Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Ken Shirriff

To correct for errors, a correction factor is added, a function of rotation. This is implemented with a metal plate, warped into the correct shape with 20 tiny screws. A cam measures its position, which is added to the rotation with a differential gear mechanism.

14 comments
Ken Shirriff

Just converting a temperature to rotation took a big wedge of gears. Although gear-based computation is bulky, an analog computer was the best solution at the time.
I hope to power up the CADC soon and get it working. Inconveniently, it takes 115 volts AC at 400 Hz.

otheorange_tag

@kenshirriff use a vfd! They go up to 400hz, and probably cost $100. I use a vfd for... reasons... you can adjust, well, everything. I got a 3 phase output but turned out I only needed 1 phase

Ken Shirriff

@ls I'm meeting up with Michel in a week or so.

JohnS_AZ

@kenshirriff
That second photo would make one hell of a picture puzzle. 🙂

Jyrgen N

@kenshirriff
Reminds me of Control Data Cyber computers; they used motor-generators to convert 50 or 60 Hz (depending on location) to the 400 Hz used internally.

Daniele Pantaleo 🦥:verified:

@kenshirriff "glad" to see 115V/400Hz was already in use back in the 50s...

wookiearocket

@kenshirriff looking forward to reading/seeing more about it once you have a chance to power it up! i enjoy seeing this sort of thing that fits neatly at the intersection of #avgeek, #vintagecomputing, and a whole ton of other topics that escape me atm.

Urethramancer🐀

@kenshirriff Why that particular voltage and frequency? Did the creators learn all their EE through dance instead of words?

Ken Shirriff

@Urethramancer Apparently 400 Hz is popular for avionics rather than 60 Hz because the higher frequency means the transformers are much smaller.

Urethramancer🐀

@kenshirriff At least a logical, rather than arbitrary reason this time :)

[DATA EXPUNGED]
Seth Richards

@kenshirriff That thing looks like a nightmare to keep calibrated once the parts start to wear...

robryk

@kenshirriff What errors does that encompass? I would expect that this accounts for nonlinearity of the sensor, and that there's no need to account for errors in the amplifier itself (because we don't rely on ~any other properties than behaviour at input equal to 0). Are there other sources of systematic error I'm missing?

Go Up