Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #640004 > unrolled thread

Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 13:15 -0700
    Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 16:27 -0400
      Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 14:46 -0700
        Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 18:36 -0400
          Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:20 -0700
            Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 21:31 -0400
      Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 22:12 +0000
        Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-07-11 19:01 -0400
          Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 02:24 +0000
            Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 22:44 -0700
          Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 10:24 -0400
            Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 20:57 -0400
              Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:17 -0700
                Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:42 -0400
                  Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:11 -0700
        Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:21 -0700
        Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-12 07:28 -0400
          Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 05:10 -0700
          Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:45 +0000
            Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-12 18:39 -0500
              Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 21:29 -0700
                Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-13 20:27 -0500
                  Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:22 -0700
                    Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-14 11:55 -0500
            Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:01 -0400
              Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:11 +0000
                Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 22:56 -0400
                  Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:03 +0000
                    Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:50 -0400
                      Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 23:49 +0000
                        Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 23:04 -0400
                          Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:02 +0000
                            Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:51 -0400
                              Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:23 +0000
                                Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:08 -0400
                                  Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:02 +0000
                                    Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 12:53 -0600
                                      Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 13:04 -0500
                              Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 09:51 -0400
                                Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 11:04 -0500
                                Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 17:55 +0000
                                  Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 16:15 -0400
                                    Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 20:26 +0000
                                      Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:32 -0600
                                        Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:08 +0000
                                        Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-16 15:21 -0700
                                          Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:53 +0000
                                          Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 17:00 -0700
                                            Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 09:06 -0500
                                              Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-17 20:23 -0400
                                    Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:27 -0600
                                      Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 17:39 -0400
                                        Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-17 09:46 -0400
                                      Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:16 +0000
                                Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 13:04 -0500

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#640817

In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <mp3kmc903h1e7mhm1fbqnfe2ngtsd6iuv5@4ax.com>, krw@notreal.com 
> says...
>> The point is that CAD on minicomputers was very minimal.  It was the
>> domain of the mainframe.  Rubylith was the tool of choice for the
>> electronics industry.
>> 
> 
> I've worked on CAE software that's tightly integrated with CAD my entire 
> professional life.  Back in about 1988 our CAD/CAE software still ran on 
> mainframes (IBM, DEC, and etc.) but the transition to Unix workstations 
> was in its infancy.  Back then, PCs were "toys" that quite simply 
> couldn't handle professional level CAD/CAE software.
> 
> In the early 1990s Unix Workstations dominated for running CAD/CAE 
> software.  A good SGI "box" would run you about $20k in early 1990s 
> dollars (about $33k today).  
> 
> Today, you can comfortably run CAD/CAE software (at least the CAE 
> pre/post) on a sub $2k PC running Windows OS.  But many customers will 
> go quite a bit over $2k with things like solid state drives and 64 GB or 
> more of RAM coupled with the best professional graphics card money can 
> buy (no, they're not quite the same as consumer/gaming cards).  Still, 
> the most "decked out" PC workstation today will still cost a fraction of 
> what a Unix workstation used to cost in the early 1990s.
> 
> So again, we see yet another example of improving technologies driving 
> down costs in a market.

Nope, what we see is yet another example of consumer demand driving down
manufacturing costs by encouraging high volume, automated, manufacturing.
 
-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640868

In article <1tls3e-me7.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 
says...
> 
> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article <mp3kmc903h1e7mhm1fbqnfe2ngtsd6iuv5@4ax.com>, krw@notreal.com 
> > says...
> >> The point is that CAD on minicomputers was very minimal.  It was the
> >> domain of the mainframe.  Rubylith was the tool of choice for the
> >> electronics industry.
> >> 
> > 
> > I've worked on CAE software that's tightly integrated with CAD my entire 
> > professional life.  Back in about 1988 our CAD/CAE software still ran on 
> > mainframes (IBM, DEC, and etc.) but the transition to Unix workstations 
> > was in its infancy.  Back then, PCs were "toys" that quite simply 
> > couldn't handle professional level CAD/CAE software.
> > 
> > In the early 1990s Unix Workstations dominated for running CAD/CAE 
> > software.  A good SGI "box" would run you about $20k in early 1990s 
> > dollars (about $33k today).  
> > 
> > Today, you can comfortably run CAD/CAE software (at least the CAE 
> > pre/post) on a sub $2k PC running Windows OS.  But many customers will 
> > go quite a bit over $2k with things like solid state drives and 64 GB or 
> > more of RAM coupled with the best professional graphics card money can 
> > buy (no, they're not quite the same as consumer/gaming cards).  Still, 
> > the most "decked out" PC workstation today will still cost a fraction of 
> > what a Unix workstation used to cost in the early 1990s.
> > 
> > So again, we see yet another example of improving technologies driving 
> > down costs in a market.
> 
> Nope, what we see is yet another example of consumer demand driving down
> manufacturing costs by encouraging high volume, automated, manufacturing.
  
