The Difference Engine

[Daniil]

Hello again, dear comrades! 
I want to share with you one thing, which impressed me very much!
As all of you, brothers, I'm a computer enthusiast, but not only in ultra-modern PC's but in computing machines history as well. Sometimes old computing machines have a certain charm, also it's interesting sometimes to work with a bare hardware, without any OSes, even without assembler!  Also I'm interesting in a unusual computing systems, like mechanical or organic computers.
There is a very few info about this themes, but sometimes we can find a very interesting info.
As you can know, first "computer" with all of necessary parts was invented at mid 1820's in England, by Charles Babbage, and called "The Difference Engine".
That was a mechanical computer, but it had a multiple registers for calculating, memory, an input and output devices. Also it could be programmed, via perforated cards. It didn't use a binary system, and operated only with decimal.
It wasn't built because at that time was no standarts for mechanical parts (and a Difference Engine it had more than 10000 parts, and they going jammed very often, preventing the work of Engine). But it was wery interesting piece of machinery, and also very beauty, like any bare mechanisms.
Till this evening, I haven't any good wideo info about that thing, but today I found a very good youtube video about working difference engine.
You can watch it here.
Enjoy!

[humbert]

I don't think there's any clear-cut "first computer" anywhere in history. Many will argue that the Abacus preceded Babbage's difference engineas well as Blaise Pascal's mechanical calculator. Still others insist that the first "real" computer was any based on Alan Turing's theoretical machine published in his 1936 paper, and even then I don't believe Turing was the first to suggest using binary digits.

It's a little bit like asking who invented television. There's no clear-cut answer given that so many different systems came and went.

[Daniil]

Well, friend, there may be variants in term "computer" indeed.
Under term "computer" I mean programable calculating system with memory for program (somethins between von Neumann and Harvard architecthure, closest example - our IBM-PC-compatible computers). And Abacus and Pascaline have no way to program them, it's just a calculators.

Maybe here is a language difference also; for us, russians, "computer" is foreign word, and because of this, "computer" means mostly (only?) PC or supercomputers, it's a special word. Other types of computing macnines we know under other termins. That's why I said that difference engine was a first "computer". (As I know, in English words "compute" and "calculate" is synonims, and maybe because of this you cited as an example a Pascal's machine).

Also, in my previous post I make a little mistake. The "Difference Engine" mostly a calculator, not a computer. Babbage's computer programmable with a perforated cards called an "Analitycal Engine", and wasn't built.

And once more. If to tell about Turing Machine - here is emulator of that machine, made by Google.

[humbert]

Toвaрич (hope spelling is correct), again we come to an endless debate about exactly what is and what is not a computer. This is precisely why it's so hard to determine which was the first. For example, is the Casio digital watch on your wrist a computer? It performs all it's functions not too different from a PC, but when it was constructed it's software was burned onto it's ROM chips so it can only do what they designed it for.

Similarly, the word "computer" doesn't tell you much either. As you correctly state, in English "compute" simply means to calculate. In a 1935 dictionary, "computer" was not a machine, it was a human who worked at [for example] an engineering firm. His job was to spend all day with pencil and paper doing the tremendous amounts of math which was needed to carry out projects. It was some 10 years later that the definition changed to a machine that basically does the same job. Naturally they used this word for the machine because no other existed.

It becomes more vague when you consider the Mark IV - the behemoth used by the US Military during WW-II. This giant with it's 18,000 vacuum tubes could do an incredible 5,000 calculations per second and allowed the army to prepare the necessary firing tables for its artillery units. The only way to get this thing to do something different was to step inside it and change the wires around. So once again, is this a computer or not?

[Daniil]

Not at all correct, brother. Товарищ - that's correct.
"Ч" pronounces as "ch" (like in "cherokie"), and "Щ" pronounces as sonorously "sch`" (like when teen girl sais "Ow, s*it!") 

Well, back to computers. I think, the best way to determine, what is computer, is "feature comparison". What feature must have a machine to do the same job as computer-employee? As you can understand, it shouldn't be addicted to cigarettes or have a visor-cap (that's non-functional features  ) but it must perform a calculating without a human control.
For this, it must have a memory for data and memory for a program, then, it must have a computing unit (for example, CPU), and it must have an input and output interfaces. Also, a memory must be rewritable for executing many programs.
So, in that classification, we can say that the Casio watch works almost like a computer but isn't a computer (they can execute only one program). Also, Mark-1 (not IV) (ASCC) was not fully electronic, but it was a computer (it had a memory for programs). First full electronic computer was ENIAC, under Mark-IV you describe this giant.
Also, for example, modern smartphone in this classification is also a computer, because it can use different programs, uploaded in it.

[humbert]

Toвaрищ, the reason I mispelled the word the last time (other than not being fluent in Russian) is that when this was transliterated into English, the word "tovarich" was used. Whoever did this used the pronunciation instead of the proper spelling. Thanks for the correct information. BTW and while we're on the subject, please explain the difference between И and Й. The Unicode program on my tablet say they correspond to "I" and "short I" respectively.

