Note X-Post to uk.d-i-y

I am trying to connect an old SCSI scanner bought on eBay to a Windows PC
for a friend.

She has bought and installed an Adaptec SCSI card and this seems to be
recognised by the PC.
However although the scanner powers up it is not recognised as a SCSI
device.
I suspect bus termination issues.

Now I have played with SCSI devices in the past but this has always been at
work, where you open a big drawer or cupboard and a load of different cables
and terminators fall out and you try a few until it works.
There is also usually at least one other SCSI device floating around for you
to test with.

I havve a few cables to work with, and something (double ended) labelled as
a passive terminator (but not like the terminators I am used to which are
usually a single ended plug).
Now SCSI bits aren't that cheap, so I don't fancy buying a selection of
terminators.
Is there any simple DIY way to check out if the bus is O.K. and the
terminator is O.K. such as measuring voltages?

Cheers

Dave R

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:53:23 -0000, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:

Note X-Post to uk.d-i-y

I am trying to connect an old SCSI scanner bought on eBay to a Windows PC
for a friend.

*sucks teeth*

She has bought and installed an Adaptec SCSI card and this seems to be
recognised by the PC.
However although the scanner powers up it is not recognised as a SCSI
device.
I suspect bus termination issues.

Or cabling. The usual flaw there is to use a Centronics printer cable
rather than a SCSI cable, but that requires a PC end that looks like a
parallel port and a device end that looks like a printer port so
hopefully isn't the case here... Best thing is that doing this nearly
works! But not quite.

Now I have played with SCSI devices in the past but this has always been at
work, where you open a big drawer or cupboard and a load of different cables
and terminators fall out and you try a few until it works.
There is also usually at least one other SCSI device floating around for you
to test with.

I havve a few cables to work with, and something (double ended) labelled as
a passive terminator (but not like the terminators I am used to which are
usually a single ended plug).

Never seen one of those double ended ones, seems a bit odd.

Now SCSI bits aren't that cheap, so I don't fancy buying a selection of
terminators.

You should only need one. The scanner will have a pair of SCSI
sockets, yes? One terminator to fit on the second socket, one SCSI
cable to go from the Adaptec to the scanner.

Check on the scanner, there may be dip switches to enable termination
directly. Then all you need to worry about is which SCSI port on the
scanner to cable to.

I sent all my big drawer of SCSI bits to ebay a year or two ago, or
I'd post you some bits....

Is there any simple DIY way to check out if the bus is O.K. and the
terminator is O.K. such as measuring voltages?

Not really, you're stuck with the full-on sacrifice of a chicken - or
a bag of turkey twizzlers if that's outside your budget...

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex."
-- Marvin the Martian

On 16/02/2012 15:53, David WE Roberts wrote:
Note X-Post to uk.d-i-y

I am trying to connect an old SCSI scanner bought on eBay to a Windows
PC for a friend.

She has bought and installed an Adaptec SCSI card and this seems to be
recognised by the PC.
However although the scanner powers up it is not recognised as a SCSI
device.
I suspect bus termination issues.

What sort of SCSI for starters? i.e. what connectors are on the scanner
- the older centronics style 50 way connectors, or the high density SCSI
II style, or the (spit) cheap'n'crappy 25 way D connector?

What make and model of scanner, and which Adaptec card?

Now I have played with SCSI devices in the past but this has always been
at work, where you open a big drawer or cupboard and a load of different
cables and terminators fall out and you try a few until it works.
There is also usually at least one other SCSI device floating around for
you to test with.

I havve a few cables to work with, and something (double ended) labelled
as a passive terminator (but not like the terminators I am used to which
are usually a single ended plug).
Now SCSI bits aren't that cheap, so I don't fancy buying a selection of
terminators.
Is there any simple DIY way to check out if the bus is O.K. and the
terminator is O.K. such as measuring voltages?

Check to see if the device has the option of internal termination.
Usually a switch (may be a DIP switch) to change. Sometimes on old kit a
SIL resistor pack or two to insert/remove.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

....snip...

