On 5 Mar 2010 22:22:59 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:

In article , (Doug Miller) writes:
| In article , ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
|
|
| I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I really don't know:
| typically, does shifting an automatic transmission into neutral
| actually disengage a gear or does it merely cause the torque
| converter to stop transferring torque?
|
| Neither, actually. It disengages a clutch inside the transmission.

Interesting. Is disengaging that clutch used for anything else (except
perhaps park)? If that clutch on my vehicle were not fully disengaging
would I likely observe any other symptoms or would the torque converter
absorb the rotation in park and at idle in neutral with the transmission
loaded (i.e., with the transfer case not in neutral)?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

There is more than one "clutch" involved - and in most transmisions
also at leat one "band" or "brake". They are applied in different
combinations for different gears.
Your tranny uses planetary gear sets, and by holding different
elements of the set, different ratios are produced. Locking the input
to the output with a clutch gives direct drive.

If any of the clutches do not release fully the fluid will quickly
overheat and stink.
Even fully released, with no load on the output shaft it will turn
when the engine is running in neutral because of viscous friction (oil
between the plates of the clutches etc)

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 20:43:07 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

On Mar 4, 6:27Â*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 04:58:58 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:39Â*am, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 3, 11:38Â*am, wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:21Â*pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:

wrote:
I'm quite amazed at how people want to just attribute this to driver
stupidity. Â*In the famous Lexus case the driver was an experienced CA
highway patrol officer who had taken special driving training as part
of his job. Â*I'd be pretty amazed if he didn't try to put the car in
neutral.

Now who is making assumptions? Â*The high performance street driving I took as a
Paramedic did not include any training about run away acceleration. Â*-- Doug

No, and I never assumed it did. Â* But don't you think a CA highway
patrol officer that has received a variety of training, not only in
driving, but in how to handle difficult, stressful, combat situations,
would have the presence of mind to shift into neutral? Â* Yet he did
not during a ride that lasted minutes? Â* Â*Or that not one of the 3
other people in the car thought of it? Â* Â*Is it possible they didn't
try sure. Â* But doesn't this bother you at all, or are you certain to
join Harry in calling the dead cop stupid?

Have a problem with pointing out the truth. Â*The FACT is that the
lexus can be shifted to neutrral under runaway conditions. Â*It has
been proven TWICE and both were cited in this thread.

Show us where what you claim above has been proven. Â* I've seen people
saying that a NORMAL functioning Lexus can be shifted into neutral.
I've seen people report that Toyota has said that the shift linkage is
only mechanical and it can be shifted into neutral while being
driven. Â* Â* Neither of those proves that it's true under runaway
conditions. Â*As I've said before, unless you know the design of the
car and what is linked to what, you are making assumptions unsupported
by the facts.

The FACT is the law requires there be a mechanical way to put a cat
out of gear, and ALL cars with automatic transmissions, to this day,
have a "manual valve" controled by a linkage to do this. The only
automatic car in history that I cannot say for 100% positive Â*had this
feature was the electric shifted Edsel with the buttons in the
steering wheel (made for only 2 years) and the Packard Ultramatic,
which is the only car in history that could NOT be shifted into
neutral at speed.

Both of these had come and gone before automotive safety legislation
caught up with them.

If you have a link supporting that Toyota has tested shifting a Lexus
into neutral on a track going at topspeed with full throttle, I'd be
very happy to see it.

Don't need a test if you understand how the car is built. There is NO
LOCKOUT that can prevent the shifter fom moving to neutral at speed
and yet allow the car to be put in neutral at a stop.

Any mechanical FAILURE that would prevent shifting to neutral at speed
would also prevent going to neutral at a stop. The brake/shifter
interlock only prevents shifting OUT OF PARK without the brake pedal
depressed - and even IF it could control the movement into neutral
fron either drive or reverse (the only options) stepping on the brake
would allow the shifter to be moved.

That would be a start. Â* But then the other component would be that
you would also have to know by design that nothing in the tranny could
prevent it from being shifted, even if not designed to do so
intentionally.

Â*Having had many transmissions apart, including electrically shifted,
electronic controlled units, the only electical or electronic controls
in today's automatics are electrically operated solenoid valves that
control the flow of hydraulic fluid under pressure to the various
clutches and brakes that control the shifting of the planetary gear
sets. There are no electromechanical devices that interface with the
manual valve control which has ULTIMATE CONTROL of the transmission.
NO combination of sticky, faulty, or missapplied solenoids could cause
the transmission to transmit driving force to the wheels with the
manual valve in the neutral position.

Â*I'd want to see exactly what prevents the shift lever
from moving into ANY position under any circumstances. Â*For example,
is there a lock that keeps it from moving into park when the car is
moving? Â* And what determines that, how the mechanism works, etc.
You would need to take apart the trannys from the wrecked cars and do
a complete forensic investigation of the components.

That, when it exists, is in the shifter assembly itself - not the
tranny, and is called a brake/shifter interlock. Requires the brake to
be depressed to put the vehicle into or out of PARK ONLY.



I'm not saying it's likely all the cars could not be shifted, just
that if we jumped to conclusions without ALL the facts, a lot more
people would be dead today. Â* Why do you think it takes so long for
the NTSB to carefully analyze plane crashes instead of saying the
pilot was stupid, he should have been able to land the plane?

Because there is a LOT more affecting an airplane's flight than there
is affecting the operation of a motor vehicle.
Aerodynamics are CRITICAL, as is structural strength and loading -
which can be affected by so MANY different parameters.
A little bit of ice can totally destroy the lifting capability of an
airfoil (particularly the now-common "laminar" airfoils) - and by the
time investigators get there, the ice is long gone.

By the way - I am also building an airplane.



Also note that I'm not saying how the cars are or are not designed or
what caused anything. Â*All I'm saying is that until more
investigations are done and more facts are established, it's premature
to be calling a dead CHP officer, among others, Â*stupid for not being
able to shift the car.

I'd tell him to his face if he were still alive - even if he was
"carrying" There is NO EXCUSE for the death of the Chippy and his
family other than gross stupidity in Â*the face of adversity.





explain it in simple terms for simple people:

The cause of the runaway was Toyota's fault. Â*The deaths were due to
driver error.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

Actually, your whole approach to the problem is remarkably similar to
Toyota's. Â* For years they dismissed reports of both runaway
acceleration and wrecks as driver stupidity instead of doing a
complete investigation before jumping to conclusions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you did it. He will want a cite to each and every statement.

Harry K
Like my auto mechanics licence number, my Diploma number and school,
and the registration number for the plane under construction?????
Fat chance!!!

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:45:33 -0600, "
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:42:55 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:44:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 4, 11:05Â*am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:23Â*am, wrote:





On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 07:49:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:06Â*am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

Yes, but you missed my whole point. Â* You acknowledged that it's
desirable to have some kind of interlock to keep the car from being
shifted into at least Park while it's moving. Â* OK, so I implement
that system via an interlock system consisting of a solenoid driven by
the computer. Â* That's right, the same computer that is malfunctioning
and has the throttle pegged. Â* ...

Automotives don't use simply a single computer -- hence there is no "the
computer". Â*There are a multitude of very small (and some not so small)
microprocessors. Â*The likelihood of there being multiple systems on the
same processor is small.

Nonsense. Â*Sure there are multiple computers in a car. Â*Common ones
are for the engine control, ABS, climate control, etc. Â* But nothing
says that one computer cannot be responsible for many systems. Â*Why
would it seem unusual to have a case where the engine start/shutoff
was in the same computer as that which determines the throttle
position? Â*It is part of the engine control, is it not? Â* Â*And if
there was an electronic shift interlock, why would it be unusual for
that same computer to control it? Â* That computer is the one that
knows if the car is running, what speed it's traveling at etc.

I don't know what exactly any of the computers in these cars controls
or how the system is put together. Â* Yet, you among others, are
jumping to conclusions on what is possible or impossible without any
facts.

And in FACT, on most current production vehicles, there is either one
or 2 computers that control everything. Common practice seams to be a
PCM (Powertrain control module) and a BCM (Body control module).
The PCM handles Â*engine and transmission and all related functions -
often including cruise control, stability control, ABS, etc, while the
BCM handles the AC, power windows, sometimes cruise control etc, and
the instrument panel, among others.

SOME vehicles use only one computer to handle everything (including,
apparently, the RADIO.

Here's a much better source that says you don't know what you're
talking about:

http://www.embedded.com/columns/sign...questid=508024

For background, embedded processors are the computers that are
embedded in something else, as opposed to being a desktop, notebook,
server, etc. That something else could be your TV, cell phone,
microwave, or in this case car. They have a cpu, memory, input/output
and execute a program. Here's what they have to say about how many
of these are in cars today and it's even more than I would have
guessed. I think many here will be surprised at how high the numbers
actually are.


"How many embedded processors does your car have? Go ahead, guess. If
you've got a late-model luxury sedan, two or three processors might be
obvious in the GPS navigation system or the automatic distance
control. Yet you'd still be off by a factor of 25 or 50. The current 7-
Series BMW and S-class Mercedes boast about 100 processors apiece. A
relatively low-profile Volvo still has 50 to 60 baby processors on
board. Even a boring low-cost econobox has a few dozen different
microprocessors in it. Your transportation appliance probably has more
chips than your Internet appliance."

Like I said, there are a lot of "smart switches" in the canbus system
- but although they may use"microprocessors" they are not computers.

Tell us, how is a microprocessor (any microprocessor) *not* a computer?


A "computer" CAN include a microprocessor, but does not need to.
Google KURTA for a very good example of a strictly mechanical
"computer"
The earliest electronic computers also did not use a microprocessor,
or even a central processing unit (CPU).

A Microprocessor is a COMPUTER COMPONENT that can be used for many
processes, from the very simple to the very complex - only some of
which are "computational" or numeric in nature.

The microprocessor is used as a switch. Switches are binary digital
devices too - canbus switches are solid state and remote control. They
do NO data processing so are not REALLY computers.

Huh?