BTW, did you read my little tip about being able to type in almost any character without having to use Character Map? If not I'll gladly repost it.

With respect to computers, since there is no worldwide accepted detailed definition for that word, what you did was simply say that any time you use the word, you refer specifically to a machine that can do what you explained in your post. This is certainly OK when no clearer definition exists and there is an endless debate about what is and is not a computer. Since I'm too lazy to open another tab and look up the information in Wiki, please tell me if Babbage's difference engine lives up to your definition.

I'm curious as to why the Mark 1 was not fully electronic whereas ENIAC was. To my knowledge both used vacuum tubes, relays and tons or wiring with no silicon based solid state parts anywhere. Can you explain?

[Daniil]

Yes, shure, buddy!
A program on your tablet said correct, but...  Well... It said how it's called (named), not how it's pronounced. "Й" name translated to English exactly as "short..." or " shorted I". As for pronunciation that's a bit difficult to explain.
"И" mostly equal to your English "i", maybe it sounds a bit longer. But not so long like "ee" in, for example, word "Lee". The closest for russian "И"  is "i" in words like "winter", "victory", "win"
"Й"... Well... closest example which I can find now is like "ye" in "eye". "Eye" pronounces like "aX" were that X is very close equivalent of "й". In russian transliteration I can write "eye" like "ай". Also word "key" - it ends with sound very close to "й".

Yes, I read your tip, thanks. 

Wow, damn...  Another one language difference. 15 minutes I  tried to understand what you want to say about Babbage's Engine.  "lives up to" (without context) translating to russian like "can live till". But "lives up to " with a context means very different.  Yes, Babbage's difference engine comes very-very closely to my definition.

Mark I, as you correctly statr, used a large amount of vacuum tubes, relays and other electronic components in its ALU, but that ALU synchronising between each other mechanically, with a 15-meters shaft. ENIAC didn't use such mechanical system.

[humbert]

Hey Toвaрищ,

Believe it or not, I very clearly understood the difference between и and й. It's simply that one "stronger" than the other. Also, please accept my apologies for confusing you, with the phrase "lives up to". In English it means, as you understood, that it meets your expectations or qualifies under your definition.

Since we're on the subject of linguistics, I have a question. Unless I read incorrectly, the big sign on the tomb of the founder of the CCCP says "Λэнйн" (or so I think, not sure). The question is, why do they use "Λ", which is the Greek letter lamdba, when according to my chart there is no Λ in the Cyrillic alphabet? The closest equivalent to the Latin "L" is "Л", which is called "el". What's this all about?

I'm not too clear on your explanation the 15 meter shaft used by Mark 1. Is this how different ALU's communicated or are talking different computers here? What was the difference in ENIAC?

[Daniil]

As about "lives up to" - forget it, it just was interesting, no need to apologize.

The sign on Mavzoley (mausoleum) says "Ленин".  And "Л" (equal to "L"; it's called "el" but pronounced exact as "L") in fact is in cyrillic alphabet.  My name in russian writing is Ð"аниил.
Oh, no, I mean, yes, now I understand what you want to ask. "Л" in some fonts, or in hand-writing may be written as "Λ". On the Mavzoley there is just uncommon "angular" font, it was loved by USSR propaganda stylists.

Mark-I consists with 24 modules, one module for each decimal register, and, as I can understand, every module contain also a computing unit for operations with each register. That modules connects between each other with long rotating shaft, which turn on and off relays around it. ENIAC, (and also our russian Ð'ЭСМ (Big Electronic Calculating Machine in english translation)) didn't use any mechanical conections in them, only electronic wiring.

[humbert]

Hi once again,

Certainly I believe you when you said that the correct inscription on the Mavzoley is "Ленин" and the L is simply an incorrect font. I went to Google images to see a picture of the sign. Frankly if the first letter isn't Λ (lambda), it certainly looks like it - you can see the picture yourself. The letter looks nothing like Л. Another question. The second letter of the sign is E. According to my tablet, this corresponds ye in the Latin alphabet. For example, isn't "Yeltsin" spelled EлÑ,cйн?? Why doesn't the Mavzoley read "Лэнин" instead -- or is the proper Russian pronunciation "Lyenin"?

Is "Stalin" spelled CÑ,aлйн or CÑ,aлин? BTW, I liked the way you transliterated your name. It's a perfect letter-by-letter equivalent. 

Pardon my errors - I'm doing what I can to learn as much as possible about the Cyrillic alphabet. Thanks for teaching me. 

By the way, on your keyboard of which you uploaded a picture, do you simply hit Alt-LeftShift for Latin characters and then memorize their location? Of, and as you probably know, the alphabet used on this forum was developed by the Roman Empire. They spoke Latin, hence its name.