FWIW, I have a SCSI scanner but I've always used an active terminator. As
others have asked, what make and model scanner?

Paul DS.

On 16/02/2012 15:53, David WE Roberts wrote:
Note X-Post to uk.d-i-y

I am trying to connect an old SCSI scanner bought on eBay to a Windows
PC for a friend.

She has bought and installed an Adaptec SCSI card and this seems to be
recognised by the PC.
However although the scanner powers up it is not recognised as a SCSI
device.
I suspect bus termination issues.

Now I have played with SCSI devices in the past but this has always been
at work, where you open a big drawer or cupboard and a load of different
cables and terminators fall out and you try a few until it works.
There is also usually at least one other SCSI device floating around for
you to test with.

I havve a few cables to work with, and something (double ended) labelled
as a passive terminator (but not like the terminators I am used to which
are usually a single ended plug).
Now SCSI bits aren't that cheap, so I don't fancy buying a selection of
terminators.
Is there any simple DIY way to check out if the bus is O.K. and the
terminator is O.K. such as measuring voltages?

Cheers

Dave R


Not all SCSI is the same. What model card is it?
By the connector on the card it should have either 'SE', 'LVD' or 'HVD'
stamped on it, or a symbol which looks like a or similar.
Let us know what symbol it has if no letters.

SE = 'Single Ended'
LVD = 'Low Voltage Differential'
HVD = 'High Voltage Differential'

Generally, SE and LVD is compatible, as long as the cable length is
short. The devices will communicate at the lower (SE) speed if you have
a mix.
LVD and HVD are NOT compatible.

I think most scanners will be 'SE', therefore will need an 'SE' or 'LVD'
card.

The Adaptec 2940 was available in SE and LVD from memory.
The 2944 is HVD and unlikely to be compatible with a scanner.

Active terminators can usually be used with either LVD or HVD.
Passive terminators NEED to be the right type for the SCSI bus in use.

Alan.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 16/02/2012 15:53, David WE Roberts wrote:
Note X-Post to uk.d-i-y

I am trying to connect an old SCSI scanner bought on eBay to a Windows
PC for a friend.

She has bought and installed an Adaptec SCSI card and this seems to be
recognised by the PC.
However although the scanner powers up it is not recognised as a SCSI
device.
I suspect bus termination issues.

What sort of SCSI for starters? i.e. what connectors are on the scanner -
the older centronics style 50 way connectors, or the high density SCSI II
style, or the (spit) cheap'n'crappy 25 way D connector?

What make and model of scanner, and which Adaptec card?

Now I have played with SCSI devices in the past but this has always been
at work, where you open a big drawer or cupboard and a load of different
cables and terminators fall out and you try a few until it works.
There is also usually at least one other SCSI device floating around for
you to test with.

I havve a few cables to work with, and something (double ended) labelled
as a passive terminator (but not like the terminators I am used to which
are usually a single ended plug).
Now SCSI bits aren't that cheap, so I don't fancy buying a selection of
terminators.
Is there any simple DIY way to check out if the bus is O.K. and the
terminator is O.K. such as measuring voltages?

Check to see if the device has the option of internal termination. Usually
a switch (may be a DIP switch) to change. Sometimes on old kit a SIL
resistor pack or two to insert/remove.


Heidelberg Linoscan 1400 Scanner.
Can't find the details of the SCSI card - will check.
The cables and terminator came with the scanner - previously used with Apple
hardware, I believe.

I am arranging to get hold of the bits so I can have an extended play.
The connectors between card and scanner are D type (68 pin rings a bell) and
the terminator is markes Passive (which may not be a good sign) and in IIRC
Centronics style.
This needs a short adapter cable to connect to the other SCSI port on the
scanner which is not a 68 pin D type.
Just Googling now suggests that I may need an active terminator.

Will have more information once I get my grubby hands on the kit.

Cheers

Dave R
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:22:34 +0000, John Rumm wrote:
What make and model of scanner, and which Adaptec card?