From the Columbia Encyclopedia
"computer:
device capable of performing a series of arithmetic or logical
operations. A computer is distinguished from a calculating machine,
such as an electronic calculator, by being able to store a computer
program (so that it can repeat its operations and make logical
decisions), by the number and complexity of the operations it can
perform, and by its ability to process, store, and retrieve data
without human intervention. Computers developed along two separate
engineering paths, producing two distinct types of computer-analog and
digital. An analog computer operates on continuously varying data; a
digital computer performs operations on discrete data."


If a microprocessor performs only a single operation (such as display
data on a LCD screen, or decode a signal sent across a power wire to
turn on a light remotely) it is not a computer.

If it reads several inputs and "computes" a result, and then creates
an output that does something, it is a computer, like a cruise control
computer, a transmission control computer, an ABS computer, etc.
A computer can multi-task, running numerous processes at the same
time, operating, for instance, engine fuel injection, ignition timing
and emission control, as well as controlling the transmission and
brake antilock systems - and by linking the three together also
provide traction control and active stability control - all on one
"computer"

Didn't know that. eh??

That said, even if you count them, and use a Bimmer as your example
(likely the most over-computerized space-ships in tha galaxy) finding
100 microprocessor controlled devices, muchless microprocessors, would
be a big stretch.

And counting the display driver on an LCD display as a "computer" is a
real stretch of litterary licence!!!!!

And counting the display driver on an LCD display as a "computer" is a
real stretch of litterary licence!!!!!- Hide quoted text -


It's no stretch at all if the display is in fact implemented by using
a microprocessor or microcontroller. If it's implemented strictly
via a digital hardware device, ie, it isn't a cpu running a program,
then yes it would be just a display driver. I think the embedded
system development folks know the difference. Some key point are that
it makes sense to use a computer as opposed to just digital logic
because it's cheap, easy to design, re-programmable during
developemt, manufacturing or potentially in the field without changing
the hardware and once you have it in the display, you can then add all
kinds of nifty features because the cpu is already there and can
handle more stuff for free. If you read the article I provided,
they even point to the first use of a Motorolla 6802 microprocessor in
the 1978 cadillac dashboard display to implement the trip computer.

There is a murky area here, which you even alluded to. Is an FPGA a computer?
(no need to answer that


Actually, a trip computer IS a computer, but unlike the '78 Caddy, the
trip computer on MOST cars today is not a separate, discrete unit. The
trip computer is a FUNCTION of either the PCU or the BCU (powertrain
contol or body control unit) however it is referred to by any
particular manufacturer.
I was referring to calling a "display driver" a computer, even though
it may have a microprocessor and rom in it to generate the characters.

SOME cars DO use a separate "computer" in the dash for the trip
computer - and for things like "on-star" etc. But the number of
computers has actually DECREASED in recent years as more and more
functions are handled by fewer and fewer actual devices.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 22:53:05 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



"Twayne" wrote in message
My Buick can be shifted into any gear you wish at speeds over 45 mph. Of
course, nothing will happen. Shift to Neutral, you're still in Drive,
shift to Reverse, still nothing happens and you stay in drive. I know
because when I read it in the manual, I tried it.

What Buick is that? When I shift mine into neutral, it is in neutral, not
drive. 2001 LeSabre and 1991 Regal went out of gear. I did not try
reverse. .


At speed, shifting to LOW will not cause the transmission to downshift
on most current automatics untill the speed drops low enough that the
engine would not be over-reved to drive it in LOW, and the throttle is
depressed far enough to accellerate the engine to the speed required
to drive it at that speed in LOW. However, once it has shifted to LOW
it will stay there when the pedal is released. The downshift enable
speed may be slightly higher than the full throttle upshift speed, and
higher than the full throttle kick-down (passing gear) speed.
MOST will also NOT engage reverse above a programmed (and quite low)
speed, to protect the drivetrain from damage.
Shifting into NEUTRAL, WILL disconnect the drive. It MUST for safety
reasons, and by the very design of the transmission.
All current transmissions sold for highway use in North America have
a "manual valve" that puts the transmission into a controllable
condition so that the solenoids can apply or release the required
clutches to drive the vehicle. When the Manual valve is put in
neutral, no pressurized fluid is applied to the solenoids, so even if
they are applied, the transmission will not transmit power to the
output/wheels..
The hydraulic pressure is manually disconnected in both neutral and
park positions.

Some hydraulic transmissions on off-road equipment are strictly
electrically controlled (or at least were a few years ago) but loss of
electrical power dissables the drive completely.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:45:33 -0600, "
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:42:55 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:44:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 4, 11:05*am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:23*am, wrote:





On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 07:49:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:06*am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

Yes, but you missed my whole point. * You acknowledged that it's
desirable to have some kind of interlock to keep the car from being
shifted into at least Park while it's moving. * OK, so I implement
that system via an interlock system consisting of a solenoid driven by
the computer. * That's right, the same computer that is malfunctioning
and has the throttle pegged. * ...

Automotives don't use simply a single computer -- hence there is no "the
computer". *There are a multitude of very small (and some not so small)
microprocessors. *The likelihood of there being multiple systems on the
same processor is small.

Nonsense. *Sure there are multiple computers in a car. *Common ones
are for the engine control, ABS, climate control, etc. * But nothing
says that one computer cannot be responsible for many systems. *Why
would it seem unusual to have a case where the engine start/shutoff
was in the same computer as that which determines the throttle
position? *It is part of the engine control, is it not? * *And if
there was an electronic shift interlock, why would it be unusual for
that same computer to control it? * That computer is the one that
knows if the car is running, what speed it's traveling at etc.

I don't know what exactly any of the computers in these cars controls
or how the system is put together. * Yet, you among others, are
jumping to conclusions on what is possible or impossible without any
facts.

And in FACT, on most current production vehicles, there is either one
or 2 computers that control everything. Common practice seams to be a
PCM (Powertrain control module) and a BCM (Body control module).
The PCM handles *engine and transmission and all related functions -
often including cruise control, stability control, ABS, etc, while the
BCM handles the AC, power windows, sometimes cruise control etc, and
the instrument panel, among others.

SOME vehicles use only one computer to handle everything (including,
apparently, the RADIO.

Here's a much better source that says you don't know what you're
talking about:

http://www.embedded.com/columns/sign...questid=508024

For background, embedded processors are the computers that are
embedded in something else, as opposed to being a desktop, notebook,
server, etc. That something else could be your TV, cell phone,
microwave, or in this case car. They have a cpu, memory, input/output
and execute a program. Here's what they have to say about how many
of these are in cars today and it's even more than I would have
guessed. I think many here will be surprised at how high the numbers
actually are.


"How many embedded processors does your car have? Go ahead, guess. If
you've got a late-model luxury sedan, two or three processors might be
obvious in the GPS navigation system or the automatic distance
control. Yet you'd still be off by a factor of 25 or 50. The current 7-
Series BMW and S-class Mercedes boast about 100 processors apiece. A
relatively low-profile Volvo still has 50 to 60 baby processors on
board. Even a boring low-cost econobox has a few dozen different
microprocessors in it. Your transportation appliance probably has more
chips than your Internet appliance."

Like I said, there are a lot of "smart switches" in the canbus system
- but although they may use"microprocessors" they are not computers.

Tell us, how is a microprocessor (any microprocessor) *not* a computer?


A "computer" CAN include a microprocessor, but does not need to.

That is *NOT* what I asked. Try reading for comprehension.

Google KURTA for a very good example of a strictly mechanical
"computer"
The earliest electronic computers also did not use a microprocessor,
or even a central processing unit (CPU).

Are you really this stupid, or are you just pulling my leg?

A Microprocessor is a COMPUTER COMPONENT that can be used for many
processes, from the very simple to the very complex - only some of
which are "computational" or numeric in nature.

I guess you really are stupid.

The microprocessor is used as a switch. Switches are binary digital
devices too - canbus switches are solid state and remote control. They
do NO data processing so are not REALLY computers.

Huh?


From the Columbia Encyclopedia
"computer:
device capable of performing a series of arithmetic or logical
operations. A computer is distinguished from a calculating machine,
such as an electronic calculator, by being able to store a computer
program (so that it can repeat its operations and make logical
decisions), by the number and complexity of the operations it can
perform, and by its ability to process, store, and retrieve data
without human intervention. Computers developed along two separate
engineering paths, producing two distinct types of computer-analog and
digital. An analog computer operates on continuously varying data; a
digital computer performs operations on discrete data."

That's nice, but totally irrelevant.

If a microprocessor performs only a single operation (such as display
data on a LCD screen, or decode a signal sent across a power wire to
turn on a light remotely) it is not a computer.

Wrong.

If it reads several inputs and "computes" a result, and then creates
an output that does something, it is a computer, like a cruise control
computer, a transmission control computer, an ABS computer, etc.
A computer can multi-task, running numerous processes at the same
time, operating, for instance, engine fuel injection, ignition timing
and emission control, as well as controlling the transmission and
brake antilock systems - and by linking the three together also
provide traction control and active stability control - all on one
"computer"

A cruise control performs a single operation; accelerate/not so much.

Didn't know that. eh??

I know you're an idiot, pretending to know something.


That said, even if you count them, and use a Bimmer as your example
(likely the most over-computerized space-ships in tha galaxy) finding
100 microprocessor controlled devices, muchless microprocessors, would
be a big stretch.

And counting the display driver on an LCD display as a "computer" is a
real stretch of litterary licence!!!!!

In article , writes:
| On 5 Mar 2010 07:20:52 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:

| Let me explain why I ask. I have a 1997 Toyota Landcruiser with
| automatic transmission. It also has a (totally mechanical) shift
| on the transfer case to select low or (normal) high speed. The
| manual says to put the automatic transmission in neutral when you
| want to change the transfer ratio. If I follow those instructions
| I hear/feel a nasty gear grinding when I try to shift the transfer
| case, suggesting that somehow the output of the transmission is
| still rotating with at least some force.
|
| The planetarys are still spinning, with some friction dragging the
| output around. Much better to shift in park - or come to a full stop,
| THEN shift into neutral and shift the transfer case quickly

Shifting in park works fine, but I'm not sure why they claim it will
cause the "transmission to damage." But being at a full stop doesn't
help. The specific sequence:

Vehicle parked in garage. Start vehicle in park. Shift to neutral.
Shift transfer case from high to neutral; feel moderate resistance and
tolerable levels of grinding. Attempt to shift transfer case from
neutral to low; feel strong resistance and enough grinding to abandon
attempt.

