Author Topic: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?  (Read 29926 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9890
  • Country: us
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #50 on: November 08, 2018, 03:04:40 pm »
One has to remember the time when these books and articles were published........late 70s throughout the 80s.

Back in those days, the only way a young person would be able to gain technical knowledge was....was........gasp.....get ready for this......... reading books.
Well, there were Techical School night classes!

Actually, there weren't.  I graduated college in '73 and we were still using slide rules.  The HP 35 calculator came out in '72 - the first scientific calculator but not programmable.  I couldn't afford it at the time so I kept on using the 'slip stick'.  The HP 65 (3rd in series) introduced programmability.

The Intel 4004 uP came out in '72 but it wasn't widely adopted by the hobby community.  The 8008 came out in '72 as well and it became somewhat popular among those who built their own machines.  There were several memorable articles about these machines.  The 8080 came out in '74 and the Altair 8800B came out in early '75 and we were finally off to the races.  The Altair cost around $400 and so did qty 1 8080 chips.  Buy the chip or buy the machine - either way.

I started grad school in '75 and we had an 'Engineering Seminar' class the first semester.  For a topic, we chose microprocessors and we scrounged up every bit of data we could on the newly emerging processors.  A lot of paper writing that semester!

Electronics, at the uP level, was pretty much unheard of in the hobby community in those years.  Small computers, priced where an individual could afford them, just didn't happen until the Altair 8800B came out.

And then the hobby exploded!  Bill Gates offered up several incantations of Altair Basic but you had to buy MITS memory boards to qualify to buy Basic.  It was widely copied!  I have Bill Gates' column in the MITS newsletter complaining about people stealing his software.  Well, he got even for that!

I remember using paper tape and audio tapes.  I built a floppy controller board using the Western Digital 1771 chip and installed CP/M some time in '76.

Then in '80 along came UCSD Pascal - those were the days!

It's good to look back at where we came from.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14, tpowell1830

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9890
  • Country: us
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #51 on: November 08, 2018, 03:26:20 pm »
Quote
Byte Magazine and Dr. Dobb's Journal were about the only sources of information on a periodic basis and Don Lancaster's books were much more detailed.  As discussed above, they were wildly popular.
And here lies the problem, for some "Byte" and Don Lancaster  are sort off contemporary things.
It's really hard to grasp for the younger folks, how much world changed in the last 20 years.
Don started to write good 10 years before "Byte", to the common belief, yes, there was electronics before 1980's. ;D ;D ;D

Of course there was!  We had Heathkits when I was a kid.  The company was founded in 1926.

I built the 8W audio amplifier when I was about 12 ('57) and my dad and I build a shortwave radio from the ARRL handbook when I as about 10 - say around '55.  Popular Electronics was my favorite (and only) magazine. 

I've been fooling around with this stuff for a very long time.  But the explosion happened in '75.  An entire industry was created around Intel.  None of this stuff existed before '75.

I remember the transition from transistor logic to RTL to DTL to TTL and eventually CMOS.  A flip-flop used to take quite a bit of board space.  Now I can get a million in a chip the size of a postage stamp.

Don Lancaster had the exact skills necessary to help us along when this thing started up.  I don't do analog very much (other than analog computing) but I would certainly think his Active Filters book would be required reading.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9890
  • Country: us
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #52 on: November 08, 2018, 03:37:13 pm »
Despite the negative OP, this thread is fun!  A lot of us share a common history and it has been an amazing ride!
Imagine, a time before C ('72), a time when FORTRAN ('57) ruled the scientific community and COBOL ('60) was the language of choice for business.  Or maybe when Algol ('58) showed us the right way to program.

Imagine!  I was writing FORTRAN before C was invented!  How cool is that?

The last 50 years have been outrageous!  I wonder what comes next?
 
The following users thanked this post: AndersJ, MK14

Offline tpowell1830

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 863
  • Country: us
  • Peacefully retired from industry, active in life
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #53 on: November 08, 2018, 03:45:39 pm »
One has to remember the time when these books and articles were published........late 70s throughout the 80s.

Back in those days, the only way a young person would be able to gain technical knowledge was....was........gasp.....get ready for this......... reading books.
Well, there were Techical School night classes!

Actually, there weren't.  I graduated college in '73 and we were still using slide rules.  The HP 35 calculator came out in '72 - the first scientific calculator but not programmable.  I couldn't afford it at the time so I kept on using the 'slip stick'.  The HP 65 (3rd in series) introduced programmability.

