
| There's a whole history of forgotten attempts to get some
| gain. Edison's electromotograph. (See if you can find out how
| that works. Edison discovered variable friction depending on
| electric current, but the physics wasn't understood until the
| 1960s or so.) A speaker driver pushing against a carbon
| microphone (early Bell System long distance). Higher power
| devices included magnetic amplifiers (the UNIVAC Solid State
| computer used those) and large Ward-Leonard drives, used for
| elevator control for many decades.
|
| There was a long struggle on the transmit side of radio to
| get gain at high power. The Alexanderson alternator, a high
| frequency AC generator, was the first real success. There's a
| long history of transmitting tubes, finally maxing out in
| radar systems for the DEW line that had tubes with their own
| vacuum pumps.
|
| Another kludge was the super-regenerative receiver, where
| positive feedback was used to run the same signal through the
| same stage more repeatedly. Noted for producing loud
| squealing sounds.
|
| There's also some history on the musical side. Look up the
| Teleharmonium, a musical instrument the size of a building.
| One was actually built. Lacking an amp, they had a sizable AC
| generator for each note. There's also the switchgear used in
| large pipe organs, with both electrical and pneumatic
| components. Those were workarounds for not having enough
| gain.
|
| We're spoiled today. You can hold the semiconductors used for
| controlling a locomotive's power in your hand. The first half
| of the 20th century, though, was a struggle to get enough
| gain to get anything done.
| [deleted]
| sandinmyjoints wrote:
| This whole series was fantastic. Highly recommend.
| robbrown451 wrote:
| The free sample at Amazon (the intro) is good enough I want to
| read it to my kid, who, being a half century younger than me, has
| experienced all this stuff so differently than I did.
|
| Great work, I hope the rest is as good as the intro.
| throwamon wrote:
| Can someone who has read both compare this to Code by Charles
| Petzold?
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer-Developer-Prac...
| cfmcdonald wrote:
| Author here. They are very different. Code (a fantastic book,
| by the way) is a _technical_ book that provides an introduction
| to how computers work from first principles. The Switch is a
| _historical_ book that describes how the switching components
| of the first computers evolved in a telecom context (starting
| from the birth of the telegraph), then were adapted for
| computing.
|
| There's a bit of crossover insofar as Code uses relays to build
| an understanding of how digital logic works and has a few brief
| historical asides. Likewise The Switch provides a few brief
| technical explanations to help the non-expert reader along. But
| in general The Switch will not tell you much about how
| computers work and Code will not tell you much about where they
| came from.
| solomonb wrote:
| I read this series a while back as it was being written.
|
| It is absolutely fantastic!
|
| As a ham radio person and a lifelong tinkerer, it is very
| exciting to read such a well thought out history computing as it
| relates to the telegraph, the telephone, radio, and the many
| tinkerers and experimenters of the past.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-28 23:01 UTC)