I've never tried to shift the transfer case with the vehicle in motion.

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

In article , wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:50:20 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani)
wrote:


I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I really don't know:
typically, does shifting an automatic transmission into neutral
actually disengage a gear or does it merely cause the torque
converter to stop transferring torque?

Neither, actually. It disengages a clutch inside the transmission.

Which disengages the gears.

No, it doesn't. The teeth of the gears are still in mesh.

Even in most manual transmissions today the gears (except for reverse)
are in constant mesh.

On Mar 5, 10:11Â*pm, wrote:

Like I said, there are a lot of "smart switches" in the canbus system
- but although they may use"microprocessors" they are not computers.

Tell us, how is a microprocessor (any microprocessor) *not* a computer?

A "computer" CAN include a microprocessor, but does not need to.


Neither krw nor I ever said that a computer needs to include a
microprocessor. The reverse is what krw claimed, which is to say that
a system that includes a microprocessor is a computer. Unless
perhaps the microprocessor is being used as a doorstop. For the
microprocessor to be of any use, it needs to be executing a program
and capable of some kind of input/output. At that point it is a
computer. It could be a very simple program only taking in some
serial data, figuring out what the data is telling it to do, then
activating the appropriate output. But that is just a simpler
version of what your PC is doing.




Google KURTA for a very good example of a strictly mechanical
"computer"
The earliest electronic computers also did not use a microprocessor,
or even a central processing unit (CPU).


I'd also point out that today, virtually all current computers do
contain a microprocessor or microcontroller. Certainly evey one in
today's cars do. So, why the trip down memory lane? For the record,
I did google KURTA and KURTA mechanical computer and came up with
zippo.




A Microprocessor is a COMPUTER COMPONENT that can be used for many
processes, from the very simple to the very complex - only some of
which are "computational" or numeric in nature.

As I said above, if a system has a microprocessor it's a computer.
It could be a simple one, that takes a few inputs and works a few
switches, but it is a computer. That microprocessor is executing a
program. Other than that the program is very simple, how is that any
different than a microprocessor operating in a PC? And you never
answered this question:

How about I write a simple assembly language program that implements a
switch function,
turning a keyboard light on and off, put it in a flash memory chip,
and replace the bios on my PC with it? The light is now flashing.
Is my PC no longer a computer just because it's running a very simple
program?


Here's Collins dictionary definition of the word computer:


computer [kəmˈpju�tə]
n
1. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science)
a. a device, usually electronic, that processes data according to a
set of instructions. The digital computer stores data in discrete
units and performs arithmetical and logical operations at very high
speed. The analog computer has no memory and is slower than the
digital computer but has a continuous rather than a discrete input.
The hybrid computer combines some of the advantages of digital and
analog computers.
b. (as modifier) computer technology Related prefix cyber-
2. a person who computes or calculates
Collins English Dictionary


And from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: com·put·er
Pronunciation: \kəm-ˈpyü-tər\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 1646
: one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic
device that can store, retrieve, and process



Tell us what part of those definitions an 8051 running the dashboard
display in a car would not meet.







The microprocessor is used as a switch. Switches are binary digital
devices too - canbus switches are solid state and remote control. They
do NO data processing so are not REALLY computers.

Huh?

From the Columbia Encyclopedia
"computer:
device capable of performing a series of arithmetic or logical
operations. A computer is distinguished from a calculating machine,
such as an electronic calculator, by being able to store a computer
program (so that it can repeat its operations and make logical
decisions), by the number and complexity of the operations it can
perform, and by its ability to process, store, and retrieve data
without human intervention. Computers developed along two separate
engineering paths, producing two distinct types of computer-analog and
digital. An analog computer operates on continuously varying data; a
digital computer performs operations on discrete data."


Let's look at the first sentence: "device capable of performing a
series of arithmetic or logical operations." An 8051 microcontroller
running the dashboard display meets that definition.

Now let's look at the next part:

A computer is distinguished from a calculating machine,
such as an electronic calculator, by being able to store a computer
program (so that it can repeat its operations and make logical
decisions), by the number and complexity of the operations it can
perform, and by its ability to process, store, and retrieve data
without human intervention.


Now we're really out of the definition part, but they are making a
specific comparison of what would distinguish an electronic calculator
from a computer. But let's take this list of requirements anyway:

able to store a computer program
number and complexity of operations it can perform
ability to process, store and retrieve data without human intervention

An 8051 microcontroller running a dashboard display meets all those
requirement.






If a microprocessor performs only a single operation (such as display
data on a LCD screen, or decode a signal sent across a power wire to
turn on a light remotely) it is not a computer.

It's still a computer because it has a CPU, memory, I/O and is
executing a program.





If it reads several inputs and "computes" a result, and then creates
an output that does something, it is a computer, like a cruise control
computer, a transmission control computer, an ABS computer, etc.


So we also have the dashboard display microprocessor, which is
receiving digital data serially from the ECU as to the cars speed,
from the tranny computer as to the shift lever position, from the
climate control computer as to the inside and outside temps, from the
GPS as to the compass heading. Then using that data it computes how
to activate the various display segments, responds to pushbuttons on
the dash to work the trip computer, etc. Tell us how that is not a
computer. Of course it is and it's called the dashboard display
computer which should be on your list. It's also funny that in the
above statement, we suddenly have 3 new computers in a car, not
including the ECU and body computer. Gee, you started off telling us
that most cars have only two and some only one.




A computer can multi-task, running numerous processes at the same
time, operating, for instance, engine fuel injection, ignition timing
and emission control, as well as controlling the transmission and
brake antilock systems - and by linking the three together also
provide traction control and active stability control - all on one
"computer"

Didn't know that. eh??


I've forgotten more than you can ever hope to know. If you want to
compare credentials, I would be happy to do so, but I don't think you
want to go there. And what does the above have to do with
anything? Are you now claiming that to meet the definition of a
computer it must be capable of multitasking? Even if you want to
make that claim, a simple 8051 microcontroller is quite capable of
multitasking. As an example, in a display controller an 8051 could
be receiving data on the vehicle speed on it's serial port, working
the display segments and updating the distance traveled. Just like
the ECU "computer"


You also completely ignored the highly credible link I gave you that
says

http://www.embedded.com/columns/sign...questid=508024

This is a website for engineers that do embedded computer design.
And they clearly say that even an econobox car today has a few dozen
embedded processors. Or how about all the other media reports that
you frequently see that talk about how many computers are in a typical
home today? They are in everything from your cable box, to your
microwave oven, your alarm system, your digital thermostat, your
dishwasher, etc. Do you agree they are computers? And if yes, then
what makes them different than using a microprocessor in a dashboard
display?

I can give you my answer. They are all computers because they have a
CPU, execute a program, and I/O.

On Mar 4, 9:31*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 05:17:57 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:35*am, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:03:39 -0700, "chaniarts"

wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:01 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , Doug Miller wrote:
The thing that really stood out to me was the statement by Toyota's
president that they're going to look into programming a brake
override for the throttle.

I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT THERE
FROM THE BEGINNING?

*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? As in relying on
lack of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably
apply an override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second
malfunction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any
single
malfunction.

That's obviously totally false. *Let's say I have a single computer
that is running the throttle, the shift interlock, and the engine shut
off via the start/stop button. *Actually that doesn't sound that far
fetched. * Clearly you could write a program in such a way that the
program under certain conditions goes into a program loop where it
will no longer respond to either a change in throttle input or the
stop button and will also not unlock the shift. * That's a single
program failure, not two simultaneous malfunctions.

but most modern cars have probably 30, and some upwards of 100, different
computers.

Nope - unless you count all the CanBuss controll modules - and even
then 30 would be stretching it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nonsense. * A computer in any reasonable context means a CPU of some
kind executing a program defined by software. * There most certainly
are many computers in a car today. * Aside from the ECU, there
typically are CPU's for things like the ABS brakes, climate control,
radio, GPS, air bag, etc. * Some or all of those computers may be
linked together, some may issue commands to others, etc, but that
doesn't mean there are a lot more than 1.

Well, I happen to know that the engine and transmission controls are
"one computer" . The climate control, air bags, *radio, compass, etc
are another "computer".


I'd love to see a reference that says all that stuff, including the
air bags, are run by one computer on any car. You also seem to be
making very broad generalizations as to how all cars are designed.
A simple google search on "air bag computer" brings up lots of hits.
There is discussion on where it is, how to repIace it, etc. Funny
how they call it an airbag computer, not an airbag/radio/compass
computer and there is no mention of it doing anything other than
control the airbags. Here's one link with a picture of the airbag
computer from a Nissan.

http://forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/351612


And I can think of some very good reasons why designers would want an
airbag computer to be dedicated to that one specific task. Can you?

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 06:39:37 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 5, 10:11Â*pm, wrote:

Like I said, there are a lot of "smart switches" in the canbus system
- but although they may use"microprocessors" they are not computers.

Tell us, how is a microprocessor (any microprocessor) *not* a computer?

A "computer" CAN include a microprocessor, but does not need to.


Neither krw nor I ever said that a computer needs to include a
microprocessor. The reverse is what krw claimed, which is to say that
a system that includes a microprocessor is a computer. Unless
perhaps the microprocessor is being used as a doorstop. For the
microprocessor to be of any use, it needs to be executing a program
and capable of some kind of input/output. At that point it is a
computer. It could be a very simple program only taking in some
serial data, figuring out what the data is telling it to do, then
activating the appropriate output. But that is just a simpler
version of what your PC is doing.




Google KURTA for a very good example of a strictly mechanical
"computer"
The earliest electronic computers also did not use a microprocessor,
or even a central processing unit (CPU).


I'd also point out that today, virtually all current computers do
contain a microprocessor or microcontroller. Certainly evey one in
today's cars do. So, why the trip down memory lane? For the record,
I did google KURTA and KURTA mechanical computer and came up with
zippo.




A Microprocessor is a COMPUTER COMPONENT that can be used for many
processes, from the very simple to the very complex - only some of
which are "computational" or numeric in nature.