Yes, I think we need to know that first... I've seen all manner of
different Adaptec boards and SCSI scanners over the years, and trying to
determine cabling / termination / SCSI BIOS options is perhaps a bit
pointless without knowing the OP's actual hardware.

Broadly-speaking though, you need termination *once only* at *both* ends
of the SCSI bus, whether that be done via external terminators (either
active or passive) or by the scanner and Adaptec card (or some
combination thereof). The scanner's likely a narrow SCSI device; if the
Adaptec card is a wide adapter then care needs to be taken to ensure that
the high-side of the wide bus is terminated. Something also needs to
supply termination power to the bus - the Adaptec card can almost
certainly do it, and the scanner may be able to as well. The scanner
needs to be set to a different SCSI device ID than the Adaptec card.

I havve a few cables to work with, and something (double ended)
labelled as a passive terminator

Is it labeled as SCSI or has the SCSI logo on it? If not, I suspect
that's not SCSI, and plugging it into a SCSI bus might be a bad idea.

Depending on what connectors it has though, there's a chance that it's
wide SCSI on one side passing through to narrow SCSI on the other, while
terminating the high-side of the wide bus - but I don't recall ever
seeing a passive terminator for wide SCSI, only active ones.

cheers

Jules

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:55:52 +0000, David WE Roberts wrote:
The cables and
terminator came with the scanner - previously used with Apple hardware,
I believe.

Check what SCSI device ID the scanner is set to; in the SCSI world it was
typical to have the *controller* set to ID 7, but I have a feeling Apple
were different and sometimes (often / always, even?) set their controller
to ID 6 - which means there's a chance your scanner's set to 7 and is
conflicting with the PC's controller.

I am arranging to get hold of the bits so I can have an extended play.

Good

The connectors between card and scanner are D type (68 pin rings a bell)
and the terminator is markes Passive (which may not be a good sign) and
in IIRC Centronics style.

If they're 68 pin then it's a wide bus; you need to make sure[1] that the
high side of the bus is terminated as the scanner's likely a 50 pin
narrow device and will only be able (either by itself or by a terminator
connected to its narrow pass-through port) to terminate the low side of
the bus.

[1] the cable you have might do it, or that might be why you have that
weird terminator with the two connectors, or on many Adaptec cards it's a
BIOS option to terminate just the high side of the external wide bus.

Heck, there's even a wikipedia entry for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCSI_high_byte_termination

Just Googling now suggests that I may need an active terminator.

I think you'll probably be OK with passive terminators - the scanner's
not particularly high-speed (compared to say, a hard disk), and it's the
only thing on the bus (other than the Adaptec itself), and you'll be
connecting it all with a shielded cable (things can be a bit more picky
when it comes to ribbon cable internal to a machine).

Even with the cabling and termination less than perfect, I think there's
a fair chance it should still respond to device identify at startup (even
if it subsequently proved flakey during use), so I think you've got some
more fundamental problem at play (hardware fault, cable fault,
configuration setting etc.)

cheers

Jules

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:55:52 +0000, David WE Roberts wrote:
The cables and
terminator came with the scanner - previously used with Apple hardware,
I believe.

Check what SCSI device ID the scanner is set to; in the SCSI world it was
typical to have the *controller* set to ID 7, but I have a feeling Apple
were different and sometimes (often / always, even?) set their controller
to ID 6 - which means there's a chance your scanner's set to 7 and is
conflicting with the PC's controller.

snip

I can say that the SCSI ID doesn't clash with the controller - first thing I
checked.

I may have mis-spoken about the number of pins.
The SCSI card has the same number of pins on the D connector as the scanner,
so it is probably 50.
Can't find the email trail where I sorted this out.

Should be getting all the bits next Monday so I'll be able to supply more
info then.

Thanks to all for the help so far.

Cheers

Dave R
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...
Note X-Post to uk.d-i-y

I am trying to connect an old SCSI scanner bought on eBay to a Windows PC
for a friend.

She has bought and installed an Adaptec SCSI card and this seems to be
recognised by the PC.
However although the scanner powers up it is not recognised as a SCSI
device.
I suspect bus termination issues.