The Intel 4004 uP came out in '72 but it wasn't widely adopted by the hobby community.  The 8008 came out in '72 as well and it became somewhat popular among those who built their own machines.  There were several memorable articles about these machines.  The 8080 came out in '74 and the Altair 8800B came out in early '75 and we were finally off to the races.  The Altair cost around $400 and so did qty 1 8080 chips.  Buy the chip or buy the machine - either way.

I started grad school in '75 and we had an 'Engineering Seminar' class the first semester.  For a topic, we chose microprocessors and we scrounged up every bit of data we could on the newly emerging processors.  A lot of paper writing that semester!

Electronics, at the uP level, was pretty much unheard of in the hobby community in those years.  Small computers, priced where an individual could afford them, just didn't happen until the Altair 8800B came out.

And then the hobby exploded!  Bill Gates offered up several incantations of Altair Basic but you had to buy MITS memory boards to qualify to buy Basic.  It was widely copied!  I have Bill Gates' column in the MITS newsletter complaining about people stealing his software.  Well, he got even for that!

I remember using paper tape and audio tapes.  I built a floppy controller board using the Western Digital 1771 chip and installed CP/M some time in '76.

Then in '80 along came UCSD Pascal - those were the days!

It's good to look back at where we came from.

Yes, this was the time of the engineers with pocket protectors and slide rule scabbards hanging from their belts. I started learning programming in the early '80s in BASIC and Pascal on CPM. I thought that I wanted to be a programmer but the world put me back on track into electronics.

This has no negativity towards the younger crowd here, but just an emphasis on the fact that so many changes in the electronics and computer world happened in this time and I was so very fortunate to be in the middle of it. To me, it was a very exciting time.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 08:50:14 pm by tpowell1830 »
PEACE===>T
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline rrinker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2046
  • Country: us
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #54 on: November 08, 2018, 03:56:52 pm »
 I'm not quite THAT old, but FORTRAN was my second high level language, after BASIC. And I even got to use it, post college, in my work environment, in the late 80's.
By the time I got my first computer, there were far fancier machines available, but all well beyond my Jr. High grass cutting budget, so I started with a small single board machine with direct machine language programming. And I'm glad I did, it's a perspective you don;t get these days where even your phone is a more powerful computer than any available back then. By the time I started college, the IBM PC was available, but hadn't quite taken off yet - that came the following year. Universities were in transition - one of my classes was in 8080 assembly programming, and it was done on S-100 bus 8080 systems with 8" floppy drives (not Altair or Imsai, not sure exactly who made them). By the time I gradated, the whole campus was networked, including all dorm rooms, AT class machines were common (I had an 8MHz XT clone with EGA video), and lots of other things. It was a time of more than exponential rate of change.
 I still have that first computer, and it still works. I showed it to my kids not too long ago, they are in their 20's. All they kept saying was "but what can it DO?" I remember enough of the opcodes for the processor to write some simple on/off blinky kind of things, but of course in the age of photorealistic rendered graphics in everything, they were of course not impressed. What can it do? Besides teach you where it all came from? I guess not much.... To not recognize that, I think, is a great tragedy.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline rhb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3483
  • Country: us
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #55 on: November 08, 2018, 04:26:48 pm »
Despite the negative OP, this thread is fun!  A lot of us share a common history and it has been an amazing ride!
Imagine, a time before C ('72), a time when FORTRAN ('57) ruled the scientific community and COBOL ('60) was the language of choice for business.  Or maybe when Algol ('58) showed us the right way to program.

Imagine!  I was writing FORTRAN before C was invented!  How cool is that?

The last 50 years have been outrageous!  I wonder what comes next?

I was thinking the same thing.  It took a while to find, but the discussion of front panel switches made me hunt down "Know Your System Administrator: A Field Guide".  This was always my favorite.

SITUATION: Root disk fails

    TECHNICAL THUG: Repairs drive. Usually is able to repair filesystem from boot monitor. Failing that, front-panel toggles microkernel in and starts script on neighboring machine to load binary boot code into broken machine, reformat and reinstall OS. Lets it run over the weekend while he goes mountain climbing.