As I said above, if a system has a microprocessor it's a computer.
It could be a simple one, that takes a few inputs and works a few
switches, but it is a computer. That microprocessor is executing a
program. Other than that the program is very simple, how is that any
different than a microprocessor operating in a PC? And you never
answered this question:

How about I write a simple assembly language program that implements a
switch function,
turning a keyboard light on and off, put it in a flash memory chip,
and replace the bios on my PC with it? The light is now flashing.
Is my PC no longer a computer just because it's running a very simple
program?


Here's Collins dictionary definition of the word computer:


computer [k?m'pju?t?]
n
1. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science)
a. a device, usually electronic, that processes data according to a
set of instructions. The digital computer stores data in discrete
units and performs arithmetical and logical operations at very high
speed. The analog computer has no memory and is slower than the
digital computer but has a continuous rather than a discrete input.
The hybrid computer combines some of the advantages of digital and
analog computers.
b. (as modifier) computer technology Related prefix cyber-
2. a person who computes or calculates
Collins English Dictionary


And from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: com·put·er
Pronunciation: \k?m-'pyü-t?r\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 1646
: one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic
device that can store, retrieve, and process



Tell us what part of those definitions an 8051 running the dashboard
display in a car would not meet.







The microprocessor is used as a switch. Switches are binary digital
devices too - canbus switches are solid state and remote control. They
do NO data processing so are not REALLY computers.

Huh?

From the Columbia Encyclopedia
"computer:
device capable of performing a series of arithmetic or logical
operations. A computer is distinguished from a calculating machine,
such as an electronic calculator, by being able to store a computer
program (so that it can repeat its operations and make logical
decisions), by the number and complexity of the operations it can
perform, and by its ability to process, store, and retrieve data
without human intervention. Computers developed along two separate
engineering paths, producing two distinct types of computer-analog and
digital. An analog computer operates on continuously varying data; a
digital computer performs operations on discrete data."


Let's look at the first sentence: "device capable of performing a
series of arithmetic or logical operations." An 8051 microcontroller
running the dashboard display meets that definition.

Now let's look at the next part:

A computer is distinguished from a calculating machine,
such as an electronic calculator, by being able to store a computer
program (so that it can repeat its operations and make logical
decisions), by the number and complexity of the operations it can
perform, and by its ability to process, store, and retrieve data
without human intervention.


Now we're really out of the definition part, but they are making a
specific comparison of what would distinguish an electronic calculator
from a computer. But let's take this list of requirements anyway:

able to store a computer program
number and complexity of operations it can perform
ability to process, store and retrieve data without human intervention

An 8051 microcontroller running a dashboard display meets all those
requirement.






If a microprocessor performs only a single operation (such as display
data on a LCD screen, or decode a signal sent across a power wire to
turn on a light remotely) it is not a computer.

It's still a computer because it has a CPU, memory, I/O and is
executing a program.





If it reads several inputs and "computes" a result, and then creates
an output that does something, it is a computer, like a cruise control
computer, a transmission control computer, an ABS computer, etc.


So we also have the dashboard display microprocessor, which is
receiving digital data serially from the ECU as to the cars speed,
from the tranny computer as to the shift lever position, from the
climate control computer as to the inside and outside temps, from the
GPS as to the compass heading. Then using that data it computes how
to activate the various display segments, responds to pushbuttons on
the dash to work the trip computer, etc. Tell us how that is not a
computer. Of course it is and it's called the dashboard display
computer which should be on your list. It's also funny that in the
above statement, we suddenly have 3 new computers in a car, not
including the ECU and body computer. Gee, you started off telling us
that most cars have only two and some only one.




A computer can multi-task, running numerous processes at the same
time, operating, for instance, engine fuel injection, ignition timing
and emission control, as well as controlling the transmission and
brake antilock systems - and by linking the three together also
provide traction control and active stability control - all on one
"computer"

Didn't know that. eh??


I've forgotten more than you can ever hope to know. If you want to
compare credentials, I would be happy to do so, but I don't think you
want to go there. And what does the above have to do with
anything? Are you now claiming that to meet the definition of a
computer it must be capable of multitasking?

Never said that, did I???

Even if you want to
make that claim, a simple 8051 microcontroller is quite capable of
multitasking. As an example, in a display controller an 8051 could
be receiving data on the vehicle speed on it's serial port, working
the display segments and updating the distance traveled. Just like
the ECU "computer"

I said a trip computer was a computer, didn't I????

I also said many vehicles incorporate it in the PCM or body computer,
which controls many other functions of the car as well. Not arguing
with you there. However, a PIC or other device used STRICTLY to drive
a display, decoding a string of data from another computer to light
the dots on an LCD is NOT a computer, even if it contains a
microprocessor and a memory table that defines the characters to be
displayed.. You may want to consider it a computer. I call it an
intelligent display.
The article about embedded controllers counts that as a computer.

It's all semantics.




You also completely ignored the highly credible link I gave you that
says

http://www.embedded.com/columns/sign...questid=508024

This is a website for engineers that do embedded computer design.
And they clearly say that even an econobox car today has a few dozen
embedded processors. Or how about all the other media reports that
you frequently see that talk about how many computers are in a typical
home today? They are in everything from your cable box, to your
microwave oven, your alarm system, your digital thermostat, your
dishwasher, etc. Do you agree they are computers? And if yes, then
what makes them different than using a microprocessor in a dashboard
display?

Some are, some are not - and the definition is pretty loose.
They are devices containing a microprocessor. They are dedicated
digital control systems. They are systems that contain and utilize
computer components.
Are they computers?
They are if you say they are. It's all semantics

I can give you my answer. They are all computers because they have a
CPU, execute a program, and I/O.

It's all semantics.
Is a PLC a computer?
A "computer" can replace a PLC - It can emulate a PLC. It can run as a
virtual PLC. It can BE a PLC.

A PLC is a more or less dedicated device - it is programiable, it is a
logical device. It makes decisions based on binary logic inputs and a
"program"and it can be programmed to CONTROL many devices from those
inputs
It can be FIELD PROGRAMMED, so I'd call it a computer.

If you state that the average luxury car today can contain upwards of
100 microprocessors, I'll agree with you. It's all semantics.

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 06:39:37 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 5, 10:11Â*pm, wrote:

Like I said, there are a lot of "smart switches" in the canbus system
- but although they may use"microprocessors" they are not computers.

Tell us, how is a microprocessor (any microprocessor) *not* a computer?

A "computer" CAN include a microprocessor, but does not need to.


Neither krw nor I ever said that a computer needs to include a
microprocessor. The reverse is what krw claimed, which is to say that
a system that includes a microprocessor is a computer. Unless
perhaps the microprocessor is being used as a doorstop. For the
microprocessor to be of any use, it needs to be executing a program
and capable of some kind of input/output. At that point it is a
computer. It could be a very simple program only taking in some
serial data, figuring out what the data is telling it to do, then
activating the appropriate output. But that is just a simpler
version of what your PC is doing.




Google KURTA for a very good example of a strictly mechanical
"computer"
The earliest electronic computers also did not use a microprocessor,
or even a central processing unit (CPU).


I'd also point out that today, virtually all current computers do
contain a microprocessor or microcontroller. Certainly evey one in
today's cars do. So, why the trip down memory lane? For the record,
I did google KURTA and KURTA mechanical computer and came up with
zippo.

Sorry - my mistake - google CURTA - AKA Peppermill rallye computer.

In ,
wrote, in something about microprocessor products
being computers:

SNIP to here

Neither krw nor I ever said that a computer needs to include a
microprocessor. The reverse is what krw claimed, which is to say that
a system that includes a microprocessor is a computer. Unless
perhaps the microprocessor is being used as a doorstop. For the
microprocessor to be of any use, it needs to be executing a program
and capable of some kind of input/output. At that point it is a
computer. It could be a very simple program only taking in some
serial data, figuring out what the data is telling it to do, then
activating the appropriate output. But that is just a simpler
version of what your PC is doing.

SNIP a previously quoted mention of a non-microprocessor computer

I'd also point out that today, virtually all current computers do
contain a microprocessor or microcontroller. Certainly evey one in
today's cars do. So, why the trip down memory lane? For the record,
I did google KURTA and KURTA mechanical computer and came up with
zippo.

SNIP a previously quoted bit on microprocessors doing stuff so simple
as "in my words" "arguably" "not actually doing real computer work"

As I said above, if a system has a microprocessor it's a computer.
It could be a simple one, that takes a few inputs and works a few
switches, but it is a computer. That microprocessor is executing a
program. Other than that the program is very simple, how is that any
different than a microprocessor operating in a PC? And you never
answered this question:

How about I write a simple assembly language program that implements a
switch function,
turning a keyboard light on and off, put it in a flash memory chip,
and replace the bios on my PC with it? The light is now flashing.
Is my PC no longer a computer just because it's running a very simple
program?

Here's Collins dictionary definition of the word computer:

computer [k=C9=99m=CB=88pju=CB=90t=C9=99]
n
1. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science)
a. a device, usually electronic, that processes data according to a
set of instructions. The digital computer stores data in discrete
units and performs arithmetical and logical operations at very high
speed. The analog computer has no memory and is slower than the
digital computer but has a continuous rather than a discrete input.
The hybrid computer combines some of the advantages of digital and
analog computers.
b. (as modifier) computer technology Related prefix cyber-
2. a person who computes or calculates
Collins English Dictionary

And from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: com=C2=B7put=C2=B7er
Pronunciation: \k=C9=99m-=CB=88py=C3=BC-t=C9=99r\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 1646
: one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic
device that can store, retrieve, and process

Tell us what part of those definitions an 8051 running the dashboard
display in a car would not meet.

Shorten many lines to a few, such as discernment of a computer from a
calculating machine, and saying that if it has "as-best-as-I-recall" I/O,
RAM and a program and a processor, it is a computer.

What if the microprocessor is controlling a mere battery charger?
With the only program available to it being the one in its associated
ROM that was put there by the factory?

Yes, I would concede that it meets a definition of "digital stored
program computer" which is the "usual type of computer". But to what
extent should a battery charger with program being burned into the same
IC package as the processor be considered a "computer" as opposed to
being a fancy sort of battery charger IC?