Now I have played with SCSI devices in the past but this has always been
at work, where you open a big drawer or cupboard and a load of different
cables and terminators fall out and you try a few until it works.
There is also usually at least one other SCSI device floating around for
you to test with.

I havve a few cables to work with, and something (double ended) labelled
as a passive terminator (but not like the terminators I am used to which
are usually a single ended plug).
Now SCSI bits aren't that cheap, so I don't fancy buying a selection of
terminators.
Is there any simple DIY way to check out if the bus is O.K. and the
terminator is O.K. such as measuring voltages?


It is official - I am a complete dip switch.

Reset the SCSI ID from 9 to 2 and it all sprang to life immediately.

Thinking about it, I am not absolutely sure why it wouldn't work before.
My first reaction (after seeing the SCSI card software scan for IDs 0-15)
was that if it was working on a 3 bit address it would have the range 0-7 or
4 bit 0-15 so putting the address below 7 would put it in a valid range for
a 3 bit address.
This is standard for 8 bit (narrow)SCSI.
This seemed to work.
But in that case why have a dip switch with values 0 through 9?
Cheap implementation of a single dip switch which covers 10 of the 16 values
in a 4 bit address?
Cheap part which can be set from 0-9 but shouldn't be set above 6?
Doesn't seem rational on a semi-professional scanner which cost £1k when you
could go round the world on the Queen Mary for 2/6p and still have change
for the cab.

Anyway, pleased (and relieved) that it is working.
My friend is really chuffed because the test scan of a colour slide was very
good quality, and she got a semi-professional scanner for £10 plus the cost
of the SCSI card.
She will also have to cough for the VueScan software but that looks to be
money well spent as the test version drives the scanner really well and
nobody else seems to do Windows drivers for it.
At some point I may have a play under Linux but the Windows solution fits in
with her other software and all in all she has a really good scanner for not
a lot of money.

Oh, and I tried it without the terminator (just to see) and the SCSI
software reported "insufficient termination" which showed that the
terminator was doing something.

The card was (IIRC) an Adaptec 29160N with a 50 way D type connector
externally.
Termination of the card end of the bus is handled automagically.
The scanner had a matching 50 way Centronics style SCSI port, plus another
25 way D type (which was used to terminate with a short 25 way -
Centronics style cable plus a gender bender passive centronics style
terminator) which also suggests 8 bit SCSI (see above).
So the final puzzling part is that it had one connector which could connect
to Wide, but the other connector for Narrow.
Then again SCSI I supports 25 pin D-sub and 50 pin Centronics so this points
to a SCSI I device.
So I say again why the 0-9 ID dip switch?

Just annoyed with myself that it took so long to fix a trivial
error/misconfiguration.

Cheers

Dave R
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Feb 20, 4:08*pm, "David WE Roberts" wrote:

It is official - I am a complete dip switch.

Reset the SCSI ID from 9 to 2 and it all sprang to life immediately.

Thinking about it, I am not absolutely sure why it wouldn't work before.
My first reaction (after seeing the SCSI card software scan for IDs 0-15)
was that if it was working on a 3 bit address it would have the range 0-7 or
4 bit 0-15 so putting the address below 7 would put it in a valid range for
a 3 bit address.
This is standard for 8 bit (narrow)SCSI.
This seemed to work.
But in that case why have a dip switch with values 0 through 9?
Cheap implementation of a single dip switch which covers 10 of the 16 values
in a 4 bit address?
Cheap part which can be set from 0-9 but shouldn't be set above 6?
Doesn't seem rational on a semi-professional scanner which cost £1k when you
could go round the world on the Queen Mary for 2/6p and still have change
for the cab.

Anyway, pleased (and relieved) that it is working.
My friend is really chuffed because the test scan of a colour slide was very
good quality, and she got a semi-professional scanner for £10 plus the cost
of the SCSI card.
She will also have to cough for the VueScan software but that looks to be
money well spent as the test version drives the scanner really well and
nobody else seems to do Windows drivers for it.
At some point I may have a play under Linux but the Windows solution fits in
with her other software and all in all she has a really good scanner for not
a lot of *money.