I had the pleasure of knowing a geoscience department electronics tech, John Thorne, who recovered a PDP 11 for another department via a bit of front panel work in the late 80's.  He was rather pleased with himself as the alternative was a great deal of work and it's easy to mess up flipping switches.  But a very pleasant and modest person.  He designed and built the department mass spectrometer.  Put a "No Bozos" sticker on one of the rack panels.  He was rather mysterious about his past, but was good good friends with Joseph Carr, the RF author.  As best I could guess he had spent a good bit of time working for some 3 letter agency in the DC area and in the process got involved in something which upset him to the point he left and took to reading the Bible a lot.  He never mentioned the Bible, but he had one of those versions with 20 or 30 bookmarks built in in his office.

And of course, there's Mel Kaye.  At one job I formatted "The Story of Mel" as a man page so if a user typed "man mel" it came up in standard man page format.

I encountered FORTRAN in chemistry class in the fall of '71 and took my only computer course, WATFIV, a few years later.  I later suffered with BASIC on the Vic20 until I got a forth ROM cartridge.  Naturally, as a scientist I used FORTRAN until I was handed 5000 lines of almost completely uncommented C written at Stanford and a Sun 386i as a summer intern.  I'd been running a MicroVAX II in the BA123 worldbox for several years before that.  So by the end of the summer I'd read Bach and Lefler, McKusick et al and could be found wandering around saying "awk, bailing out near line one".

I typically use C unless I need to do complex arithmetic in which case I switch to FORTRAN 77 and call it from C.  I'd really like to learn 9X, but I've never found a book suited to someone who is familiar with BNF, lex, yacc  etc.

I recently was sent a PDF of the new FORTRAN standard, but as there is no chance of scientific work at my age and the current oil prices,  learning Verilog is more important now.
 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB, MK14

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9890
  • Country: us
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #56 on: November 08, 2018, 05:05:18 pm »
There was a time before MATLAB when, if you wanted a graph, you wrote the plot code yourself.  Here is a sample from my grandson's Algebra book that I coded up a few years back and have used in a discussion during his Calc I class in college:

Code: [Select]
// JOB
// DUP
*DELETE             PLOTA
// FOR
**PLOT AREA
*NAME PLOTA
*LIST ALL
*ONE WORD INTEGERS
*IOCS(PLOTTER)

      NPLOT = 7

    1 FORMAT(I2)
    2 FORMAT('SIDE X IN FEET')
    3 FORMAT('AREA IN SQUARE FEET')
    4 FORMAT('AREA')
    5 FORMAT('X')
    6 FORMAT('16 - X')
    7 FORMAT('PERIMETER P = 32')
    8 FORMAT('AREA A = 16X - X**2')
    9 FORMAT('FENCING A RECTANGULAR AREA WITH 32 FEET OF FABRIC')
   10 FORMAT('SLOPE S = ')
   11 FORMAT('DA')
   12 FORMAT('DX')
   13 FORMAT(' = 16 - 2X')
   14 FORMAT('SLOPE')
   15 FORMAT(I3)
C
C     PEN COMMANDS
C     INC - No Change
C     IDB - PEN DOWN BEFORE MOTION
C     IDA - PEN DOWN AFTER MOTION
C     IUB - PEN UP BEFORE MOTION
C     IUA - PRN UP AFTER MOTION
C
      INC =  0
      IDB =  2
      IDA = -2
      IUB =  1
      IUA = -1 
C
C     CHSZX - CHARACTER SIZE X IN INCHES
C     CHSZY - CHARACTER SIZE Y IN INCHES
C
      CHSZX = 0.1
      CHSZY = 0.1
C
C     SX IS X-AXIS SCALE FACTOR : 5.5 INCHES OF PAPER FOR 17 UNITS
C     SY IS Y-AXIS SCALE FACTOR : 6.0 INCHES OF PAPER FOR 64 UNITS
C
      SX =  5.5 / 17.0
      SY =  6.0 / 64.0
C
C     XORG - PHYSICAL LOCATION OF GRAPH X ORIGIN ON PAPER
C     YORG - PHYSICAL LOCATION OF GRAPH Y ORIGIN ON PAPER
C
      XORG = 4.4
      YORG = 1.8
C
C     INITIAL PEN POSITION
C     
      PX = -XORG / SX
      PY = -YORG / SY
C
C     SET SCALE, DRAW BOTH AXIS AND PLACE PEN DOWN AT 0.0, 0.0
C
      CALL SCALF(SX, SY, PX, PY)
      CALL FGRID(0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 16)
      CALL FGRID(1, 0.0, 0.0, 4.0, 16)
      CALL FPLOT(IDA, 0.0, 0.0)
C
C     DRAW THE CURVE AND RAISE PEN AFTER COMPLETION
C
      CALL PEN(8)
      DO 20 I = 1, 17
        X = FLOAT(I) - 1.0
        Y = X * (16 - X)
        CALL FPLOT(INC, X, Y)
        CALL POINT(1)
   20 CONTINUE
      CALL PEN(0)
      CALL FPLOT(IUB, X, Y)
C
C     LABEL Y GRID WITH 0.1 x 0.1 CHARACTERS
C
      DO 30 I = 1, 17
        J = 4 * (I - 1)
        X = -(3.0 * CHSZX) / SX
        Y = FLOAT(J) - ((CHSZY / 2.0) / SY)
        CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
        WRITE(NPLOT,1) J
   30 CONTINUE
C
C     LABEL X GRID 0.1 x 0.1 CHARACTERS
C
      DO 70 I = 1, 17
        J = I - 1
        IF (J - 10) 40, 50, 50
   40     X = FLOAT(J) - ((1.5 * CHSZX) / SX)
          GOTO 60
   50     X = FLOAT(J) - (CHSZX / SX)
   60   Y = -(2.0 * CHSZY) / SY
        CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
        WRITE(NPLOT,1) J
   70 CONTINUE
C
C     LABEL Y AXIS 0.2 X 0.2 CHARACTERS ROTATED 90 DEGREES
C
      CHSZX = 0.2
      CHSZY = 0.2

