Response on course design from James Sumner
[James is still having problems sending to the list, but has a good reply below. Tom] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Seeking help -- if you could design your ideal Computer/Information History course, what would you include? Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:11:34 +0100 From: James Sumner <james.sumner@manchester.ac.uk> To: members@sigcis.org Dear all What an excellent question -- and it's remarkable to see that the discussion very quickly worked its way round to early hardware and games. My first thought before seeing the follow-up messages was to give the students a task something like this: "It's 1951. The firm you work for has just announced an electronic digital computer -- the first to be offered for commercial sale. You have no established competition, but this also means you're promoting an unfamiliar idea. Many of the people you're trying to sell to are happy relying on human clerical labour or existing punched-card technology, which they see as cheap and reliable. And many people more generally don't have a clear sense of what 'electronic digital computer' means at all. "Your big opportunity to do something about this arrives with a major public exhibition on new science and technology of the future, to be hosted at [insert name of suitable big expo venue]. Your firm has been offered a prime space of [insert dimensions] for a display introducing computers to the public. Your task is to build the display. You have X weeks." This is loosely based on the situation facing the British firm Ferranti when it produced the Nimrod machine (http://www.goodeveca.net/nimrod/) for the 1951 Festival of Britain. There was not enough time to implement a full-scale working computer, and in any case there were questions about whether a complex machine would be either reliable enough or intelligible enough for public display. The engineers instead put together some relatively straightforward electronics to play a simple interactive game (Nim -- one step up from tic-tac-toe), and housed it in an enormous, imposing case. The result worked well enough for attracting column inches, but was judged a partial failure on the marketing side because it didn't lead people to find out more about fundamental computer concepts. The idea behind this kind of project, of course, is to play to the strengths of a class with a mixture of study backgrounds and skills. A clear understanding of the conceptual principles of digital information processing has to be present and correct, but there are avenues for taking the social history seriously -- what kind of promotional technique were conventional to 1950s audiences? What sections of the public would show up to this exhibition? Would it be wise to address possible labour fears? -- and for thinking about the practicalities of display, the style to aim for in any written materials, and the performance aspects of any demonstration involved. It might even rival "costumed battle on the front quad" if it could really be built, assuming the students followed Ferranti in going for the big-and-imposing spectacle approach. The main headache would be in determining what rules to play by on the practical construction. Insisting on only "materials that could have existed in 1951" would create major problems if rigorously enforced, and would focus a lot of time and attention on elements which would probably be most interesting to a small minority of students. Tolerating too much simulation, on the other hand, would defeat the key point that equipment was inherently unreliable, and that the question of whether digital automation was worthwhile or not was still a live one. Perhaps experienced replicationists might be able to advise here? All best James
On that note, after discussing with a friend of mine, the thought of sourcing nearly 17,500 vacuum tubes, many I which are no longer available seems to render the idea of rebuilding ENIAC somewhat remote. Unless Washington and Lee happens to have an entire warehouse full of tubes! (Stranger things have been known to happen.) Aron Levy I typed this with my thumbs. Please excuse my brevity. On Sep 30, 2013, at 12:11 AM, "Thomas Haigh" <thaigh@computer.org> wrote:
[James is still having problems sending to the list, but has a good reply below. Tom]
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Seeking help -- if you could design your ideal Computer/Information History course, what would you include? Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:11:34 +0100 From: James Sumner <james.sumner@manchester.ac.uk> To: members@sigcis.org
Dear all
What an excellent question -- and it's remarkable to see that the discussion very quickly worked its way round to early hardware and games. My first thought before seeing the follow-up messages was to give the students a task something like this:
"It's 1951. The firm you work for has just announced an electronic digital computer -- the first to be offered for commercial sale. You have no established competition, but this also means you're promoting an unfamiliar idea. Many of the people you're trying to sell to are happy relying on human clerical labour or existing punched-card technology, which they see as cheap and reliable. And many people more generally don't have a clear sense of what 'electronic digital computer' means at all.