Oh, and I tried it without the terminator (just to see) and the SCSI
software reported "insufficient termination" which showed that the
terminator was doing something.

The card was (IIRC) an Adaptec 29160N with a 50 way D type connector
externally.
Termination of the card end of the bus is handled automagically.
The scanner had a matching 50 way Centronics style SCSI port, plus another
25 way D type (which was used to terminate with a short 25 way -
Centronics style cable plus a gender bender passive centronics style
terminator) which also suggests 8 bit SCSI (see above).
So the final puzzling part is that it had one connector which could connect
to Wide, but the other connector for Narrow.
Then again SCSI I supports 25 pin D-sub and 50 pin Centronics so this points
to a SCSI I device.
So I say again why the 0-9 ID dip switch?

Just annoyed with myself that it took so long to fix a trivial
error/misconfiguration.

Thinking back to the days when we had Mac Pluses at work there were a
number of devices which seemed to have standard switches on them, even
though you couldn't use addresses above 7. SCSI address was always the
first thing to look at when troubleshooting.
As I remember it the 50 pin centronics style connector was said to be
the 'proper' one for SCSI-1. For some reason although the external
hard drives had this connector, the Macs themselves used a standard 25
way D connector - I think I still have a stash of cables to interface
between them (and various other SCSI bits, if anyone's interested).
There were a few other things that used a 25 pin D connector for SCSI
- does anyone else remember zip drives? They were a real trap for the
unwary, since the version for use with the parallel port of a PC used
exactly the same connector - I think the only indication was the
presence of a SCSI ID switch of some sort.

On 20/02/2012 16:08, David WE Roberts wrote:

It is official - I am a complete dip switch.

Reset the SCSI ID from 9 to 2 and it all sprang to life immediately.

Thinking about it, I am not absolutely sure why it wouldn't work before.

If you had it on an external narrow bus (i.e. 50 way connector) then it
would not have seen the right address even when the host was polling the
higher numbers.

My first reaction (after seeing the SCSI card software scan for IDs
0-15) was that if it was working on a 3 bit address it would have the
range 0-7 or 4 bit 0-15 so putting the address below 7 would put it in a
valid range for a 3 bit address.
This is standard for 8 bit (narrow)SCSI.
This seemed to work.
But in that case why have a dip switch with values 0 through 9?

Count yourself you lucky you did not need to do it in binary ;-)

Cheap implementation of a single dip switch which covers 10 of the 16
values in a 4 bit address?

Yup... either a hex thumbwheel type or a row of DIL switches to enter
the address in binary seem more common.

Cheap part which can be set from 0-9 but shouldn't be set above 6?
Doesn't seem rational on a semi-professional scanner which cost £1k when
you could go round the world on the Queen Mary for 2/6p and still have
change for the cab.

Anyway, pleased (and relieved) that it is working.
My friend is really chuffed because the test scan of a colour slide was
very good quality, and she got a semi-professional scanner for £10 plus
the cost of the SCSI card.
She will also have to cough for the VueScan software but that looks to
be money well spent as the test version drives the scanner really well
and nobody else seems to do Windows drivers for it.

You may find Silverfast do a version (at a price!)

At some point I may have a play under Linux but the Windows solution
fits in with her other software and all in all she has a really good
scanner for not a lot of money.

Oh, and I tried it without the terminator (just to see) and the SCSI
software reported "insufficient termination" which showed that the
terminator was doing something.

Which is a more informative error than you often get ;-)

The card was (IIRC) an Adaptec 29160N with a 50 way D type connector
externally.

There are a few versions of that IIRC... (have got the LVD version in
one machine, and the older 80Mbit/byte version in this one)

Termination of the card end of the bus is handled automagically.
The scanner had a matching 50 way Centronics style SCSI port, plus
another 25 way D type (which was used to terminate with a short 25 way
- Centronics style cable plus a gender bender passive centronics style
terminator) which also suggests 8 bit SCSI (see above).

16 bit would quite often use a 68 or 80 way connector IIRC...