      X = -0.5 / SX
      Y = 32.0 - ((9.5 * CHSZY) / SY)
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 1.5708)
      WRITE(NPLOT, 3)
C
C     LABEL X AXIS 0.2 x 0.2 CHARACTERS
C
      X = 8.0 - ((7.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
      Y = -(3.0 * CHSZY) / SY
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,2)
C
C     DRAW THE BOX
C
      CALL FPLOT(IDA,  5.0, 16.0)
      CALL FPLOT(INC, 11.0, 16.0)
      CALL FPLOT(INC, 11.0, 24.0)
      CALL FPLOT(INC,  5.0, 24.0)
      CALL FPLOT(IUA,  5.0, 16.0)
C
C     LABEL THE BOX AND EQUATION FOR AREA
C
      CHSZX = 0.1
      CHSZY = 0.1

      X = 8.0 - ((2.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
      Y = 20.0 - ((CHSZY / 2.0) / SY)
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,4)

      X = 8.0 - ((3.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
      Y = 16.0 - ((2.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,6)

      X =  5.0 - ((2.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
      Y = 20.0 - ((CHSZY / 2.0) / SY)
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,5)

      X = 8.0 - ((8.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
      Y = 12.0 - ((2.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,7)

      X = 8.0 - ((9.5 * CHSZX) / SX)
      Y = 12.0 - ((4.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,8)
C
C     DRAW EQUATION FOR SLOPE
C
      X = 8.0 - ((11.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
      Y = 12.0 - ((7.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,10)

      X = 8.0 - ((1.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
      Y = 12.0 - ((6.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,11)

      Y = 12.0 - ((8.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,12)

      X = 8.0 + (5.5 * CHSZX)
      Y = 12.0 - ((7.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,13)

      X  = 8.0 - ((1.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
      Y  = 12.0 - ((6.5 * CHSZY) / SY)
      X1 = X + ((2.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
      CALL FPLOT(IDA,  X, Y)
      CALL FPLOT(IUA, X1, Y)
C
C     RESET ORIGIN AND SCALE
C
      CALL FPLOT(INC, 0.0, 0.0)
      CALL SCALF(1.0, 1.0, XORG, YORG)
C
C     DRAW THE TABLE OF VALUES BOX
C
      BXORG = 0.75
      BYORG = 3.5
      CALL FPLOT(IDA, BXORG, BYORG)