Bullshit.  The technology in a PC today is quite different than that of 
a PC made in 1988.  Nothing in a PC from 1988 would even "plug into" a 
PC bought today, except maybe the keyboard and mouse.  And the PC today 
is literally orders of magnitude faster.  

Jeff
-- 
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.  
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, 
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640874

In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <1tls3e-me7.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 
> says...
>> 
>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> > In article <mp3kmc903h1e7mhm1fbqnfe2ngtsd6iuv5@4ax.com>, krw@notreal.com 
>> > says...
>> >> The point is that CAD on minicomputers was very minimal.  It was the
>> >> domain of the mainframe.  Rubylith was the tool of choice for the
>> >> electronics industry.
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > I've worked on CAE software that's tightly integrated with CAD my entire 
>> > professional life.  Back in about 1988 our CAD/CAE software still ran on 
>> > mainframes (IBM, DEC, and etc.) but the transition to Unix workstations 
>> > was in its infancy.  Back then, PCs were "toys" that quite simply 
>> > couldn't handle professional level CAD/CAE software.
>> > 
>> > In the early 1990s Unix Workstations dominated for running CAD/CAE 
>> > software.  A good SGI "box" would run you about $20k in early 1990s 
>> > dollars (about $33k today).  
>> > 
>> > Today, you can comfortably run CAD/CAE software (at least the CAE 
>> > pre/post) on a sub $2k PC running Windows OS.  But many customers will 
>> > go quite a bit over $2k with things like solid state drives and 64 GB or 
>> > more of RAM coupled with the best professional graphics card money can 
>> > buy (no, they're not quite the same as consumer/gaming cards).  Still, 
>> > the most "decked out" PC workstation today will still cost a fraction of 
>> > what a Unix workstation used to cost in the early 1990s.
>> > 
>> > So again, we see yet another example of improving technologies driving 
>> > down costs in a market.
>> 
>> Nope, what we see is yet another example of consumer demand driving down
>> manufacturing costs by encouraging high volume, automated, manufacturing.
>   
> Bullshit.  The technology in a PC today is quite different than that of 
> a PC made in 1988.  Nothing in a PC from 1988 would even "plug into" a 
> PC bought today, except maybe the keyboard and mouse.  And the PC today 
> is literally orders of magnitude faster.  
> 
> Jeff

So what?

Nothing from a 1988 Ford F150 would even "plug into" a Ford F150 bought today.

BTW, a current Ford F150 costs about the same (in adjusted dollars) as a
1988 Ford F150 and does not perform significantly differently.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640889

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>Nothing from a 1988 Ford F150 would even "plug into" a Ford F150 bought today.
>
>BTW, a current Ford F150 costs about the same (in adjusted dollars) as a
>1988 Ford F150 and does not perform significantly differently.

Lug nuts.  Maybe whole wheels.  Antifreeze.  Gasoline (so long as we
stay this side of 1972 or so.)  Does Ford still use a different tranny
fluid than everyone else like they did in the seventies?

Are modern "power points" heat resistant enough to take an old
cigarette lighter?

Has the trailer ball hitch changed since WW2?  I realize that "hidden
hitch" sockets are a newer idea, but the old trailers can still be
"plugged in".  You might need an adapter for the lights on the
trailer.