"Your big opportunity to do something about this arrives with a major public exhibition on new science and technology of the future, to be hosted at [insert name of suitable big expo venue]. Your firm has been offered a prime space of [insert dimensions] for a display introducing computers to the public. Your task is to build the display. You have X weeks."
This is loosely based on the situation facing the British firm Ferranti when it produced the Nimrod machine (http://www.goodeveca.net/nimrod/) for the 1951 Festival of Britain. There was not enough time to implement a full-scale working computer, and in any case there were questions about whether a complex machine would be either reliable enough or intelligible enough for public display. The engineers instead put together some relatively straightforward electronics to play a simple interactive game (Nim -- one step up from tic-tac-toe), and housed it in an enormous, imposing case. The result worked well enough for attracting column inches, but was judged a partial failure on the marketing side because it didn't lead people to find out more about fundamental computer concepts.
The idea behind this kind of project, of course, is to play to the strengths of a class with a mixture of study backgrounds and skills. A clear understanding of the conceptual principles of digital information processing has to be present and correct, but there are avenues for taking the social history seriously -- what kind of promotional technique were conventional to 1950s audiences? What sections of the public would show up to this exhibition? Would it be wise to address possible labour fears? -- and for thinking about the practicalities of display, the style to aim for in any written materials, and the performance aspects of any demonstration involved.
It might even rival "costumed battle on the front quad" if it could really be built, assuming the students followed Ferranti in going for the big-and-imposing spectacle approach.
The main headache would be in determining what rules to play by on the practical construction. Insisting on only "materials that could have existed in 1951" would create major problems if rigorously enforced, and would focus a lot of time and attention on elements which would probably be most interesting to a small minority of students. Tolerating too much simulation, on the other hand, would defeat the key point that equipment was inherently unreliable, and that the question of whether digital automation was worthwhile or not was still a live one. Perhaps experienced replicationists might be able to advise here?
All best James
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
There are Russian companies who would be glad to supply you with brand new vacuum tubes. However, buy extras: my experience has been mixed with these sources! I needed to replace a tube in the four-channel plug-in for my Tektronix 561A oscilloscope (late 1960s). After trying three tubes, I found one that worked. Good thing they sold them in lots of five. Caveat emptor -- Ian King On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Aron Levy <aronpublic@gmail.com> wrote:
On that note, after discussing with a friend of mine, the thought of sourcing nearly 17,500 vacuum tubes, many I which are no longer available seems to render the idea of rebuilding ENIAC somewhat remote.
Unless Washington and Lee happens to have an entire warehouse full of tubes! (Stranger things have been known to happen.)
Aron Levy
I typed this with my thumbs. Please excuse my brevity.
On Sep 30, 2013, at 12:11 AM, "Thomas Haigh" <thaigh@computer.org> wrote:
[James is still having problems sending to the list, but has a good reply below. Tom]
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Seeking help -- if you could design your ideal Computer/Information History course, what would you include? Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:11:34 +0100 From: James Sumner <james.sumner@manchester.ac.uk> To: members@sigcis.org
Dear all
What an excellent question -- and it's remarkable to see that the discussion very quickly worked its way round to early hardware and games. My first thought before seeing the follow-up messages was to give the students a task something like this:
"It's 1951. The firm you work for has just announced an electronic digital computer -- the first to be offered for commercial sale. You have no established competition, but this also means you're promoting an unfamiliar idea. Many of the people you're trying to sell to are happy relying on human clerical labour or existing punched-card technology, which they see as cheap and reliable. And many people more generally don't have a clear sense of what 'electronic digital computer' means at all.
"Your big opportunity to do something about this arrives with a major public exhibition on new science and technology of the future, to be hosted at [insert name of suitable big expo venue]. Your firm has been offered a prime space of [insert dimensions] for a display introducing computers to the public. Your task is to build the display. You have X weeks."