How about if the microprocessor has included within its IC package ROM
(especially one-time-programmable "true ROM") a program that makes it
useful or at least advantageous only as part of a ballast circuit for a
single type or a small number of closely related types of metal halide
lamp or other arc lamp? To what extent would one want to claim that a
metal halide lamp ballast or a fluorescent lamp ballast is a computer due
to having a stored program and a microprocessor of digital nature and I/O?

Suppose I invent a microprocessor-based ballast for a specific type of
HID lamp that is an invention by achieving faster warmup without
"excessive" starting/warmup related wear than anything previously
disclosed. Such invention may have the program implementing means
to-be-disclosed-in-patent-application-should-I-try-to-patent-one to
maximize or even improve-upon-previous-achievements some novel way of
faster warmup, or at least faster warmup of an HID lamp type that
previously patented/patent-applied-for are no good for.
The patentable improvement could have the burned-into-ROM program
being a patentably novel improved one, at least for a specific lamp type.
The program may be patentably novel by using sensed data and/or a "lamp
thermal model" in a "novel" way, disclosed in the patent application.
This could even be by disclosing in a patent application how a
modification of a "prior art" lamp ballast is an invention by disclosing
how it is inventive by being made suitable for a different lamp in an
inventive way.

But I have digressed... Getting back on track, to what extent would /
should one consider a lamp ballast or a battery charger, especially if
more-specialized, to be considered to be a computer if it has a stored
program, RAM, a microprocessor and I/O?

If a digital microprocessor controlling throttle in an automobile has
inputs both from any user controls and from any sensors other than user
controls, especially if it controls in addition amount of fuel injection
and/or ignition timing, then I would consider that microprocessor, its
program storage means, its likely-existing "memory" elsewhere (likely
RAM), and its inputs and outputs (short of the sensors delivering the
inputs and the devices responding to the outputs) to be a "computer".

Any comments from here?

- Don Klipstein )

On Mar 7, 1:28*am, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In ,
wrote, in something about microprocessor products
being computers:

SNIP to here

Neither krw nor I ever said that a computer needs to include a
microprocessor. *The reverse is what krw claimed, which is to say that
a system that includes a microprocessor is a computer. * Unless
perhaps the microprocessor is being used as a doorstop. * For the
microprocessor to be of any use, it needs to be executing a program
and capable of some kind of input/output. * At that point it is a
computer. *It could be a very simple program only taking in some
serial data, figuring out what the data is telling it to do, then
activating the appropriate output. * But that is just a simpler
version of what your PC is doing.

SNIP a previously quoted mention of a non-microprocessor computer



I'd also point out that today, virtually all current computers do
contain a microprocessor or microcontroller. *Certainly evey one in
today's cars do. *So, why the trip down memory lane? * For the record,
I did google KURTA and KURTA mechanical computer and came up with
zippo.

SNIP a previously quoted bit on microprocessors doing stuff so simple
as "in my words" "arguably" "not actually doing real computer work"






As I said above, if a system has a microprocessor it's a computer.
It could be a simple one, that takes a few inputs and works a few
switches, but it is a computer. * That microprocessor is executing a
program. *Other than that the program is very simple, how is that any
different than a microprocessor operating in a PC? *And you never
answered this question:

How about I write a simple assembly language program that implements a
switch function,
turning a keyboard light on and off, *put it in a flash memory chip,
and replace the bios on my PC with it? *The light is now flashing.
Is my PC no longer a computer just because it's running a very simple
program?

Here's Collins dictionary definition of the word computer:

computer [k=C9=99m=CB=88pju=CB=90t=C9=99]
n
1. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science)
a. *a device, usually electronic, that processes data according to a
set of instructions. The digital computer stores data in discrete
units and performs arithmetical and logical operations at very high
speed. The analog computer has no memory and is slower than the
digital computer but has a continuous rather than a discrete input.
The hybrid computer combines some of the advantages of digital and
analog computers.
b. *(as modifier) computer technology Related prefix cyber-
2. a person who computes or calculates
Collins English Dictionary

And from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: com=C2=B7put=C2=B7er
Pronunciation: \k=C9=99m-=CB=88py=C3=BC-t=C9=99r\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 1646
: one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic
device that can store, retrieve, and process

Tell us what part of those definitions an 8051 running the dashboard
display in a car would not meet.

* Shorten many lines to a few, such as discernment of a computer from a
calculating machine, and saying that if it has "as-best-as-I-recall" I/O,
RAM and a program and a processor, it is a computer.

* What if the microprocessor is controlling a mere battery charger?
With the only program available to it being the one in its associated
ROM that was put there by the factory?

It is in fact a computer, an embedded computer. The fact that it's
program is contained in ROM is irrelevant. In fact, the vast majority
of embedded computers like those in cars, cable boxes, or your
microwave oven have their programs stored in some type of non volatile
solid state memory, ie ROM, Flash, etc. Did you look at the website
link I provided to the embedded computing site that is a technical
website dedicated to this type of computers?


* Yes, I would concede that it meets a definition of "digital stored
program computer" which is the "usual type of computer". *But to what
extent should a battery charger with program being burned into the same
IC package as the processor be considered a "computer" as opposed to
being a fancy sort of battery charger IC?

It doesn't matter a bit where the program is stored. All you're doing
there is moving more stuff on chip because it's cost efficient, less
components, less power, etc, to do so. Microcontrollers are
microprocessors that typically have:

CPU
ROM
RAM
Parallel I/O ports
On board peripherals, eg timers, interrupt controller, A/D, D/A,
UARTS, etc

That doesn't mean they are no longer computers, just that more
functions that used to be done with seperate chips has been brought on
board. If anything, it makes them more capable, not less so.






* How about if the microprocessor has included within its IC package ROM
(especially one-time-programmable "true ROM") a program that makes it
useful or at least advantageous only as part of a ballast circuit for a
single type or a small number of closely related types of metal halide
lamp or other arc lamp? *To what extent would one want to claim that a
metal halide lamp ballast or a fluorescent lamp ballast is a computer due
to having a stored program and a microprocessor of digital nature and I/O?

The ballast is NOT a computer. It does contain an embedded computer
though because it has a microprocessor running a program. Suppose I
take my PC and instead of booting an OS, I replace the BIOS with a ROM
containing a similar simple program to your ballast example. Is that
PC no longer a computer? No, it's no longer a functioning PC, but
it's still a computer.




* But I have digressed... *Getting back on track, to what extent would /
should one consider a lamp ballast or a battery charger, especially if
more-specialized, to be considered to be a computer if it has a stored
program, RAM, a microprocessor and I/O?

Again, it's not the device itself that's a computer. It contains an
embedded one if it has the things on your list.




* If a digital microprocessor controlling throttle in an automobile has
inputs both from any user controls and from any sensors other than user
controls, especially if it controls in addition amount of fuel injection
and/or ignition timing, then I would consider that microprocessor, its
program storage means, its likely-existing "memory" elsewhere (likely
RAM), and its inputs and outputs (short of the sensors delivering the
inputs and the devices responding to the outputs) to be a "computer".

* Any comments from here?



That computer is just another version of what is going on in the
battery charger or ballast. Yes, it has more inputs, more outputs
and it's program is more complex. Consider though what even a simple
microcontroller that is in a car controlling let's say the mirror
position has to do. It starts up and starts executing code. First
thing it has to do is program it's onboard peripherals. So, it
starts loading values into registers for the timers, the interrupt
controller. It loads values to set the speed of things like the
serial port. At some point, it may suspend operating and wait to be
re-awakend by an interrrupt which is caused by the serial port
beginning to receive an incoming command for it to move the mirror.
Now it goes into a loop to read in the packet of info. It has to
check the parity on the packet or other means of determining that it
is valid and not corrupt. Then it must break apart the packet and
figure out what to do, eg move RH mirror to position 7. I could go
on, but the point is that none of that is trivial. It involves taking
in data, analyzing it, acting on it. The fact that it can all be
going on in a single microcontroller that cost $1 is a remarkable
statement of how far technology has advanced. But it in no way
diminishes the fact that it is a computer.

Also consider the total confusion that would result from your approach
or that of CL. You're essentially saying that at some arbitrary
point, you consider an embedded microprocessor to be a computer, but
it depends on factors that no one here has clearly defined. I'm
saying that I've been in the industry and there is no confusion. Any
embedded application that has a CPU, executes a program, has I/O is a
computer. In a car, each of these modules would likely have one:
engine control unit, ABS control unit, airbag control unit, etc.

Now CL has made some remarkable claims here. Among them that the
typical car has but only two computers and many cars now have only
one. He's claiming that everything is being centralized. That is
completely contrary to everything that I have read and know to be
true. I'm still waiting for a single reference for this.


He also claimed that he knows for a fact that:

"Well, I happen to know that the engine and transmission controls
are
"one computer" . The climate control, air bags, radio, compass, etc
are another "computer".

I don't know how any manufacturer divides up the workload among
computers. But I would lay money on the above being false. I told
CL that I can think of some very good reasons why you would not want
the airbag function to be mixed with anything else, let alone the
radio. I never heard back from him. I think you likely know what
I'm getting at. I also know if you google airbag computer, you
sure get lots of hits and it sounds like there are a lot of them that
are seperate modules.

You don't have to believe me. I've given you a link to a very
credible source on embedded computing that says that a modern BMW or
MB could have 100 embedded computers and even a cheap car has a few
dozen.

Here's another good source. It's a book titled "Designing Embedded
Hardware" by John Catsoulis, who holds a Masters in Computer
Engineering.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vcR...mputer&f=false

"Computer systems fall into two seperate categories. The first, and
most obvious, is that of the desktop computer....The second type of
computer is the embedded computer, a computer that is integrated into
another system for the purposes of control and/or monitoring. In
fact, (the average home) may have 30 or more, hidden inside TV's,
VCRs, DVD players, remote controls, washing machines, air
conditioners......"

