Flog News Service

Engines Of Prosperity

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:44:00 +0000

In my last post I discussed Forth as a language.

A language that is based on a virtual machine. What if that virtual machine was turned into a real machine? Good things. For one operations can be done in parallel. Returns can be automatically initiated at the end of an instruction cycle. And except for a few special cases Forth machines are two stack zero operand machines. Thus instruction bits that would otherwise need to be used to designate registers are freed up for other uses. The two stacks are the return stack and the data stack. This means data does not need to be flushed from the return stack on a return. Which means you can nest subroutines easily and upon return the data required for the next operation is at the top of the stack. The process is not totally automatic. But it is nearly so. As you can imagine, eliminating a stack thrash on return from a subroutine is a very good idea. And having the data right where you need it for the next operation is a time saver too. Another time saver is that because "registers" are actually stack items you can have as many "registers" as you need in a machine just by making the stacks deeper. At least if you are designing with an FPGA.

But first a nod to the man who kicked all this off Charles Moore.

Masterminds of Programming: Conversations with the Creators of Major Programming Languages (Theory in Practice) Is a book about a number of programming language designers and how they made the decisions they did. One reviewer had this to say about the interview with Moore, "The interview with charles moore is completely insane, in a good way."

Forth machines come in many flavors. Phil Koopman in his book, Stack Computers: the new wave, discusses the design issues in building stack machines. In addition there are a number of examples of machines that have been built. You can also read Phil's book for free on line at Stack Computers - Phil Koopman's Page. In addition you can download a copy from Phil's page.

From: A very short bio of Charles Moore

In 1983 Moore founded Novix, Inc., where he developed the NC4000 processor. This design was licensed to Harris Semiconductor which marketed it as the RTX2000, a radiation hardened stack processor which has been used in numerous NASA missions. The RTX2000 patent number is 4,980,821. The patent was filed on March 24, 1987 and issued on December 25, 1990. So by any measure the patent has expired. You can look up the patent at the US Patent Office.

Here is a link to the RTX2010 data page. The device is no longer in production.

To get the pluses and minuses of such a design Phil Koopman among others compares the RTX2000 to other architectures of its day (1992).

So what do you do if you want a Forth processor these days? You get out an FPGA and program it. Because the design of the processor is so simple they are easy to impliment and test and they don't use a lot of gates. With stacks internal to the machine there is no waiting to get stack data. And since internal stacks can be circular there is no need to flush a stack (change the stack pointer) if you have no further need for the stored data.

So where do you go for such a machine? I have worked with a 16 bit Forth machine that John Rible designed in about 1998 that was very nice. John did the architecture and Cadence did the implimentation. John currently does Forth chips in Verilog for FPGAs. His www site is: Sandpipers. Another place to get a Forth chip is at opencores.com. There is a Forth core that is available for download.

Of course he can help with architecture as I can. I did a few tweaks on the processor John designed. I also have a few ideas of my own for a 32 bit machine.

So how about an assembler/Forth for such a machine? It is pretty easy to write one in Forth. Or Forth Inc. will do the job for you. You can contact them at Forth Inc. Or you could ask me. And think about it: For many of the basic instructions the assembly code maps directly to the machine code. Pretty slick and runs fast too.

If you need help with your Forth Chip design, or even tech writing you can contact M. Simon by getting his e-mail from the sidebar at IEC Fusion Technology.

Pay Pal

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:28:00 +0000

Donate as produced by PayPal is easy.

====

Donate from PaC
Writing is how I earn a living. If you like what you read here:
Make A Donation Today

==

====

Amazon 31 May 2009

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Sun, 31 May 2009 08:54:00 +0000

The Fourth Way

Logitech S220 2.1 Speaker System (Black)

Bodyguard of Lies: The Extraordinary True Story Behind D-Day

SanDisk SDSDB-4096-A11 4GB SDHC Memory Card (Blue)

MINC

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:27:00 +0000

CNBC

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:17:00 +0000

Ezek

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:32:00 +0000

Economics

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:43:00 +0000

Free to Choose: A Personal Statement

The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek)

Makers vs Takers

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:56:00 +0000

I just learned about a book by Jane Jacobs, Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politicswhich was published in 1992, from Duane J. Oldsen. It has a fascinating look at the two major systems of morality that we find in the world. Commercial Morality and Guardian (Political) Morality. Or what I like to call Makers vs Takers. The two are complimentary (neither does well without the other) and yet stand in opposition to each other. Things get really nasty when the spheres of influence are mixed without consideration for consequences.

Let me start with a couple of references. First The Wiki which provides a short look at the major points. Second is this pdf which is much more detailed with many excerpts from the book. However, I must caution that it is somewhat hard to read due to the many typos.

I want to start first with a table of contrasting moral precepts. Which I have modified slightly from the wiki to make the contrasts a little clearer.

Moral Precepts for Systems of Survival

Guardian System	Commercial System
Shun trading	Shun force
Take	Earn
Be obedient and disciplined	Be efficient
Adhere to tradition	Be open to inventiveness and novelty
Respect hierarchy	Use initiative and enterprise
Be loyal	Come to voluntary agreements
Take vengeance	Respect contracts
Deceive for the sake of the task	Dissent for the sake of the task
Make rich use of leisure	Be industrious
Be ostentatious	Be thrifty
Dispense largess	Invest for productive purposes
Be exclusive	Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens
Show fortitude	Promote comfort and convenience
Be fatalistic	Be optimistic
Treasure honor	Be honest

I think the commercial class is rather self explanatory but the political class needs some explanation.

testing columns

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Tue, 20 May 2008 08:35:00 +0000

This is a strange way to show what happens.