This is loosely based on the situation facing the British firm Ferranti when it produced the Nimrod machine (http://www.goodeveca.net/nimrod/) for the 1951 Festival of Britain. There was not enough time to implement a full-scale working computer, and in any case there were questions about whether a complex machine would be either reliable enough or intelligible enough for public display. The engineers instead put together some relatively straightforward electronics to play a simple interactive game (Nim -- one step up from tic-tac-toe), and housed it in an enormous, imposing case. The result worked well enough for attracting column inches, but was judged a partial failure on the marketing side because it didn't lead people to find out more about fundamental computer concepts.
The idea behind this kind of project, of course, is to play to the strengths of a class with a mixture of study backgrounds and skills. A clear understanding of the conceptual principles of digital information processing has to be present and correct, but there are avenues for taking the social history seriously -- what kind of promotional technique were conventional to 1950s audiences? What sections of the public would show up to this exhibition? Would it be wise to address possible labour fears? -- and for thinking about the practicalities of display, the style to aim for in any written materials, and the performance aspects of any demonstration involved.
It might even rival "costumed battle on the front quad" if it could really be built, assuming the students followed Ferranti in going for the big-and-imposing spectacle approach.
The main headache would be in determining what rules to play by on the practical construction. Insisting on only "materials that could have existed in 1951" would create major problems if rigorously enforced, and would focus a lot of time and attention on elements which would probably be most interesting to a small minority of students. Tolerating too much simulation, on the other hand, would defeat the key point that equipment was inherently unreliable, and that the question of whether digital automation was worthwhile or not was still a live one. Perhaps experienced replicationists might be able to advise here?
All best James
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
-- Ian S. King, MSCS ('06, Washington) Ph.D. Student The Information School University of Washington "Be yourself, everyone else is already taken." - Oscar Wilde
Contact William Donzelli (eBay seller ‘toober’). There are LOTS of WWII era NOS tubes still available and he knows where they all are. On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Aron Levy <aronpublic@gmail.com> wrote: On that note, after discussing with a friend of mine, the thought of sourcing nearly 17,500 vacuum tubes, many I which are no longer available seems to render the idea of rebuilding ENIAC somewhat remote.
And after you buy the 17000 + tubes, really step up to the challenge to get this done in your time frame unlike normal common people taking 4 or 5 times as long. If you get that done Annals will want to publish a lead article by you and I'll get all 60,000 members of the IEEE to download it and cite it in their publications so that your citations count makes you a rock star on your campus. I am sure Paul Ceruzzi will want to exhibit it at the Smithsonian and since Martin Campbell-Kelly as a rightfully a proud Brit will want another built and exhibited at his campus or at the fancy science museum in London. This project has the potential of making your career. Cheers!! On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Ian S. King <isking@uw.edu> wrote:
There are Russian companies who would be glad to supply you with brand new vacuum tubes. However, buy extras: my experience has been mixed with these sources! I needed to replace a tube in the four-channel plug-in for my Tektronix 561A oscilloscope (late 1960s). After trying three tubes, I found one that worked. Good thing they sold them in lots of five. Caveat emptor -- Ian King
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Aron Levy <aronpublic@gmail.com> wrote:
On that note, after discussing with a friend of mine, the thought of sourcing nearly 17,500 vacuum tubes, many I which are no longer available seems to render the idea of rebuilding ENIAC somewhat remote.
Unless Washington and Lee happens to have an entire warehouse full of tubes! (Stranger things have been known to happen.)
Aron Levy
I typed this with my thumbs. Please excuse my brevity.
On Sep 30, 2013, at 12:11 AM, "Thomas Haigh" <thaigh@computer.org> wrote:
[James is still having problems sending to the list, but has a good reply below. Tom]
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Seeking help -- if you could design your ideal Computer/Information History course, what would you include? Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:11:34 +0100 From: James Sumner <james.sumner@manchester.ac.uk> To: members@sigcis.org
Dear all
What an excellent question -- and it's remarkable to see that the discussion very quickly worked its way round to early hardware and games. My first thought before seeing the follow-up messages was to give the students a task something like this:
"It's 1951. The firm you work for has just announced an electronic digital computer -- the first to be offered for commercial sale. You have no established competition, but this also means you're promoting an unfamiliar idea. Many of the people you're trying to sell to are happy relying on human clerical labour or existing punched-card technology, which they see as cheap and reliable. And many people more generally don't have a clear sense of what 'electronic digital computer' means at all.