The controls have stayed remarkably steady.  You've got the PRNDL
tranny setting, probably using a lever identical to the one thirty
years ago.  You've got the steering wheel and two pedals. 
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640904

In sci.physics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>Nothing from a 1988 Ford F150 would even "plug into" a Ford F150 bought today.
>>
>>BTW, a current Ford F150 costs about the same (in adjusted dollars) as a
>>1988 Ford F150 and does not perform significantly differently.
> 
> Lug nuts.  Maybe whole wheels.  Antifreeze.  Gasoline (so long as we
> stay this side of 1972 or so.)  Does Ford still use a different tranny
> fluid than everyone else like they did in the seventies?
> 
> Are modern "power points" heat resistant enough to take an old
> cigarette lighter?
> 
> Has the trailer ball hitch changed since WW2?  I realize that "hidden
> hitch" sockets are a newer idea, but the old trailers can still be
> "plugged in".  You might need an adapter for the lights on the
> trailer.
> 
> The controls have stayed remarkably steady.  You've got the PRNDL
> tranny setting, probably using a lever identical to the one thirty
> years ago.  You've got the steering wheel and two pedals. 

Try fixing a broken current Ford F150 with parts from a 1988 Ford F150
and see how far you get.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640907

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:32:10 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:

>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>Nothing from a 1988 Ford F150 would even "plug into" a Ford F150 bought today.
>>
>>BTW, a current Ford F150 costs about the same (in adjusted dollars) as a
>>1988 Ford F150 and does not perform significantly differently.
>
>Lug nuts.  Maybe whole wheels.  Antifreeze.  Gasoline (so long as we
>stay this side of 1972 or so.)  Does Ford still use a different tranny
>fluid than everyone else like they did in the seventies?
>
>Are modern "power points" heat resistant enough to take an old
>cigarette lighter?
>
>Has the trailer ball hitch changed since WW2?  I realize that "hidden
>hitch" sockets are a newer idea, but the old trailers can still be
>"plugged in".  You might need an adapter for the lights on the
>trailer.
>
>The controls have stayed remarkably steady.  You've got the PRNDL
>tranny setting, probably using a lever identical to the one thirty
>years ago.  You've got the steering wheel and two pedals. 

Crankshaft, pistons, rings, spark plugs, poppet valves, gears. Hasn't
changed much in over a century.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640913

In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:32:10 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
> 
>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>Nothing from a 1988 Ford F150 would even "plug into" a Ford F150 bought today.
>>>
>>>BTW, a current Ford F150 costs about the same (in adjusted dollars) as a
>>>1988 Ford F150 and does not perform significantly differently.
>>
>>Lug nuts.  Maybe whole wheels.  Antifreeze.  Gasoline (so long as we
>>stay this side of 1972 or so.)  Does Ford still use a different tranny
>>fluid than everyone else like they did in the seventies?
>>
>>Are modern "power points" heat resistant enough to take an old
>>cigarette lighter?
>>
>>Has the trailer ball hitch changed since WW2?  I realize that "hidden
>>hitch" sockets are a newer idea, but the old trailers can still be
>>"plugged in".  You might need an adapter for the lights on the
>>trailer.
>>
>>The controls have stayed remarkably steady.  You've got the PRNDL
>>tranny setting, probably using a lever identical to the one thirty
>>years ago.  You've got the steering wheel and two pedals. 
> 
> Crankshaft, pistons, rings, spark plugs, poppet valves, gears. Hasn't
> changed much in over a century.
 
Try taking any of those from a 1988 Ford F150 and installing them on
a current Ford F150.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640930

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:32:10 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>Nothing from a 1988 Ford F150 would even "plug into" a Ford F150 bought today.
>>>
>>>BTW, a current Ford F150 costs about the same (in adjusted dollars) as a
>>>1988 Ford F150 and does not perform significantly differently.
>>
>>Lug nuts.  Maybe whole wheels.  Antifreeze.  Gasoline (so long as we
>>stay this side of 1972 or so.)  Does Ford still use a different tranny
>>fluid than everyone else like they did in the seventies?
>>
>>Are modern "power points" heat resistant enough to take an old
>>cigarette lighter?
>>
>>Has the trailer ball hitch changed since WW2?  I realize that "hidden
>>hitch" sockets are a newer idea, but the old trailers can still be
>>"plugged in".  You might need an adapter for the lights on the
>>trailer.
>>
>>The controls have stayed remarkably steady.  You've got the PRNDL
>>tranny setting, probably using a lever identical to the one thirty
>>years ago.  You've got the steering wheel and two pedals. 
>>
>
>Crankshaft, pistons, rings, spark plugs, poppet valves, gears. Hasn't
>changed much in over a century.
>

Actually, other than cosmetics, the bulk of the change tends to be in
engines.  Look at performance now vs performance then.  My 1985
Corvette with a big V-8 did 0-60 is 6-ish seconds, a 15 second quarter
mile at 91 MPH, and had a top speed of 150 MPH.  It was the fasted
mass produced car of its day.  My current car (BMW 435i with a small
straight six) does 0-60 in 5.2 seconds or so, a 13.7 second quarter
mile at 102 MPH, and a governed top speed of 155 MPH.  The BMW handily
beats the old 'Vette and it isn't even considered a performance car
these days.