On Mar 6, 10:28*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In ,
wrote, in something about microprocessor products
being computers:

SNIP to here

Neither krw nor I ever said that a computer needs to include a
microprocessor. *The reverse is what krw claimed, which is to say that
a system that includes a microprocessor is a computer. * Unless
perhaps the microprocessor is being used as a doorstop. * For the
microprocessor to be of any use, it needs to be executing a program
and capable of some kind of input/output. * At that point it is a
computer. *It could be a very simple program only taking in some
serial data, figuring out what the data is telling it to do, then
activating the appropriate output. * But that is just a simpler
version of what your PC is doing.

SNIP a previously quoted mention of a non-microprocessor computer



I'd also point out that today, virtually all current computers do
contain a microprocessor or microcontroller. *Certainly evey one in
today's cars do. *So, why the trip down memory lane? * For the record,
I did google KURTA and KURTA mechanical computer and came up with
zippo.

SNIP a previously quoted bit on microprocessors doing stuff so simple
as "in my words" "arguably" "not actually doing real computer work"





As I said above, if a system has a microprocessor it's a computer.
It could be a simple one, that takes a few inputs and works a few
switches, but it is a computer. * That microprocessor is executing a
program. *Other than that the program is very simple, how is that any
different than a microprocessor operating in a PC? *And you never
answered this question:

How about I write a simple assembly language program that implements a
switch function,
turning a keyboard light on and off, *put it in a flash memory chip,
and replace the bios on my PC with it? *The light is now flashing.
Is my PC no longer a computer just because it's running a very simple
program?

Here's Collins dictionary definition of the word computer:

computer [k=C9=99m=CB=88pju=CB=90t=C9=99]
n
1. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science)
a. *a device, usually electronic, that processes data according to a
set of instructions. The digital computer stores data in discrete
units and performs arithmetical and logical operations at very high
speed. The analog computer has no memory and is slower than the
digital computer but has a continuous rather than a discrete input.
The hybrid computer combines some of the advantages of digital and
analog computers.
b. *(as modifier) computer technology Related prefix cyber-
2. a person who computes or calculates
Collins English Dictionary

And from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: com=C2=B7put=C2=B7er
Pronunciation: \k=C9=99m-=CB=88py=C3=BC-t=C9=99r\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 1646
: one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic
device that can store, retrieve, and process

Tell us what part of those definitions an 8051 running the dashboard
display in a car would not meet.

* Shorten many lines to a few, such as discernment of a computer from a
calculating machine, and saying that if it has "as-best-as-I-recall" I/O,
RAM and a program and a processor, it is a computer.

* What if the microprocessor is controlling a mere battery charger?
With the only program available to it being the one in its associated
ROM that was put there by the factory?

* Yes, I would concede that it meets a definition of "digital stored
program computer" which is the "usual type of computer". *But to what
extent should a battery charger with program being burned into the same
IC package as the processor be considered a "computer" as opposed to
being a fancy sort of battery charger IC?

* How about if the microprocessor has included within its IC package ROM
(especially one-time-programmable "true ROM") a program that makes it
useful or at least advantageous only as part of a ballast circuit for a
single type or a small number of closely related types of metal halide
lamp or other arc lamp? *To what extent would one want to claim that a
metal halide lamp ballast or a fluorescent lamp ballast is a computer due
to having a stored program and a microprocessor of digital nature and I/O?

* Suppose I invent a microprocessor-based ballast for a specific type of
HID lamp that is an invention by achieving faster warmup without
"excessive" starting/warmup related wear than anything previously
disclosed. *Such invention may have the program implementing means
to-be-disclosed-in-patent-application-should-I-try-to-patent-one to
maximize or even improve-upon-previous-achievements some novel way of
faster warmup, or at least faster warmup of an HID lamp type that
previously patented/patent-applied-for are no good for.
* The patentable improvement could have the burned-into-ROM program
being a patentably novel improved one, at least for a specific lamp type.
The program may be patentably novel by using sensed data and/or a "lamp
thermal model" in a "novel" way, disclosed in the patent application.
This could even be by disclosing in a patent application how a
modification of a "prior art" lamp ballast is an invention by disclosing
how it is inventive by being made suitable for a different lamp in an
inventive way.

* But I have digressed... *Getting back on track, to what extent would /
should one consider a lamp ballast or a battery charger, especially if
more-specialized, to be considered to be a computer if it has a stored
program, RAM, a microprocessor and I/O?

* If a digital microprocessor controlling throttle in an automobile has
inputs both from any user controls and from any sensors other than user
controls, especially if it controls in addition amount of fuel injection
and/or ignition timing, then I would consider that microprocessor, its
program storage means, its likely-existing "memory" elsewhere (likely
RAM), and its inputs and outputs (short of the sensors delivering the
inputs and the devices responding to the outputs) to be a "computer".

* Any comments from here?

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sora OT. When I first signed in I saw someone had said they googled
the Curta Rallye calculator with no hits. I tried one quick search
and came up with a page of them. Here is one:

www.rallyracingnews.com/manuals/curtaman.html

Harry K

On Mar 7, 10:50*am, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:28*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:





In ,
wrote, in something about microprocessor products
being computers:

SNIP to here

Neither krw nor I ever said that a computer needs to include a
microprocessor. *The reverse is what krw claimed, which is to say that
a system that includes a microprocessor is a computer. * Unless
perhaps the microprocessor is being used as a doorstop. * For the
microprocessor to be of any use, it needs to be executing a program
and capable of some kind of input/output. * At that point it is a
computer. *It could be a very simple program only taking in some
serial data, figuring out what the data is telling it to do, then
activating the appropriate output. * But that is just a simpler
version of what your PC is doing.

SNIP a previously quoted mention of a non-microprocessor computer

I'd also point out that today, virtually all current computers do
contain a microprocessor or microcontroller. *Certainly evey one in
today's cars do. *So, why the trip down memory lane? * For the record,
I did google KURTA and KURTA mechanical computer and came up with
zippo.

SNIP a previously quoted bit on microprocessors doing stuff so simple
as "in my words" "arguably" "not actually doing real computer work"

As I said above, if a system has a microprocessor it's a computer.
It could be a simple one, that takes a few inputs and works a few
switches, but it is a computer. * That microprocessor is executing a
program. *Other than that the program is very simple, how is that any
different than a microprocessor operating in a PC? *And you never
answered this question:

How about I write a simple assembly language program that implements a
switch function,
turning a keyboard light on and off, *put it in a flash memory chip,
and replace the bios on my PC with it? *The light is now flashing.
Is my PC no longer a computer just because it's running a very simple
program?

Here's Collins dictionary definition of the word computer:

computer [k=C9=99m=CB=88pju=CB=90t=C9=99]
n
1. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science)
a. *a device, usually electronic, that processes data according to a
set of instructions. The digital computer stores data in discrete
units and performs arithmetical and logical operations at very high
speed. The analog computer has no memory and is slower than the
digital computer but has a continuous rather than a discrete input.
The hybrid computer combines some of the advantages of digital and
analog computers.
b. *(as modifier) computer technology Related prefix cyber-
2. a person who computes or calculates
Collins English Dictionary

And from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: com=C2=B7put=C2=B7er
Pronunciation: \k=C9=99m-=CB=88py=C3=BC-t=C9=99r\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 1646
: one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic
device that can store, retrieve, and process

Tell us what part of those definitions an 8051 running the dashboard
display in a car would not meet.

* Shorten many lines to a few, such as discernment of a computer from a
calculating machine, and saying that if it has "as-best-as-I-recall" I/O,
RAM and a program and a processor, it is a computer.

* What if the microprocessor is controlling a mere battery charger?
With the only program available to it being the one in its associated
ROM that was put there by the factory?

* Yes, I would concede that it meets a definition of "digital stored
program computer" which is the "usual type of computer". *But to what
extent should a battery charger with program being burned into the same
IC package as the processor be considered a "computer" as opposed to
being a fancy sort of battery charger IC?

* How about if the microprocessor has included within its IC package ROM
(especially one-time-programmable "true ROM") a program that makes it
useful or at least advantageous only as part of a ballast circuit for a
single type or a small number of closely related types of metal halide
lamp or other arc lamp? *To what extent would one want to claim that a
metal halide lamp ballast or a fluorescent lamp ballast is a computer due
to having a stored program and a microprocessor of digital nature and I/O?

* Suppose I invent a microprocessor-based ballast for a specific type of
HID lamp that is an invention by achieving faster warmup without
"excessive" starting/warmup related wear than anything previously
disclosed. *Such invention may have the program implementing means
to-be-disclosed-in-patent-application-should-I-try-to-patent-one to
maximize or even improve-upon-previous-achievements some novel way of
faster warmup, or at least faster warmup of an HID lamp type that
previously patented/patent-applied-for are no good for.
* The patentable improvement could have the burned-into-ROM program
being a patentably novel improved one, at least for a specific lamp type.
The program may be patentably novel by using sensed data and/or a "lamp
thermal model" in a "novel" way, disclosed in the patent application.
This could even be by disclosing in a patent application how a
modification of a "prior art" lamp ballast is an invention by disclosing
how it is inventive by being made suitable for a different lamp in an
inventive way.

* But I have digressed... *Getting back on track, to what extent would /
should one consider a lamp ballast or a battery charger, especially if
more-specialized, to be considered to be a computer if it has a stored
program, RAM, a microprocessor and I/O?

* If a digital microprocessor controlling throttle in an automobile has
inputs both from any user controls and from any sensors other than user
controls, especially if it controls in addition amount of fuel injection
and/or ignition timing, then I would consider that microprocessor, its
program storage means, its likely-existing "memory" elsewhere (likely
RAM), and its inputs and outputs (short of the sensors delivering the
inputs and the devices responding to the outputs) to be a "computer".

* Any comments from here?

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sora OT. *When I first signed in I saw someone had said they googled
the Curta Rallye calculator with no hits. *I tried one quick search
and came up with a page of them. *Here is one:

www.rallyracingnews.com/manuals/curtaman.html

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



For the record Harry, what I said was I googled "KURTA" which is
exactly what krw had posted. Sometimes what you think you saw and
what was really there are two different things. Which is why I'm
reluctant to treat self-reported interpretations of things as
establishing fact.