"Your big opportunity to do something about this arrives with a major public exhibition on new science and technology of the future, to be hosted at [insert name of suitable big expo venue]. Your firm has been offered a prime space of [insert dimensions] for a display introducing computers to the public. Your task is to build the display. You have X weeks."
This is loosely based on the situation facing the British firm Ferranti when it produced the Nimrod machine (http://www.goodeveca.net/nimrod/) for the 1951 Festival of Britain. There was not enough time to implement a full-scale working computer, and in any case there were questions about whether a complex machine would be either reliable enough or intelligible enough for public display. The engineers instead put together some relatively straightforward electronics to play a simple interactive game (Nim -- one step up from tic-tac-toe), and housed it in an enormous, imposing case. The result worked well enough for attracting column inches, but was judged a partial failure on the marketing side because it didn't lead people to find out more about fundamental computer concepts.
The idea behind this kind of project, of course, is to play to the strengths of a class with a mixture of study backgrounds and skills. A clear understanding of the conceptual principles of digital information processing has to be present and correct, but there are avenues for taking the social history seriously -- what kind of promotional technique were conventional to 1950s audiences? What sections of the public would show up to this exhibition? Would it be wise to address possible labour fears? -- and for thinking about the practicalities of display, the style to aim for in any written materials, and the performance aspects of any demonstration involved.
It might even rival "costumed battle on the front quad" if it could really be built, assuming the students followed Ferranti in going for the big-and-imposing spectacle approach.
The main headache would be in determining what rules to play by on the practical construction. Insisting on only "materials that could have existed in 1951" would create major problems if rigorously enforced, and would focus a lot of time and attention on elements which would probably be most interesting to a small minority of students. Tolerating too much simulation, on the other hand, would defeat the key point that equipment was inherently unreliable, and that the question of whether digital automation was worthwhile or not was still a live one. Perhaps experienced replicationists might be able to advise here?
All best James
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
-- Ian S. King, MSCS ('06, Washington) Ph.D. Student The Information School University of Washington
"Be yourself, everyone else is already taken." - Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
-- James W. Cortada Senior Research Fellow Charles Babbage Institute University of Minnesota jcortada@umn.edu 608-274-6382
I'd disagree: any 'proud Brit' would replicate the EDSAC - oh waitaminute, TNMOC is doing that! :-) The last time I was there (beginning of February) they showed me some bent tin and electronic components, but I understand they have some working functional units completed (I think that's been discussed here). That's only 3,000 vacuum tubes (excuse me, valves - it's a UK project). Of course, getting the mercury delay lines approved by modern environmental agencies would likely take longer than actually constructing the remainder of the machine. The other thing they showed me last time I was there was the running WITCH. I like these people. Functional technological artifacts are the primary sources of the history of computer technology. And if you don't have the original, how about a *physical* emulation, like the EDSAC project? It just makes me feel good. :-) -- Ian On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 5:20 PM, James Cortada <jcortada@umn.edu> wrote:
And after you buy the 17000 + tubes, really step up to the challenge to get this done in your time frame unlike normal common people taking 4 or 5 times as long. If you get that done Annals will want to publish a lead article by you and I'll get all 60,000 members of the IEEE to download it and cite it in their publications so that your citations count makes you a rock star on your campus. I am sure Paul Ceruzzi will want to exhibit it at the Smithsonian and since Martin Campbell-Kelly as a rightfully a proud Brit will want another built and exhibited at his campus or at the fancy science museum in London.
This project has the potential of making your career.
Cheers!!