      CALL SCALF( 1.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0)
      HT  = 2.75
      WD  = 1.7
      COL1 = 0.375
      COL2 = 1.0
      CALL FPLOT(INC,   WD, 0.0)
      CALL FPLOT(INC,   WD, HT)
      CALL FPLOT(INC,  0.0, HT)
      CALL FPLOT(IUA,  0.0, 0.0)
      CALL FPLOT(IDA,  0.0, HT - 0.15)
      CALL FPLOT(IUA,   WD, HT - 0.15)
      CALL FPLOT(IDA, COL1, HT)
      CALL FPLOT(IUA, COL1, 0.0)
      CALL FPLOT(IDA, COL2, HT)
      CALL FPLOT(IUA, COL2, 0.0)
C
C     LABEL THE COLUMNS
C
      X = (COL1 / 2.0) - (CHSZX / 2.0)
      Y = HT - 0.075 - (CHSZY / 2.0)
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,5)
      X = COL1 + 0.15
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,4)
      X = COL2 + 0.1
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,14)
C
C     FILL IN THE TABLE
C
      DO 80 I = 1, 17
        J = I - 1
        Y = (HT - 0.3) - (FLOAT(J) * (1.5 * CHSZY))
        X = 0.075
        CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
        WRITE(NPLOT,1) J
        X = COL1 + 0.2
        CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
        IAREA = J * (16 - J)
        WRITE(NPLOT,1) IAREA
        X = COL2 + 0.15
        CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
        ISLOP = 16 - (2 * J)
        WRITE(NPLOT,15) ISLOP
   80 CONTINUE     
C
C     TITLE THE PAGE
C
      CHSZX = 0.2
      CHSZY = 0.2

      CALL FPLOT(INC, 0.0, 0.0)
      CALL SCALF(1.0, 1.0, BXORG, BYORG)

      Y = 0.50
      X = 5.0 - (24.5 * CHSZX)
      CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
      WRITE(NPLOT,9)
C
C     EJECT PAGE AND EXIT
C
      CALL PLTEJ
      CALL EXIT
     
      END
// DUP
*STORE      WS  UA  PLOTA
// XEQ PLOTA




Maximum variable name length = 5, only upper case, and other restrictions...

The output is attached...

This was written for my FPGA implementation of the IBM 1130 which, in my case, had a Calcomp 1627 drum plotter.  I currently send plotter output directly to a LaserJet using HPGL statements to draw the image.

The original plotter had 100 steps per inch and each line segment was created with a series of steps.
http://ibm1130.org/hw/io/

Those were fun days '70-'72
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 05:07:56 pm by rstofer »
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline rhb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3483
  • Country: us
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #57 on: November 08, 2018, 05:55:36 pm »
I wrote code to plot well logs using a very primitive plotting utility.  The standard style of annotation, tic marks, etc is quite complex and requires multiple tracks aligned vertically.

The Calcomp I used in my first pass through grad school had a dedicated system with a 9 track.  So I'd run my contouring job on the IBM and then pick up my tape and go to another location where the Calcomp was located. This was in '81 and it was seldom used, so I had to learn a good bit about maintaining the pens, etc.   

But most of  my  seismic plotting was done on Versatecs.  They were a nightmare to maintain, but they certainly could spit out paper fast which is very important if you need a 30 ft x 30" plot.  At work we would lay them out in the hall.  So it was common to see people walking around without their shoes.  It was considered very poor etiquette to walk on someone's plot with you shoes on.  And not uncommon to encounter plots spread out on both sides of the hall.  So you took off your shoes until you got to the end of the plot.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline edavid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3383
  • Country: us
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #58 on: November 08, 2018, 06:15:55 pm »
When I read Don's books back in high school*, I was blown away and definitely thought he was the ultimate electronics guru.

Recently I reread some of them, and wasn't so impressed.  The CMOS and TTL Cookbooks are full of tricks that you might use once in a lifetime to save a package, but very light on practical design techniques that you would use routinely.  The Cheap Video series takes you about 80% of the way to a working design, then says "Your Turn" to resolve the design problems that Don didn't want to deal with, or didn't discuss in order to preserve his kit sales.

I've never met Don in person, but I've talked to him on the phone a few times, and found the experience about as surreal and entertaining as you would imagine.  I'd love to hang out with him, but I sure wouldn't want to have to do business with him!

*I vividly remember being teased for carrying a "Cookbook" to class.  Wow, I went to school with some idiots.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 06:17:37 pm by edavid »
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline In Vacuo VeritasTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 320
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #59 on: November 08, 2018, 06:22:06 pm »
When I read Don's books back in high school*, I was blown away and definitely thought he was the ultimate electronics guru.