-- 
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable 
 man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, 
 all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
                                      --George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641022

On 7/16/2017 7:00 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:32:10 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nothing from a 1988 Ford F150 would even "plug into" a Ford F150 bought today.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, a current Ford F150 costs about the same (in adjusted dollars) as a
>>>> 1988 Ford F150 and does not perform significantly differently.
>>>
>>> Lug nuts.  Maybe whole wheels.  Antifreeze.  Gasoline (so long as we
>>> stay this side of 1972 or so.)  Does Ford still use a different tranny
>>> fluid than everyone else like they did in the seventies?
>>>
>>> Are modern "power points" heat resistant enough to take an old
>>> cigarette lighter?
>>>
>>> Has the trailer ball hitch changed since WW2?  I realize that "hidden
>>> hitch" sockets are a newer idea, but the old trailers can still be
>>> "plugged in".  You might need an adapter for the lights on the
>>> trailer.
>>>
>>> The controls have stayed remarkably steady.  You've got the PRNDL
>>> tranny setting, probably using a lever identical to the one thirty
>>> years ago.  You've got the steering wheel and two pedals.
>>>
>>
>> Crankshaft, pistons, rings, spark plugs, poppet valves, gears. Hasn't
>> changed much in over a century.
>>
> 
> Actually, other than cosmetics, the bulk of the change tends to be in
> engines.  Look at performance now vs performance then.  My 1985
> Corvette with a big V-8 did 0-60 is 6-ish seconds, a 15 second quarter
> mile at 91 MPH, and had a top speed of 150 MPH.  It was the fasted
> mass produced car of its day.  My current car (BMW 435i with a small
> straight six) does 0-60 in 5.2 seconds or so, a 13.7 second quarter
> mile at 102 MPH, and a governed top speed of 155 MPH.  The BMW handily
> beats the old 'Vette and it isn't even considered a performance car
> these days.
> 
> 

Mustangs - V8  1993  240HP  gas mileage  18  on highway (I put a 
supercharger on this one to get to 330HP, too scary for the wife, 
+others, a muscle car)

Now 2015 Mustang V8 makes 427Hp and gets good gas milage 26 on highway, 
and it is a nice ride, a sports car.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641139

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:06:37 -0500, Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com>
wrote:

>On 7/16/2017 7:00 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:32:10 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nothing from a 1988 Ford F150 would even "plug into" a Ford F150 bought today.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, a current Ford F150 costs about the same (in adjusted dollars) as a
>>>>> 1988 Ford F150 and does not perform significantly differently.
>>>>
>>>> Lug nuts.  Maybe whole wheels.  Antifreeze.  Gasoline (so long as we
>>>> stay this side of 1972 or so.)  Does Ford still use a different tranny
>>>> fluid than everyone else like they did in the seventies?
>>>>
>>>> Are modern "power points" heat resistant enough to take an old
>>>> cigarette lighter?
>>>>
>>>> Has the trailer ball hitch changed since WW2?  I realize that "hidden
>>>> hitch" sockets are a newer idea, but the old trailers can still be
>>>> "plugged in".  You might need an adapter for the lights on the
>>>> trailer.
>>>>
>>>> The controls have stayed remarkably steady.  You've got the PRNDL
>>>> tranny setting, probably using a lever identical to the one thirty
>>>> years ago.  You've got the steering wheel and two pedals.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Crankshaft, pistons, rings, spark plugs, poppet valves, gears. Hasn't
>>> changed much in over a century.
>>>
>> 
>> Actually, other than cosmetics, the bulk of the change tends to be in
>> engines.  Look at performance now vs performance then.  My 1985
>> Corvette with a big V-8 did 0-60 is 6-ish seconds, a 15 second quarter
>> mile at 91 MPH, and had a top speed of 150 MPH.  It was the fasted
>> mass produced car of its day.  My current car (BMW 435i with a small
>> straight six) does 0-60 in 5.2 seconds or so, a 13.7 second quarter
>> mile at 102 MPH, and a governed top speed of 155 MPH.  The BMW handily
>> beats the old 'Vette and it isn't even considered a performance car
>> these days.
>> 
>> 
>
>Mustangs - V8  1993  240HP  gas mileage  18  on highway (I put a 
>supercharger on this one to get to 330HP, too scary for the wife, 
>+others, a muscle car)