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Ian S. King <isking@uw.edu> wrote:
There are Russian companies who would be glad to supply you with brand new vacuum tubes. However, buy extras: my experience has been mixed with these sources! I needed to replace a tube in the four-channel plug-in for my Tektronix 561A oscilloscope (late 1960s). After trying three tubes, I found one that worked. Good thing they sold them in lots of five. Caveat emptor -- Ian King
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Aron Levy <aronpublic@gmail.com> wrote:
On that note, after discussing with a friend of mine, the thought of sourcing nearly 17,500 vacuum tubes, many I which are no longer available seems to render the idea of rebuilding ENIAC somewhat remote.
Unless Washington and Lee happens to have an entire warehouse full of tubes! (Stranger things have been known to happen.)
Aron Levy
I typed this with my thumbs. Please excuse my brevity.
On Sep 30, 2013, at 12:11 AM, "Thomas Haigh" <thaigh@computer.org> wrote:
[James is still having problems sending to the list, but has a good reply below. Tom]
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Seeking help -- if you could design your ideal Computer/Information History course, what would you include? Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:11:34 +0100 From: James Sumner <james.sumner@manchester.ac.uk> To: members@sigcis.org
Dear all
What an excellent question -- and it's remarkable to see that the discussion very quickly worked its way round to early hardware and games. My first thought before seeing the follow-up messages was to give the students a task something like this:
"It's 1951. The firm you work for has just announced an electronic digital computer -- the first to be offered for commercial sale. You have no established competition, but this also means you're promoting an unfamiliar idea. Many of the people you're trying to sell to are happy relying on human clerical labour or existing punched-card technology, which they see as cheap and reliable. And many people more generally don't have a clear sense of what 'electronic digital computer' means at all.
"Your big opportunity to do something about this arrives with a major public exhibition on new science and technology of the future, to be hosted at [insert name of suitable big expo venue]. Your firm has been offered a prime space of [insert dimensions] for a display introducing computers to the public. Your task is to build the display. You have X weeks."
This is loosely based on the situation facing the British firm Ferranti when it produced the Nimrod machine (http://www.goodeveca.net/nimrod/) for the 1951 Festival of Britain. There was not enough time to implement a full-scale working computer, and in any case there were questions about whether a complex machine would be either reliable enough or intelligible enough for public display. The engineers instead put together some relatively straightforward electronics to play a simple interactive game (Nim -- one step up from tic-tac-toe), and housed it in an enormous, imposing case. The result worked well enough for attracting column inches, but was judged a partial failure on the marketing side because it didn't lead people to find out more about fundamental computer concepts.
The idea behind this kind of project, of course, is to play to the strengths of a class with a mixture of study backgrounds and skills. A clear understanding of the conceptual principles of digital information processing has to be present and correct, but there are avenues for taking the social history seriously -- what kind of promotional technique were conventional to 1950s audiences? What sections of the public would show up to this exhibition? Would it be wise to address possible labour fears? -- and for thinking about the practicalities of display, the style to aim for in any written materials, and the performance aspects of any demonstration involved.
It might even rival "costumed battle on the front quad" if it could really be built, assuming the students followed Ferranti in going for the big-and-imposing spectacle approach.
The main headache would be in determining what rules to play by on the practical construction. Insisting on only "materials that could have existed in 1951" would create major problems if rigorously enforced, and would focus a lot of time and attention on elements which would probably be most interesting to a small minority of students. Tolerating too much simulation, on the other hand, would defeat the key point that equipment was inherently unreliable, and that the question of whether digital automation was worthwhile or not was still a live one. Perhaps experienced replicationists might be able to advise here?
All best James
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
-- Ian S. King, MSCS ('06, Washington) Ph.D. Student The Information School University of Washington
"Be yourself, everyone else is already taken." - Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
-- James W. Cortada Senior Research Fellow Charles Babbage Institute University of Minnesota jcortada@umn.edu 608-274-6382
-- Ian S. King, MSCS ('06, Washington) Ph.D. Student The Information School University of Washington "Be yourself, everyone else is already taken." - Oscar Wilde
participants (5)
-
Al Kossow -
Aron Levy -
Ian S. King -
James Cortada -
Thomas Haigh