And also for the record, your link doesn't work:

"The page - http://www.google.com/www.rallyracin.../curtaman.html
- does not exist. "

I think the lot of you should be charged a nickle a line for all the
useless quoted text you've left in this 300+ message thread.

wrote:

On Mar 7, 10:50*am, Harry K wrote:

-snip-
the Curta Rallye calculator with no hits. *I tried one quick search
and came up with a page of them. *Here is one:

www.rallyracingnews.com/manuals/curtaman.html

-snip-

For the record Harry, what I said was I googled "KURTA" which is
exactly what krw had posted. Sometimes what you think you saw and
what was really there are two different things. Which is why I'm
reluctant to treat self-reported interpretations of things as
establishing fact.

And also for the record, your link doesn't work:

"The page - http://www.google.com/www.rallyracin.../curtaman.html
- does not exist. "

Whose law is it that says when you go to make a point on Usenet-
you'll get bitten in the ass by a similar problem?

Harry's link *does* work for me. Yours doesn't-- but I don't
know where the www.google.com came from--- [did you search the site
instead of the web?]

Jim

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 08:15:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 7, 10:50*am, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:28*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:





In ,
wrote, in something about microprocessor products
being computers:

SNIP to here

Neither krw nor I ever said that a computer needs to include a
microprocessor. *The reverse is what krw claimed, which is to say that
a system that includes a microprocessor is a computer. * Unless
perhaps the microprocessor is being used as a doorstop. * For the
microprocessor to be of any use, it needs to be executing a program
and capable of some kind of input/output. * At that point it is a
computer. *It could be a very simple program only taking in some
serial data, figuring out what the data is telling it to do, then
activating the appropriate output. * But that is just a simpler
version of what your PC is doing.

SNIP a previously quoted mention of a non-microprocessor computer

I'd also point out that today, virtually all current computers do
contain a microprocessor or microcontroller. *Certainly evey one in
today's cars do. *So, why the trip down memory lane? * For the record,
I did google KURTA and KURTA mechanical computer and came up with
zippo.

SNIP a previously quoted bit on microprocessors doing stuff so simple
as "in my words" "arguably" "not actually doing real computer work"

As I said above, if a system has a microprocessor it's a computer.
It could be a simple one, that takes a few inputs and works a few
switches, but it is a computer. * That microprocessor is executing a
program. *Other than that the program is very simple, how is that any
different than a microprocessor operating in a PC? *And you never
answered this question:

How about I write a simple assembly language program that implements a
switch function,
turning a keyboard light on and off, *put it in a flash memory chip,
and replace the bios on my PC with it? *The light is now flashing.
Is my PC no longer a computer just because it's running a very simple
program?

Here's Collins dictionary definition of the word computer:

computer [k=C9=99m=CB=88pju=CB=90t=C9=99]
n
1. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science)
a. *a device, usually electronic, that processes data according to a
set of instructions. The digital computer stores data in discrete
units and performs arithmetical and logical operations at very high
speed. The analog computer has no memory and is slower than the
digital computer but has a continuous rather than a discrete input.
The hybrid computer combines some of the advantages of digital and
analog computers.
b. *(as modifier) computer technology Related prefix cyber-
2. a person who computes or calculates
Collins English Dictionary

And from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: com=C2=B7put=C2=B7er
Pronunciation: \k=C9=99m-=CB=88py=C3=BC-t=C9=99r\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 1646
: one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic
device that can store, retrieve, and process

Tell us what part of those definitions an 8051 running the dashboard
display in a car would not meet.

* Shorten many lines to a few, such as discernment of a computer from a
calculating machine, and saying that if it has "as-best-as-I-recall" I/O,
RAM and a program and a processor, it is a computer.

* What if the microprocessor is controlling a mere battery charger?
With the only program available to it being the one in its associated
ROM that was put there by the factory?

* Yes, I would concede that it meets a definition of "digital stored
program computer" which is the "usual type of computer". *But to what
extent should a battery charger with program being burned into the same
IC package as the processor be considered a "computer" as opposed to
being a fancy sort of battery charger IC?

* How about if the microprocessor has included within its IC package ROM
(especially one-time-programmable "true ROM") a program that makes it
useful or at least advantageous only as part of a ballast circuit for a
single type or a small number of closely related types of metal halide
lamp or other arc lamp? *To what extent would one want to claim that a
metal halide lamp ballast or a fluorescent lamp ballast is a computer due
to having a stored program and a microprocessor of digital nature and I/O?

* Suppose I invent a microprocessor-based ballast for a specific type of
HID lamp that is an invention by achieving faster warmup without
"excessive" starting/warmup related wear than anything previously
disclosed. *Such invention may have the program implementing means
to-be-disclosed-in-patent-application-should-I-try-to-patent-one to
maximize or even improve-upon-previous-achievements some novel way of
faster warmup, or at least faster warmup of an HID lamp type that
previously patented/patent-applied-for are no good for.
* The patentable improvement could have the burned-into-ROM program
being a patentably novel improved one, at least for a specific lamp type.
The program may be patentably novel by using sensed data and/or a "lamp
thermal model" in a "novel" way, disclosed in the patent application.
This could even be by disclosing in a patent application how a
modification of a "prior art" lamp ballast is an invention by disclosing
how it is inventive by being made suitable for a different lamp in an
inventive way.

* But I have digressed... *Getting back on track, to what extent would /
should one consider a lamp ballast or a battery charger, especially if
more-specialized, to be considered to be a computer if it has a stored
program, RAM, a microprocessor and I/O?

* If a digital microprocessor controlling throttle in an automobile has
inputs both from any user controls and from any sensors other than user
controls, especially if it controls in addition amount of fuel injection
and/or ignition timing, then I would consider that microprocessor, its
program storage means, its likely-existing "memory" elsewhere (likely
RAM), and its inputs and outputs (short of the sensors delivering the
inputs and the devices responding to the outputs) to be a "computer".

* Any comments from here?

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sora OT. *When I first signed in I saw someone had said they googled
the Curta Rallye calculator with no hits. *I tried one quick search
and came up with a page of them. *Here is one:

www.rallyracingnews.com/manuals/curtaman.html

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



For the record Harry, what I said was I googled "KURTA" which is
exactly what krw had posted.
^^^
Certainly wasn't me. I think it was "Clare", in defense of his silly idea
that microprocessors aren't computers. I've never heard of the thing.

Sometimes what you think you saw and
what was really there are two different things. Which is why I'm
reluctant to treat self-reported interpretations of things as
establishing fact.

And also for the record, your link doesn't work:

"The page - http://www.google.com/www.rallyracin.../curtaman.html
- does not exist. "

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 06:28:51 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
wrote, in something about microprocessor products
being computers:

SNIP to here

Neither krw nor I ever said that a computer needs to include a
microprocessor. The reverse is what krw claimed, which is to say that
a system that includes a microprocessor is a computer. Unless
perhaps the microprocessor is being used as a doorstop. For the
microprocessor to be of any use, it needs to be executing a program
and capable of some kind of input/output. At that point it is a
computer. It could be a very simple program only taking in some
serial data, figuring out what the data is telling it to do, then
activating the appropriate output. But that is just a simpler
version of what your PC is doing.

SNIP a previously quoted mention of a non-microprocessor computer

I'd also point out that today, virtually all current computers do
contain a microprocessor or microcontroller. Certainly evey one in
today's cars do. So, why the trip down memory lane? For the record,
I did google KURTA and KURTA mechanical computer and came up with
zippo.

SNIP a previously quoted bit on microprocessors doing stuff so simple
as "in my words" "arguably" "not actually doing real computer work"

As I said above, if a system has a microprocessor it's a computer.
It could be a simple one, that takes a few inputs and works a few
switches, but it is a computer. That microprocessor is executing a
program. Other than that the program is very simple, how is that any
different than a microprocessor operating in a PC? And you never
answered this question:

How about I write a simple assembly language program that implements a
switch function,
turning a keyboard light on and off, put it in a flash memory chip,
and replace the bios on my PC with it? The light is now flashing.
Is my PC no longer a computer just because it's running a very simple
program?

Here's Collins dictionary definition of the word computer:

computer [k=C9=99m=CB=88pju=CB=90t=C9=99]
n
1. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science)
a. a device, usually electronic, that processes data according to a
set of instructions. The digital computer stores data in discrete
units and performs arithmetical and logical operations at very high
speed. The analog computer has no memory and is slower than the
digital computer but has a continuous rather than a discrete input.
The hybrid computer combines some of the advantages of digital and
analog computers.
b. (as modifier) computer technology Related prefix cyber-
2. a person who computes or calculates
Collins English Dictionary

And from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: com=C2=B7put=C2=B7er
Pronunciation: \k=C9=99m-=CB=88py=C3=BC-t=C9=99r\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 1646
: one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic
device that can store, retrieve, and process

Tell us what part of those definitions an 8051 running the dashboard
display in a car would not meet.

Shorten many lines to a few, such as discernment of a computer from a
calculating machine, and saying that if it has "as-best-as-I-recall" I/O,
RAM and a program and a processor, it is a computer.

What if the microprocessor is controlling a mere battery charger?
With the only program available to it being the one in its associated
ROM that was put there by the factory?

Yes, I would concede that it meets a definition of "digital stored
program computer" which is the "usual type of computer". But to what
extent should a battery charger with program being burned into the same
IC package as the processor be considered a "computer" as opposed to
being a fancy sort of battery charger IC?

How about if the microprocessor has included within its IC package ROM
(especially one-time-programmable "true ROM") a program that makes it
useful or at least advantageous only as part of a ballast circuit for a
single type or a small number of closely related types of metal halide
lamp or other arc lamp? To what extent would one want to claim that a
metal halide lamp ballast or a fluorescent lamp ballast is a computer due
to having a stored program and a microprocessor of digital nature and I/O?

Suppose I invent a microprocessor-based ballast for a specific type of
HID lamp that is an invention by achieving faster warmup without
"excessive" starting/warmup related wear than anything previously
disclosed. Such invention may have the program implementing means
to-be-disclosed-in-patent-application-should-I-try-to-patent-one to
maximize or even improve-upon-previous-achievements some novel way of
faster warmup, or at least faster warmup of an HID lamp type that
previously patented/patent-applied-for are no good for.
The patentable improvement could have the burned-into-ROM program
being a patentably novel improved one, at least for a specific lamp type.
The program may be patentably novel by using sensed data and/or a "lamp
thermal model" in a "novel" way, disclosed in the patent application.
This could even be by disclosing in a patent application how a
modification of a "prior art" lamp ballast is an invention by disclosing
how it is inventive by being made suitable for a different lamp in an
inventive way.