My 65YO wife's 2014 6-cylinder 300HP Mustang isn't too much for her.
;-)

>Now 2015 Mustang V8 makes 427Hp and gets good gas milage 26 on highway, 
>and it is a nice ride, a sports car.

She likes driving hers with her top down (and often skirt up).  I
worry about her scaring little children.  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640888

Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

>Bullshit.  The technology in a PC today is quite different than that of 
>a PC made in 1988.  Nothing in a PC from 1988 would even "plug into" a 
>PC bought today, except maybe the keyboard and mouse.  And the PC today 
>is literally orders of magnitude faster.  

The original mice I first saw plugged into a special jack on a card
that plugged into the PC.  I had mine on a combo card with video.  The
technology to allow a mouse to run on the low power in a serial
connection came later.  And serial connectors vanished around Y2K.  I
don't know how the data signals in the PS2 mouse connectors compared
to the 9 pin serial connectors.  

Keyboards plugged into a large DIN connection.  This was gradually
replaced by the smaller PS2 connection, then again with USB
connections.

I don't know if any desktop computers still provide PS2 connectors.  I
don't think so.

I'm still using my 1994 laser printer.  It plugs into a
centronics-parallel to USB adapter.  I guess similar adapters are
available for serial ports and PS2 connectors.

Hmmm, come to think of it, the Centronics port was designed for the
1988 TRS-80 computer.  A printer from that era would probably plug
through my adapter into any modern Windows computer.  And at least the
MX-80 and its clones are probably still driver-supported.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640891

In article <et242cF5796U1@mid.individual.net>, gossg@gossg.org says...
> 
> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> >Bullshit.  The technology in a PC today is quite different than that of 
> >a PC made in 1988.  Nothing in a PC from 1988 would even "plug into" a 
> >PC bought today, except maybe the keyboard and mouse.  And the PC today 
> >is literally orders of magnitude faster.  
> 
> The original mice I first saw plugged into a special jack on a card
> that plugged into the PC.  I had mine on a combo card with video.  The
> technology to allow a mouse to run on the low power in a serial
> connection came later.  And serial connectors vanished around Y2K.  I
> don't know how the data signals in the PS2 mouse connectors compared
> to the 9 pin serial connectors.  
> 
> Keyboards plugged into a large DIN connection.  This was gradually
> replaced by the smaller PS2 connection, then again with USB
> connections.
>
> I don't know if any desktop computers still provide PS2 connectors.  I
> don't think so.

Some desktop computers I've seen recently still have the smaller PS2 
connectors for a keyboard and mouse.  All of our "professional" machines 
at work have them.  For example, the HP Z240 Desktop "tower" computer 
has them.  All you need to go from the old DIN keyboard connection to a 
PS2 keyboard connector is a simple, non-active, adapter.  Ought to cost 
about $0.99 on eBay.

> I'm still using my 1994 laser printer.  It plugs into a
> centronics-parallel to USB adapter.  I guess similar adapters are
> available for serial ports and PS2 connectors.

Not sure any active adapters do that, but some older mice would work 
with either with a passive adapter.  At any rate, you can buy USB to 
serial port adapters.  I have one.  It works well.

> Hmmm, come to think of it, the Centronics port was designed for the
> 1988 TRS-80 computer.  A printer from that era would probably plug
> through my adapter into any modern Windows computer.  And at least the
> MX-80 and its clones are probably still driver-supported.

Software drivers are tricky, but yes the USB adapter will allow the 
electronics to communicate.