Recently I reread some of them, and wasn't so impressed.  The CMOS and TTL Cookbooks are full of tricks that you might use once in a lifetime to save a package, but very light on practical design techniques that you would use routinely.  The Cheap Video series takes you about 80% of the way to a working design, then says "Your Turn" to resolve the design problems that Don didn't want to deal with, or didn't discuss in order to preserve his kit sales.

I've never met Don in person, but I've talked to him on the phone a few times, and found the experience about as surreal and entertaining as you would imagine.  I'd love to hang out with him, but I sure wouldn't want to have to do business with him!

*I vividly remember being teased for carrying a "Cookbook" to class.  Wow, I went to school with some idiots.

There you go, that's all I was saying. Reading his columns I was  :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: ???

Grandiose pronouncements, italics every third word, content-free blather, a few tricks he flogged as much as he could... and then what? He's a Kurzweil-lite.

Seems like I hurt some tough engineer's delicate feelings concerning their childhood hero...
 

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6911
  • Country: ca
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #60 on: November 08, 2018, 06:25:53 pm »
When you are a child you need things explained in that manner. I take you jump straight to IEEE publications and PhD dissertations when you learned how to read?
Facebook-free life and Rigol-free shack.
 

Offline In Vacuo VeritasTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 320
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #61 on: November 08, 2018, 06:30:15 pm »
When you are a child you need things explained in that manner. I take you jump straight to IEEE publications and PhD dissertations when you learned how to read?

Oh I see! His columns published in magazines for adults... were actually aimed at children!!

My mistake.

(The lengths you people go through to defend your heroes is amazing. He sucked. That's all. Face it. No one used a Lancaster computer, or designed a Lancaster topology amplifier, or learned PostScript to program general purpose computing in their printer, etc... He was a self-aggrandizing Wizard of Oz. His "Incredible Secret Money Machine" was... how to fool most of the people most of the time!)
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23024
  • Country: gb
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #62 on: November 08, 2018, 06:51:45 pm »
Calm down children. If you have nothing nice to say, please leave.

I am enjoying the sparse bits of this thread between the flame war over something that simply doesn't matter.

Edit: I’m better than descending to swearing.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 06:56:56 pm by bd139 »
 

Offline MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4539
  • Country: gb
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #63 on: November 08, 2018, 07:08:53 pm »
I am enjoying the sparse bits of this thread

Yes, indeed. Some very interesting stories are coming out.
 

Offline Dubbie

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1115
  • Country: nz
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #64 on: November 08, 2018, 07:34:00 pm »
why is it your threads are always controversial? you are a right pain in the ass on this forum. One day you will push me to get my hammer out!

I don’t know. I’ve found this thread quite useful. As a relative newcomer to electronics, it’s nice to learn a bit of history and lore on the topic from a hobbiest POV
 

Offline duak

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1041
  • Country: ca
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #65 on: November 08, 2018, 07:38:09 pm »
To bring the thread back to Don, his articles in Poptronics on digital test equipment and later on microcomputers allowed me to actually understand and build up such things even before graduating high school.  As a senior in '76, some friends & I managed to convince the school to buy an Altair 8800 kit with Mits 4K basic.  I wanted a home computer but there was no way I could afford one and go to college.  I got a Motorola 6800 chipset evaluation kit from a local consulting business that was folding.  Using Motorola's app manual and Don's schematics from his articles I built a computer very much like the SWTP 6800.  I wirewrapped the processor and 8K of static memory.  I kludged a SWTP terminal to accept a serial TTL input and scroll the display data (ordinarily, it started on the top line, went to the bottom then started at the top again).  I built it into an old desktop calculator case with a ASCII keyboard in place of the original.  SWTP 8K BASIC cost like $10 and was loaded in thru Don's cassette tape interface.  Star Wars had just come out so I wrote a Star Wars game.  The BASIC was so slow that you could get up to get some beer between moves.  I recall writing a Mastermind program that was somewhat real time.

As an aside, about the same time I read an article in Byte magazine by Wozniak about the Apple II.  That fall, a classmate had bought an
Apple II board back when Apple sold them without a case.  4K of memory stock, a built in color display interface and the BASIC was fast enough to play an interactive video game.  My 6800 was definitely outclassed but that's tech advancement for you.  I did use the boards as examples of my work to get a job that led to much bigger and better things.