So the final puzzling part is that it had one connector which could
connect to Wide, but the other connector for Narrow.
Then again SCSI I supports 25 pin D-sub and 50 pin Centronics so this
points to a SCSI I device.
So I say again why the 0-9 ID dip switch?

Just annoyed with myself that it took so long to fix a trivial
error/misconfiguration.

I recall spending hours once getting some trivial data link working...
caused in the end by whoever made the kit applying the label for the dip
switches round the wrong way on the box!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/02/2012 16:08, David WE Roberts wrote:
snip
Count yourself you lucky you did not need to do it in binary ;-)
snip

Am I the only one who whiled away an idle moment or two by teaching the kids
to count in binary on their fingers?
I'm losing a bit of flexibility now but I can still represent quite high
numbers:-)
However decimal 4 and 6 can be misconstrued when rendered in binary when
counting from the thumb.
One is a very positive number :-)

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"David WE Roberts" writes:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/02/2012 16:08, David WE Roberts wrote:
snip
Count yourself you lucky you did not need to do it in binary ;-)
snip

Am I the only one who whiled away an idle moment or two by
teaching the kids to count in binary on their fingers?

No.

However decimal 4 and 6 can be misconstrued when rendered in
binary when counting from the thumb.
One is a very positive number :-)

Eighteen is significant to some people.

--
Jón Fairbairn

"Jon Fairbairn" wrote in message
...
"David WE Roberts" writes:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/02/2012 16:08, David WE Roberts wrote:
snip
Count yourself you lucky you did not need to do it in binary ;-)
snip

Am I the only one who whiled away an idle moment or two by
teaching the kids to count in binary on their fingers?

No.

My daughter could count in binary at about 6yo.
She refuses to do hexadecimal though.
I did get her doing base 3 using half fingers.


However decimal 4 and 6 can be misconstrued when rendered in
binary when counting from the thumb.
One is a very positive number :-)

Eighteen is significant to some people.

two thumbs and an index finger?

"Jon Fairbairn" wrote in message
...
"David WE Roberts" writes:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/02/2012 16:08, David WE Roberts wrote:
snip
Count yourself you lucky you did not need to do it in binary ;-)
snip

Am I the only one who whiled away an idle moment or two by
teaching the kids to count in binary on their fingers?

No.

However decimal 4 and 6 can be misconstrued when rendered in
binary when counting from the thumb.
One is a very positive number :-)

Eighteen is significant to some people.


Rock and roll!! :-))

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"Jon Fairbairn" wrote in message
...
"David WE Roberts" writes:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/02/2012 16:08, David WE Roberts wrote:
snip
Count yourself you lucky you did not need to do it in binary ;-)
snip

Am I the only one who whiled away an idle moment or two by
teaching the kids to count in binary on their fingers?

No.

My daughter could count in binary at about 6yo.
She refuses to do hexadecimal though.
I did get her doing base 3 using half fingers.


However decimal 4 and 6 can be misconstrued when rendered in
binary when counting from the thumb.
One is a very positive number :-)

Eighteen is significant to some people.

two thumbs and an index finger?
Sorry, Dennis.
Failed binary 101
18 = 16 + 2
Which is two fingers.
Starting from the thumb (1)
Raise Index finger (2)
Raise little finger (16)
Rabbit ears, devils horns, whatever.

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...


Starting from the thumb (1)

Ah, why start with the thumb?

I start from the little finger as it avoids the 6yo making rude signs she
doesn't know about.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...


Starting from the thumb (1)

Ah, why start with the thumb?

I start from the little finger as it avoids the 6yo making rude signs she
doesn't know about.
Still only two digits raised.
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...


Starting from the thumb (1)

Ah, why start with the thumb?

I start from the little finger as it avoids the 6yo making rude signs she
doesn't know about.
Still only two digits raised.

So you don't have a missing thumb?

dennis@home wrote:


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...


Starting from the thumb (1)

Ah, why start with the thumb?

I start from the little finger as it avoids the 6yo making rude signs
she doesn't know about.
Still only two digits raised.