Jeff
-- 
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.  
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, 
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641018

Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article <et242cF5796U1@mid.individual.net>, gossg@gossg.org says...
>>
>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bullshit.  The technology in a PC today is quite different than that of
>>> a PC made in 1988.  Nothing in a PC from 1988 would even "plug into" a
>>> PC bought today, except maybe the keyboard and mouse.  And the PC today
>>> is literally orders of magnitude faster.
>>
>> The original mice I first saw plugged into a special jack on a card
>> that plugged into the PC.  I had mine on a combo card with video.  The
>> technology to allow a mouse to run on the low power in a serial
>> connection came later.  And serial connectors vanished around Y2K.  I
>> don't know how the data signals in the PS2 mouse connectors compared
>> to the 9 pin serial connectors.
>>
>> Keyboards plugged into a large DIN connection.  This was gradually
>> replaced by the smaller PS2 connection, then again with USB
>> connections.
>>
>> I don't know if any desktop computers still provide PS2 connectors.  I
>> don't think so.
>
> Some desktop computers I've seen recently still have the smaller PS2
> connectors for a keyboard and mouse.  All of our "professional" machines
> at work have them.  For example, the HP Z240 Desktop "tower" computer
> has them.  All you need to go from the old DIN keyboard connection to a
> PS2 keyboard connector is a simple, non-active, adapter.  Ought to cost
> about $0.99 on eBay.


    The PC/XT keyboard  didn't work on the 286/AT machines because the 
baud rate was different. Heath/Zenith used a baud rate that wasn't 
compatible with either standard. I still have a couple keyboards with 
the XT/AT switch on the bottom.


>> I'm still using my 1994 laser printer.  It plugs into a
>> centronics-parallel to USB adapter.  I guess similar adapters are
>> available for serial ports and PS2 connectors.
>
> Not sure any active adapters do that, but some older mice would work
> with either with a passive adapter.  At any rate, you can buy USB to
> serial port adapters.  I have one.  It works well.
>
>> Hmmm, come to think of it, the Centronics port was designed for the
>> 1988 TRS-80 computer.  A printer from that era would probably plug
>> through my adapter into any modern Windows computer.  And at least >> the MX-80 and its clones are probably still driver-supported.


    The Centronics port was to allow use f existing printers that were 
built for minicomputers. There was a huge surplus market for both RS232 
and Centronics used printers in the early Personal computer days.


> Software drivers are tricky, but yes the USB adapter will allow the
> electronics to communicate.
>
> Jeff
>


-- 
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640909

In sci.physics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> 
>>Bullshit.  The technology in a PC today is quite different than that of 
>>a PC made in 1988.  Nothing in a PC from 1988 would even "plug into" a 
>>PC bought today, except maybe the keyboard and mouse.  And the PC today 
>>is literally orders of magnitude faster.  
> 
> The original mice I first saw plugged into a special jack on a card
> that plugged into the PC.  I had mine on a combo card with video.  The
> technology to allow a mouse to run on the low power in a serial
> connection came later.  And serial connectors vanished around Y2K.  I
> don't know how the data signals in the PS2 mouse connectors compared
> to the 9 pin serial connectors.  
> 
> Keyboards plugged into a large DIN connection.  This was gradually
> replaced by the smaller PS2 connection, then again with USB
> connections.
> 
> I don't know if any desktop computers still provide PS2 connectors.  I
> don't think so.
> 
> I'm still using my 1994 laser printer.  It plugs into a
> centronics-parallel to USB adapter.  I guess similar adapters are
> available for serial ports and PS2 connectors.
> 
> Hmmm, come to think of it, the Centronics port was designed for the
> 1988 TRS-80 computer.  A printer from that era would probably plug
> through my adapter into any modern Windows computer.  And at least the
> MX-80 and its clones are probably still driver-supported.

Not quite.

The Centronics connector, also known as IEEE 1284, was designed by 
Centronics in the 1970's as a general parallel port interface.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640818

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 09:51:19 -0400, Jeff Findley
<jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

> ... Today, you can comfortably run CAD/CAE software (at least the
> CAE pre/post) on a sub $2k PC running Windows OS.

Confirmed.  I've sat and watched my brother transform a mass of
equations first into logic circuitry, then into a program for a PAL, on
Mom's desktop computer.  Granted she had a pretty good computer, but
this was twelve or fourteen years ago.

-- 
Goat

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web