But I have digressed... Getting back on track, to what extent would /
should one consider a lamp ballast or a battery charger, especially if
more-specialized, to be considered to be a computer if it has a stored
program, RAM, a microprocessor and I/O?

If a digital microprocessor controlling throttle in an automobile has
inputs both from any user controls and from any sensors other than user
controls, especially if it controls in addition amount of fuel injection
and/or ignition timing, then I would consider that microprocessor, its
program storage means, its likely-existing "memory" elsewhere (likely
RAM), and its inputs and outputs (short of the sensors delivering the
inputs and the devices responding to the outputs) to be a "computer".

Any comments from here?

- Don Klipstein )
Hey, Don - I agree with you one hundred percent.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:42:02 -0600, "
wrote:


For the record Harry, what I said was I googled "KURTA" which is
exactly what krw had posted.
^^^
Certainly wasn't me. I think it was "Clare", in defense of his silly idea
that microprocessors aren't computers. I've never heard of the thing.

I posted the correction- it is CURTA.
If you've never heard of one-You haven't rallyed Particularly back in
the seventies.

Sometimes what you think you saw and
what was really there are two different things. Which is why I'm
reluctant to treat self-reported interpretations of things as
establishing fact.

And also for the record, your link doesn't work:

"The page - http://www.google.com/www.rallyracin.../curtaman.html
- does not exist. "

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:23:59 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:42:02 -0600, "
wrote:


For the record Harry, what I said was I googled "KURTA" which is
exactly what krw had posted.
^^^
Certainly wasn't me. I think it was "Clare", in defense of his silly idea
that microprocessors aren't computers. I've never heard of the thing.

I posted the correction- it is CURTA.

I didn't say otherwise.

If you've never heard of one-You haven't rallyed Particularly back in
the seventies.

Nope. I never got into the sport but even calculators were forbidden in the
rallies my friends participated in.

In article , wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:50=A0am, Harry K wrote:

www.rallyracingnews.com/manuals/curtaman.html


And also for the record, your link doesn't work:

"The page - http://www.google.com/www.rallyracin.../curtaman.html
- does not exist. "

Possibly because that's *not* the link he posted (see above).

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
I think the lot of you should be charged a nickle a line for all the
useless quoted text you've left in this 300+ message thread.

LOL, I just had a discussion with my family all emailing each other. A
one sentence reply but they quoted 10 pages of meaningless drivel.

I hope this clean and lean format doesn't confuse people.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:02:04 -0600, "
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:23:59 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:42:02 -0600, "
wrote:


For the record Harry, what I said was I googled "KURTA" which is
exactly what krw had posted.
^^^
Certainly wasn't me. I think it was "Clare", in defense of his silly idea
that microprocessors aren't computers. I've never heard of the thing.

I posted the correction- it is CURTA.

I didn't say otherwise.

If you've never heard of one-You haven't rallyed Particularly back in
the seventies.

Nope. I never got into the sport but even calculators were forbidden in the
rallies my friends participated in.

I ran the Ontario Regional Navigational Rallye Championship series for
3 years back in the late 70s and early 80s.
Curtas and sliderules (mostly the round ones) ruled back then, and
programmable calculators were legal the final year I competed. We had
an electronic odometer designed (usung a calculator) that we would
have used the next year had we continued, as well as an HP
Programmable calculator that my "aggravator"used us a civil
engineering technologist and had programmed to do the ET calculations.

On Mar 7, 8:15*am, wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:50*am, Harry K wrote:





On Mar 6, 10:28*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
wrote, in something about microprocessor products
being computers:

SNIP to here

Neither krw nor I ever said that a computer needs to include a
microprocessor. *The reverse is what krw claimed, which is to say that
a system that includes a microprocessor is a computer. * Unless
perhaps the microprocessor is being used as a doorstop. * For the
microprocessor to be of any use, it needs to be executing a program
and capable of some kind of input/output. * At that point it is a
computer. *It could be a very simple program only taking in some
serial data, figuring out what the data is telling it to do, then
activating the appropriate output. * But that is just a simpler
version of what your PC is doing.

SNIP a previously quoted mention of a non-microprocessor computer

I'd also point out that today, virtually all current computers do
contain a microprocessor or microcontroller. *Certainly evey one in
today's cars do. *So, why the trip down memory lane? * For the record,
I did google KURTA and KURTA mechanical computer and came up with
zippo.

SNIP a previously quoted bit on microprocessors doing stuff so simple
as "in my words" "arguably" "not actually doing real computer work"

As I said above, if a system has a microprocessor it's a computer.
It could be a simple one, that takes a few inputs and works a few
switches, but it is a computer. * That microprocessor is executing a
program. *Other than that the program is very simple, how is that any
different than a microprocessor operating in a PC? *And you never
answered this question:

How about I write a simple assembly language program that implements a
switch function,
turning a keyboard light on and off, *put it in a flash memory chip,
and replace the bios on my PC with it? *The light is now flashing.
Is my PC no longer a computer just because it's running a very simple
program?

Here's Collins dictionary definition of the word computer:

computer [k=C9=99m=CB=88pju=CB=90t=C9=99]
n
1. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science)
a. *a device, usually electronic, that processes data according to a
set of instructions. The digital computer stores data in discrete
units and performs arithmetical and logical operations at very high
speed. The analog computer has no memory and is slower than the
digital computer but has a continuous rather than a discrete input.
The hybrid computer combines some of the advantages of digital and
analog computers.
b. *(as modifier) computer technology Related prefix cyber-
2. a person who computes or calculates
Collins English Dictionary

And from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: com=C2=B7put=C2=B7er
Pronunciation: \k=C9=99m-=CB=88py=C3=BC-t=C9=99r\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 1646
: one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic
device that can store, retrieve, and process

Tell us what part of those definitions an 8051 running the dashboard
display in a car would not meet.

* Shorten many lines to a few, such as discernment of a computer from a
calculating machine, and saying that if it has "as-best-as-I-recall" I/O,
RAM and a program and a processor, it is a computer.

* What if the microprocessor is controlling a mere battery charger?
With the only program available to it being the one in its associated
ROM that was put there by the factory?

* Yes, I would concede that it meets a definition of "digital stored
program computer" which is the "usual type of computer". *But to what
extent should a battery charger with program being burned into the same
IC package as the processor be considered a "computer" as opposed to
being a fancy sort of battery charger IC?

* How about if the microprocessor has included within its IC package ROM
(especially one-time-programmable "true ROM") a program that makes it
useful or at least advantageous only as part of a ballast circuit for a
single type or a small number of closely related types of metal halide
lamp or other arc lamp? *To what extent would one want to claim that a
metal halide lamp ballast or a fluorescent lamp ballast is a computer due
to having a stored program and a microprocessor of digital nature and I/O?

* Suppose I invent a microprocessor-based ballast for a specific type of
HID lamp that is an invention by achieving faster warmup without
"excessive" starting/warmup related wear than anything previously
disclosed. *Such invention may have the program implementing means
to-be-disclosed-in-patent-application-should-I-try-to-patent-one to
maximize or even improve-upon-previous-achievements some novel way of
faster warmup, or at least faster warmup of an HID lamp type that
previously patented/patent-applied-for are no good for.
* The patentable improvement could have the burned-into-ROM program
being a patentably novel improved one, at least for a specific lamp type.
The program may be patentably novel by using sensed data and/or a "lamp
thermal model" in a "novel" way, disclosed in the patent application.
This could even be by disclosing in a patent application how a
modification of a "prior art" lamp ballast is an invention by disclosing
how it is inventive by being made suitable for a different lamp in an
inventive way.

* But I have digressed... *Getting back on track, to what extent would /
should one consider a lamp ballast or a battery charger, especially if
more-specialized, to be considered to be a computer if it has a stored
program, RAM, a microprocessor and I/O?

* If a digital microprocessor controlling throttle in an automobile has
inputs both from any user controls and from any sensors other than user
controls, especially if it controls in addition amount of fuel injection
and/or ignition timing, then I would consider that microprocessor, its
program storage means, its likely-existing "memory" elsewhere (likely
RAM), and its inputs and outputs (short of the sensors delivering the
inputs and the devices responding to the outputs) to be a "computer".

* Any comments from here?

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sora OT. *When I first signed in I saw someone had said they googled
the Curta Rallye calculator with no hits. *I tried one quick search
and came up with a page of them. *Here is one:

www.rallyracingnews.com/manuals/curtaman.html

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For the record Harry, what I said was I googled "KURTA" which is
exactly what krw had posted. *Sometimes what you think you saw and
what was really there are two different things. *Which is why I'm
reluctant to treat self-reported interpretations of things as
establishing fact.

And also for the record, your link doesn't work:

"The page -www.google.com/www.rallyracingnews.com/manuals/curtaman.html
- does not exist. "- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I had just taken a quick look at the summary and thought I saw you
googled it also spelled with a C. Just trying to help, not bust your
balls.

Harry K

On Mar 7, 3:23*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:42:02 -0600, "

wrote:
For the record Harry, what I said was I googled "KURTA" which is
exactly what krw had posted. *
* * * * * * * * * * *^^^
Certainly wasn't me. *I think it was "Clare", in defense of his silly idea
that microprocessors aren't computers. *I've never heard of the thing. *

I posted the correction- it is CURTA.
If you've never heard of one-You haven't rallyed Particularly back in
the seventies.





Sometimes what you think you saw and
what was really there are two different things. *Which is why I'm
reluctant to treat self-reported interpretations of things as
establishing fact.

And also for the record, your link doesn't work:

"The page -www.google.com/www.rallyracingnews.com/manuals/curtaman.html
- does not exist. "- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Or even ben a fan...or interested in the subject. I had the hots for
one and never even considered rallying. Price turned me off.

Harry K