Cheers,
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline Simon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17816
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #66 on: November 08, 2018, 08:00:05 pm »
why is it your threads are always controversial? you are a right pain in the ass on this forum. One day you will push me to get my hammer out!

I don’t know. I’ve found this thread quite useful. As a relative newcomer to electronics, it’s nice to learn a bit of history and lore on the topic from a hobbiest POV

i am talking about the general trend of this user. I tire of the reports about him.
 
The following users thanked this post: edavid, tooki, MK14

Offline tpowell1830

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 863
  • Country: us
  • Peacefully retired from industry, active in life
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #67 on: November 08, 2018, 08:46:45 pm »
To explain more about Don and just a handful of other writers in the sparse magazines and books of the time in the '70s, people don't seem to realize that this was the only window for hobbyists at the time. The devices were extremely crude in comparison to what is available now, but for us hobbyists, they were gold. I was an adult in the '70s, but I would still try to learn through the magazines what I could.

There was no internet at the time and the only other alternative was the library and technical books which were too far over my head as a beginner hobbyist to fathom. That is why when we could find 2 or 3 quarters that we could rub together, we bought the latest Popular Science or Popular Electronics magazines. It was the ONLY venue available. Plus, there was the board layouts that you could transfer to copper and then etch for some of the circuits.  :-+

However, as a hobbyist, Forest Mims was my favorite because he would walk through the theory and the circuit and explained as much as possible. It is unfathomable to young people nowadays how much of a knowledge desert it was back in the day without the internet.
PEACE===>T
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14, schmitt trigger

Offline rhb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3483
  • Country: us
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #68 on: November 08, 2018, 08:48:04 pm »
I think the OP is trying to prove that holes do exist as there seems to be a perfect vacuum between his ears.  He's demanding 40 years later that someone who spent his working career as a successful writer of mass market technical books and magazine articles should also be famous for designing  an amplifier topology or any of the other things that Don did not do. As for what he has been doing since then, if you are that successful you do what *you* want to do, not what some snot nosed ignorant punk thinks you should do.

No one has used a Lancaster computer, but there were a lot of  Don Lancaster inspired TV typewriters built. And a lot of guys like @duak who took what Don wrote and extrapolated it to do something completely different from what Don presented.

But the OP's real problem is not getting the attention that he craved when he started the thread.  It's turned into a bunch of old guys chatting about their personal adventures when they were young.  So he's trying to become the center of attention again.

I really wish it were possible to get together and have a few beers with most of this crowd.  The neighbor I hung out with while playing with electronics in grad school is long dead.  And  except for one friend who is an active embedded systems designer, no one I know outside of the internet does anything with electronics at all.  I've got one friend who is an unemployed Mines PhD who is trying to teach himself electronics from AoE, but he's still struggling to get a workspace set up.  He lives near Houston and their spare bedrooms have been filled with stuff belonging to friends who were flooded by Harvey.

Sadly I know someone who was similar to the OP in high school.  And at 60 something he's no different.

"Hi, how are you?" 
"I'm doing fine."
OK, that's enough about you, let's talk about me."

After which you get an OCD rant about Stratocaster variants or whatever imaginary fault he sees with the world around him.  If allowed, he will tell you the same half hour stories of events from 40 years ago that he told you the last time he talked to you.

It's important to consider that Don was writing at a time when we were all, no matter our age, starved for information about digital logic. As Einstein noted, if you can't explain it to a child you don't understand it yourself.  And a very large proportion of the subscribers to Popular Electronics and Radio-Electronics were adolescents and 20 somethings.

The hallmark of a good writer is understanding the target audience and writing to them.  Don did a beautiful job of that which is why he was wildly successful.

Most of the devices Don wrote about are now museum pieces.  And those of us who avidly studied what he wrote have since gone on to more modern and complex devices.  So reading his books today is rather like reading Popular Mechanics from 100 years ago.  Most of it is not very interesting, but here and there are the occasional gem.  I'm sure Dave's videos will feel the same way 100 years from now.  Except in very odd circumstances no one would do things now as they were done 40 years ago.

However, the larger issue is that we have a generation or so that thinks that all they need is "just in time" knowledge. "if I need to know that I'll look it up on the internet."  They fail  to grasp that knowledge is cumulative.  And it is the framework provided by accumulated knowledge that makes further learning possible.  You are *not* going to be able to program an FPGA if you don't understand logic design which Don presented in  a low cost, hands on manner using the chips of that day.  Just as you are not going to understand digital signal processing unless you have first learned calculus and the rudiments of integral transforms and linear systems.