**Systems of Survival**
Shun trading	Shun force
Take	Earn
Be obedient and disciplined	Be efficient
Adhere to tradition	Be open to inventiveness and novelty
Respect hierarchy	Use initiative and enterprise
Be loyal	Come to voluntary agreements
Take vengeance	Respect contracts
Deceive for the sake of the task	Dissent for the sake of the task
Make rich use of leisure	Be industrious
Be ostentatious	Be thrifty
Dispense largess	Invest for productive purposes
Be exclusive	Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens
Show fortitude	Promote comfort and convenience
Be fatalistic	Be optimistic
Treasure honor	Be honest

nother table test

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Mon, 19 May 2008 09:43:00 +0000

This is a strange way to show what happens.

Systems of Survival
Shun trading	Shun force
Exert prowess	Come to voluntary agreements
Be obedient and disciplined	Be honest
Adhere to tradition	Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens
Respect hierarchy	Compete
Be loyal	Respect contracts
Take vengeance	Use initiative and enterprise
Deceive for the sake of the task	Be open to inventiveness and novelty

What comes after

Drill Teams

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:04:00 +0000

Little Green Footballs put up this excellent video of the US Marines Silent Drill Team. The silent part means that no commands are given to initiate various actions as is done in normal squad manuvers. Commands like "About Face", "Forward, March", "Attention", "Present Arms", etc.

Which of course got me to thinking about my days as a Navy boot.

We drilled with the Springfield M1903. It is a very fine piece to drill with. They never trusted us with bayonets though. LOL (Boot camp for me started 11 Nov '63. NTC San Diego. Right next to Marine Corps Camp Pendelton. We'd be having a smoke next to the fence watching the Marines double timing around the perimiter of the Pendelton. I know we thought "stupid Jar Heads". They probably thought "pussy Sailors". I'm sure the positioning was intentional. Motivation for both sides. LOL.)

BTW I love the way the fittings on the rifles rattle. It sounds like men going to battle since the age of metal weapons began.

Wiki on the 1903:

Due to its balance, it is still popular with various military drill teams and color guards, most notably the U.S. Army Drill Team. M1903 rifles are also common at high school Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) units to teach weapons handling and military drill procedures to the cadets. JROTC units use M1903s for regular and inter-school competition drills, including elaborate exhibition spinning routines similar to a majorette spinning a baton.

A Helpful Bunch

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:39:00 +0000

Popular Science looks at Thiago Olson's fusion reactor.

How did he do it? Olson pored over graduate-level physics textbooks, studied vacuum-pump manufacturers’ manuals, and scoured the Web for cheap parts. Though mostly self-taught, he occasionally solicited advice on a fusion Web site. Once, he posted photos of a cheap photomultiplier tube he’d bought online because he had no idea how to rig it up. Another fusioneer on the site who had the same model promptly told him which wires went where. Amateur nuclear engineers are, it seems, a helpful bunch.

Yes we are.

Image Manipulation

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:34:00 +0000

Instapundit says that we will need coal, oil, and natural gas for some time even if some one invents Mr. Fusion tomorrow. Which is true.

However, Mr. Fusion was invented yesterday (several years ago actually).

It was invented by Dr Robert Bussard formerly of the AEC fusion office. He did the work under a Naval contract.

The Bussard Fusion Reactor will lower electrical costs at the busbar by at least 10X over coal or fission nuke power plants. Capital cost for electical plants using the Bussard Fusion design will decline by at least 5X mainly because no turbines, condensers, steam generators or electrical generators are required. With such a lowering of costs and simplicity of required equipment, roll out will be very fast.

The reactor is just a big sphere surrounded by electro-magnets. The main cost of the plant is converting the 2 million volts DC output to AC for local use. The direct 2 million volt output would be great for long distance transmission. Although the plants copuld be sited in just about any reasonably sized electrical yard since any required cooling would not requre a water supply. Air cooling would work fine.

The power generator is about 10 to 12 ft across for an output between 100 MW and 1,000 MW. Power output scales as the 7th power of size. Double the size and you get 128X as much power.

No thermal plant is required. Thermal plants - steam generators, turbines etc. - are long lead time items. They can take from 3 to 5 years from start of production to delivery. The Bussard Fusion Reactor output is direct 2 million volts DC. (a very large battery).

Unlike fission plants there is no fuel stored in the reactor core = no Three Mile Island kind of problems. Turn off the electricity or turn off the fuel and the
reaction stops.

It would make a good rocket engine for fast interplanetary travel.

Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion - video plus technical details.

Dr Bussard needs $2 million in start up funds to verify reaction constants. He will need $200 million for a test reactor.

The fuel is Boron 11 which is very abundant. We have 200,000+ years of reserves on the planet if it is used exclusively for power. Most borax is used now for borosilicate glass.

Let me take this time to specifically thank the crew at Classical Values Justin and Eric for giving me a heads up on this.

Duke Video

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:34:00 +0000

Just a test

noreply@blogger.com (M. Simon) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:35:00 +0000

Dissension In The Ranks

If you came here it is your own damn fault. Click on the link above to get back