So you don't have a missing thumb?

well its not opposed, if that's what you mean..

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...


Starting from the thumb (1)

Ah, why start with the thumb?

I start from the little finger as it avoids the 6yo making rude signs
she doesn't know about.
Still only two digits raised.

So you don't have a missing thumb?

You said
"two thumbs and an index finger? "
Which is 3 digits.
As stated previously, you only need two digits to represent the number 18 in
binary.
One for 16
One for 2
Unless, of course, you are using an alternative version of binary?

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...


Starting from the thumb (1)

Ah, why start with the thumb?

I start from the little finger as it avoids the 6yo making rude signs
she doesn't know about.
Still only two digits raised.

So you don't have a missing thumb?

You said
"two thumbs and an index finger? "
Which is 3 digits.
As stated previously, you only need two digits to represent the number 18
in binary.
One for 16
One for 2
Unless, of course, you are using an alternative version of binary?

Maybe you forgot the parity bit?

En el artículo , Jon Fairbairn
escribió:

Eighteen is significant to some people.

Live long and prosper )

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 21/02/2012 19:40, dennis@home wrote:


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...


Starting from the thumb (1)

Ah, why start with the thumb?

I start from the little finger as it avoids the 6yo making rude
signs she doesn't know about.
Still only two digits raised.

So you don't have a missing thumb?

You said
"two thumbs and an index finger? "
Which is 3 digits.
As stated previously, you only need two digits to represent the number
18 in binary.
One for 16
One for 2
Unless, of course, you are using an alternative version of binary?

Maybe you forgot the parity bit?

No, it was even parity obviously... ;-)

(As dennis takes argument wiggling to a whole new level!)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2012 19:40, dennis@home wrote:


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...


Starting from the thumb (1)

Ah, why start with the thumb?

I start from the little finger as it avoids the 6yo making rude
signs she doesn't know about.
Still only two digits raised.

So you don't have a missing thumb?

You said
"two thumbs and an index finger? "
Which is 3 digits.
As stated previously, you only need two digits to represent the number
18 in binary.
One for 16
One for 2
Unless, of course, you are using an alternative version of binary?

Maybe you forgot the parity bit?

No, it was even parity obviously... ;-)

(As dennis takes argument wiggling to a whole new level!)

No this is a new level.. 2s compliment.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:34:39 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2012 19:40, dennis@home wrote:


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...


Starting from the thumb (1)

Ah, why start with the thumb?

I start from the little finger as it avoids the 6yo making rude
signs she doesn't know about.
Still only two digits raised.

So you don't have a missing thumb?

You said
"two thumbs and an index finger? "
Which is 3 digits.
As stated previously, you only need two digits to represent the
number 18 in binary.
One for 16
One for 2
Unless, of course, you are using an alternative version of binary?

Maybe you forgot the parity bit?

No, it was even parity obviously... ;-)

(As dennis takes argument wiggling to a whole new level!)

No this is a new level.. 2s compliment.

So, still two digits, then?

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:34:39 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2012 19:40, dennis@home wrote:


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...


Starting from the thumb (1)

Ah, why start with the thumb?

I start from the little finger as it avoids the 6yo making rude
signs she doesn't know about.
Still only two digits raised.

So you don't have a missing thumb?

You said
"two thumbs and an index finger? "
Which is 3 digits.
As stated previously, you only need two digits to represent the
number 18 in binary.
One for 16
One for 2
Unless, of course, you are using an alternative version of binary?

Maybe you forgot the parity bit?

No, it was even parity obviously... ;-)

(As dennis takes argument wiggling to a whole new level!)

No this is a new level.. 2s compliment.

What, telling the 2s how nice they are?

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

En el artículo , Bob Eager
escribió:

What, telling the 2s how nice they are?

Subtle.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , Jon Fairbairn
escribió:

Eighteen is significant to some people.

Live long and prosper )


I think you wiil find that is 31 with a slightly strained digit arrangement
:-)
At least. I can't get my middle two fingers apart without a lot of
concentration.

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")