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

Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #12275

Re: Direct digital I/O ?

From Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.sys.raspberry-pi
Subject Re: Direct digital I/O ?
Date 2016-07-02 19:22 +0300
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <nl8pn8$d1$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <ugfolb5gjiomchbiddq0nfa63t5a4427s3@4ax.com> <njj60p$9ql$1@dont-email.me> <njk1o2$rfa$5@dont-email.me> <nl72f4$h48$1@panix3.panix.com> <nl8h46$tnm$2@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2.7.16 16:55, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 20:39:00 -0400, Jeff Jonas wrote:
>
>>>> Proper computers with "blinkenlichts" used low current filament bulbs
>>>> and not LEDS as they predated the LED's invention by many years.
>>
>> Several technologies were used for front panels:
>> miniature incandescent lamps, neon, nixie,
>> even DM160 (kinda like a magic eye tube: amplifier and display in one).
>>
> I remember seeing DM160 on valve radios as tuning aids but don't recall
> seeing them any place else.
>
> In my postgrad year I was using Philips crystallographic X-ray kit. The
> older system used decade counters with a fluorescent spot  - you looked
> at the top of the tube while the spot whizzed round against the number
> written on the panel alongside the tubes. The newer machine used nixie
> tubes.


Your memory may have developed a drop here: The DM 160 is just a
digital on-off indicator. The tuning indicators have been some
other DM:s with analog pattern display.

The whizz-spot tubes were the counters at the same time. Each incoming
pulse moved the spot to the next anode.

-- 

-TV

Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Direct digital I/O  ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-09 14:47 +0100
  Re: Direct digital I/O ? GlowingBlueMist <GlowingBlueMist@blackhole.io> - 2016-06-09 11:22 -0500
  Re: Direct digital I/O  ? "Dave Liquorice" <allsortsnotthisbit@howhill.com> - 2016-06-09 19:56 +0100
    Re: Direct digital I/O  ? Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2016-06-10 19:55 +0100
      Re: Direct digital I/O  ? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-10 22:27 +0000
        Re: Direct digital I/O  ? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-06-11 07:45 +0100
          Re: Direct digital I/O  ? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-11 08:37 +0000
            Re: Direct digital I/O ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-11 09:41 +0100
              Re: Direct digital I/O ? "Dave Liquorice" <allsortsnotthisbit@howhill.com> - 2016-06-11 11:17 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2016-06-11 14:00 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-06-11 16:12 +0000
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2016-06-12 22:00 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-06-12 22:40 +0000
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2016-06-13 11:02 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2016-06-12 22:04 +0100
              Re: Direct digital I/O ? Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2016-06-11 13:49 +0100
            Re: Direct digital I/O  ? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-11 09:23 +0000
              Re: Direct digital I/O  ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-11 10:47 +0100
            Re: Direct digital I/O  ? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-11 12:46 -0400
              Re: Direct digital I/O  ? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-06-12 09:20 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2016-06-12 11:07 -0500
                Re: Direct digital I/O  ? andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2016-06-12 16:13 +0000
                Re: Direct digital I/O  ? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-01 20:39 -0400
                Re: Direct digital I/O  ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:40 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O  ? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:55 +0000
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-02 19:22 +0300
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:47 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:07 +0000
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-02 21:30 +0300
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 19:35 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Dave Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2016-07-02 19:43 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 20:07 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O  ? andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2016-07-03 18:59 +0000
                Re: Direct digital I/O  ? "Ivan D. Reid" <Ivan.Reid@ivan.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-07-03 19:15 +0000
  Re: Direct digital I/O  ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-13 14:23 +0100
    Re: Direct digital I/O  ? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-13 14:13 +0000
      Re: Direct digital I/O  ? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-13 15:09 +0000
        Re: Direct digital I/O  ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-13 17:48 +0100
      Re: Direct digital I/O  ? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-06-13 17:45 +0100
        Re: Direct digital I/O  ? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-13 17:04 +0000
          Re: Direct digital I/O  ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-13 19:13 +0100
      Re: Direct digital I/O  ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-13 17:47 +0100
    Re: Direct digital I/O  ? Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2016-06-13 17:49 +0100
      Re: Direct digital I/O  ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-13 19:07 +0100
      Re: Direct digital I/O ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 14:25 -0400
        Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-13 19:45 +0100
          Re: Direct digital I/O ? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-13 20:14 +0000
            Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:38 +0100
        Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-13 19:57 +0100
          Re: Direct digital I/O ? Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> - 2016-06-14 10:48 +0100
            Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:41 +0100
              Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:48 +0100
            Re: Direct digital I/O ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:24 -0400
              Re: Direct digital I/O ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 08:13 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 03:26 -0400
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 08:54 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> - 2016-06-15 16:48 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:02 +0000
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:21 +0000
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:21 +0100
              Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 08:52 +0100
              Re: Direct digital I/O ? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 18:57 +1000
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:28 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 10:57 -0400
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:23 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2016-06-15 16:46 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 17:04 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-15 17:43 +0100
                Re: Direct digital I/O ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:57 +0100
    Re: Direct digital I/O  ? Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2016-06-13 17:46 +0100
      Re: Direct digital I/O  ? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-13 19:06 +0100

csiph-web