I think @duak's narrative is right on the mark.  I didn't have the money to do all that and I graduated high school in '71 when it was *much* harder to get anything.  Later in college, I had other priorities like graduating.  I finished my first degree in English lit in the fall of '76 just as the rocket took off.  It wasn't until I started work on my MS that I was able to play with electronics.  And as I was paying for it all, funds were very tight.  I was thrilled when I found a Heathkit IO-18 at a yard sale for $75.

An historical aside as it came up earlier,  Heathkit was started in 1926 to sell airplane kits.  The Heath Parasol.

http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/heath-parasol
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline Simon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17816
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #69 on: November 08, 2018, 09:05:25 pm »


However, the larger issue is that we have a generation or so that thinks that all they need is "just in time" knowledge. "if I need to know that I'll look it up on the internet."  They fail  to grasp that knowledge is cumulative.  And it is the framework provided by accumulated knowledge that makes further learning possible.  You are *not* going to be able to program an FPGA if you don't understand logic design which Don presented in  a low cost, hands on manner using the chips of that day.  Just as you are not going to understand digital signal processing unless you have first learned calculus and the rudiments of integral transforms and linear systems.

and some of them like my boss are 50 somethings..... Yes it's great that I am not expected to have qualifications but with that attitude erm.... yea!
 

Offline MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4539
  • Country: gb
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #70 on: November 08, 2018, 10:25:54 pm »
I'm getting confused, here.

Is Don Lancaster, referring/complaining about this thread, in his latest notes ?
Or am I imagining it ?

https://www.tinaja.com/whtnu18.shtml

Quote
November 8, 2018   deeplink   top   bot   respond
A newsgroup denizen apparently had the audacity to
challenge my Guru status.
 
The following users thanked this post: Bassman59, Richard Crowley

Offline chris_leyson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1541
  • Country: wales
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2018, 10:55:30 pm »
Certainly looks like it,  :-DD
 
The following users thanked this post: Richard Crowley, MK14

Offline MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4539
  • Country: gb
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2018, 11:03:02 pm »
Don Lancaster's website, is well worth a visit, if you are interested in that type of thing. Since this thread started, I've probably spent too long, going through the website and some of the resources on it.

E.g. I spent a while today, reading the amazing (at least for me), vintage book on RTL logic (cookbook).
Resistor Transistor Logic.

https://www.tinaja.com/ebooks/rtlcb.pdf

I'm convinced that Don Lancaster's, extensive books and magazine projects/articles, have helped enrich my Electronics/Computing knowledge/excitement/interest.

I've had first hand experience with at least one of Don Lancaster's  electronic's magazines projects, and I thought it was really great!. I am very tempted to build it now, as a kind of fun/exciting vintage/retro electronics experience thing.
He has kindly put up a huge number of the vintage projects (https://www.tinaja.com/crsamp1.shtml), on his website.
Many book PDF free downloads, as well.

https://www.tinaja.com/ebksamp1.shtml

Many pages to explore and links to follow.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 11:18:29 pm by MK14 »
 

Offline rhb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3483
  • Country: us
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #73 on: November 08, 2018, 11:58:07 pm »
I'm getting confused, here.

Is Don Lancaster, referring/complaining about this thread, in his latest notes ?
Or am I imagining it ?

https://www.tinaja.com/whtnu18.shtml

Quote
November 8, 2018   deeplink   top   bot   respond
A newsgroup denizen apparently had the audacity to
challenge my Guru status.

ROFL 

Sure sounds like Don to me.  This is absolutely hilarious.  I wonder how he found out.  The OP better watch out.  He's getting trolled by Don.  This could easily turn into the funniest thread on the forum.  Read the  "Blatant Opportunist" article he linked to "The Worst of Marcia Swampfelder" which I've attached below if you have *any* doubts.

I can easily imagine him appearing incognito and running circles around the OP while everyone else rolls on the floor laughing.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 12:13:33 am by rhb »
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline alpher

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 348
  • Country: ca
Re: Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
« Reply #74 on: November 09, 2018, 12:04:36 am »
 "Godzilla versus the Night Nurses",  :-DD :-DD.
Where's e torrent ?? ;) ;)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf