America's biggest mistake

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 9:58:05 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21/07/2019 8:43 pm, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote in
news:gpi1j6F27tkU1@mid.individual.net:

On 19/07/2019 10:39 am, tubeguy@myshop.com wrote:
America's biggest mistake was landing on the moon 50 years ago.
This was the start of satellites, which lead to the cell phones.
Now we have a generation of idiot "cell tards". (Kids addicted to
cellphones who have no real lives).



Telstars 1 and 2 were in space by 1963. Communications satellites
were already a thing.

Yeah, and it had nothing to do with cell tech either.

The moon landings were little more than a distraction.

You are not very bright. Sheesh. Whoever "taught' you should give
his degrees back.

Fairchild semiconductor might beg to differ, and Intel would not
even exist. You were saying?

Unfortunately, they lea on to the shuttle, which probably put
manned space development back 25 years.

Wow. You and Larkin should get married or start some secret retards
with degrees society.

That's if we actually need manned space development,

You really have no clue what is revealed in microgravity science
experimentation then, eh? Again, you ain't all that bright... in
the slightest.
which is far
from clear.

How can you tell with those horse blinders on and dialed to a thin
slit?

Going back to the moon is as pointless as going to the
moon was in the first place.

There are plenty of reasons to go to the Moon and to set up a base
there.

After centuries we barely know what lies under our planet's watery
covered surfaces. Yet we still explore.

As far as space or other low pressure environments. We still need
to explore and expand our knowledge. Even if it is dangerous and a
single mistake can kill. So what? A single mistake at an Antarctic
base can kill too. Wake up, ditz. You would not even be typing this
message or have anything (even something which is correct) stuffed
into that brain of yours if it were not for the USA and NASA.

You are a disgrace to the science community.

A great adventure, for sure, but not
much else.

You are an idiot... not much else, Else.

Ditto going to Mars, though if Musk wants to find people, not
being tax payers, to finance it, I suppose it's up to him.

You are just riddled with bent perceptions. What a shame.


Such an emotional rant. Are you so worried that I might be right?

Sylvia.

DL should be worried that he's always wrong. I see you're getting to
know him.

 

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 6:43:06 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote in
news:gpi1j6F27tkU1@mid.individual.net:

On 19/07/2019 10:39 am, tubeguy@myshop.com wrote:
America's biggest mistake was landing on the moon 50 years ago.
This was the start of satellites, which lead to the cell phones.
Now we have a generation of idiot "cell tards". (Kids addicted to
cellphones who have no real lives).



Telstars 1 and 2 were in space by 1963. Communications satellites
were already a thing.

Yeah, and it had nothing to do with cell tech either.

The moon landings were little more than a distraction.

You are not very bright. Sheesh. Whoever "taught' you should give
his degrees back.

Fairchild semiconductor might beg to differ, and Intel would not
even exist. You were saying?

ROFL. Where did you come up with that? Sure, the moon program helped
accelerate the pace of semiconductor technology, but it was never the
only application. IBM, DG, DEC and others were building computers for
commercial use, the military and commercial users were using semiconductors.
Like all technology, it would have been a huge commercial success with
or without the Apollo program, and with or without NASA.

Unfortunately, they lea on to the shuttle, which probably put
manned space development back 25 years.

Wow. You and Larkin should get married or start some secret retards
with degrees society.

That's if we actually need manned space development,

You really have no clue what is revealed in microgravity science
experimentation then, eh? Again, you ain't all that bright... in
the slightest.
which is far
from clear.

How can you tell with those horse blinders on and dialed to a thin
slit?

Going back to the moon is as pointless as going to the
moon was in the first place.

There are plenty of reasons to go to the Moon and to set up a base
there.

I'd love to hear one that would justify the enormous cost, especially when we
are already running massive deficits, running on borrowed money.
Probably better to leave it to rich billionaires who claim they will be
giving rides to rich folks.

 

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 1:39:03 PM UTC-4, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

On Jul 20, 2019, Bill Sloman wrote
(in article<65def308-d7b4-49b1-b0f8-faf53920bc42@googlegroups.com&gt:

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:35:08 AM UTC+2, bitrex wrote:
On 7/18/19 8:39 PM, tubeguy@myshop.com wrote:
America's biggest mistake was landing on the moon 50 years ago. This was
the start of satellites, which lead to the cell phones. Now we have a
generation of idiot "cell tards". (Kids addicted to cellphones who have
no real lives).


u were America's biggest mistake.

Not while Donald Trump is around.

And the propostion that the Apollo program had anything to do with cellular
telephones seems irrational.

Well, there is an indirect connection - development of high-reliability
semiconductors was very much driven by the needs of the space program, and of
military systems.

.
The classic Bell Labs paper on cellular mobile telephony doesn't say anything
about satellite links - even low orbit satellites are too far away for the
customers to let the cell diimensions get small enough to be useful.

I don´t know who first had the idea (some claim Motorola), but Bell Labs
worked out the theory. But the political decision was to keep the Bell System
out of this area, because it was not legally obvious that cell phones should
be a regulated monopoly (unlike landlines for instance),

AT&T was broken up, there was no more regulated monopoly, before cell
phone service rolled out in the USA. The breakup came in the early 80s.





and letting a

regulated monopoly into any unregulated market raises issues of
cross-subsidy, where the monopoly uses monopoly profits to undersell all
competitors.

So, Bell was not allowed to do anything, and Motorola became the first mover.

That might be true with mobile phones, but it's not true with actual
cell phones.

.
The Iridium system never made any money - it turned out that there weren't
enough customers in place where the population density was too low to support
a decent density of cell towers (partly because cell phones became popular
rather faster than the Iridium plan had anticipated).

I don´t know the full story of Iridium, but this is certainly a plausible
theory.

Joe Gwinn (Whose first job out of school was at the Federal Communications
Commission - I was a teenage regulator)

 

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 6:33:10 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:65def308-d7b4-49b1-b0f8-faf53920bc42@googlegroups.com:

The classic Bell Labs paper on cellular mobile telephony doesn't
say anything about satellite links -

That's because motorola developed it.
They started in 1946.

AT&T 'conceived' of it (actual cell based telephony), but they went
nowhere with it.

Wrong, always wrong. Motorola demonstrated the first HANDHELD mobile phone.
AT&T, Bell Labs were always major players in mobile, starting after WWII
and evolving into
cellular service. That first Motorola handheld in the 70s was not an
actual cellular based phone at all, it did not use cells. It
was AT&T, that supplied most of the cellular base station eqpt as
actual cellular service later deployed in the USA. The first deployment
was AMPS, developed at Bell Labs. And following the
breakup of AT&T, the eqpt part of AT&T and Bell Labs became Lucent Technologies
and they went on to dominate the cellular base station field. Today
merged with Alcatel, they are still a significant player, probably larger
than Motorola, though both of them have lost share to all the new players.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:0bdae0aa-7131-4405-886e-
43d89edc8b91@googlegroups.com:

DL should be worried that he's always wrong. I see you're getting
to
know him.

The Fat Ass Tard 4 doesn't understand that he is showing us how
much of a retarded, know nothing newbie fucktard he is.

I had sed threads with her in them decades ago, TraderTard4. I was
in the group when she arrived way back then.
Again you show us that you are dumber than dogshit.

Maybe you should be called ShitPoster4 because that is all you
spew, boy.

Damn shame too. A vid of you shitting puking barfing and breathing
one last time would be GREAT! Google that, motherfucker.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d7085918-1568-4c57-a38e-4068f192b0e6@googlegroups.com:

I'd love to hear one that would justify the enormous cost,
especially when we are already running massive deficits,

You are so fucking stupid, you cannot even keep the past and the
present separated. Back then, there was a cold war and a space race,
but I do not expect a putz like you sucking up to an uneducated,
ineducable ditz to understand that, much less why there needs to be a
continuation of science in space, and that includes returning to the
Moon, and going to Mars.

Stop crying, fat ass. You sound like a pissy little bitch.

running
on borrowed money. Probably better to leave it to rich
billionaires who claim they will be giving rides to rich folks.

They obvioulsy have more brains than a fat assed punk fuck putz
chump like you has.

Hard to achieve, but you actually sound more immature than Donald
J. Trump with that stupid spew.

Nobody was talking about giving rides to anyone back then. Now, it
merely represents the world most expensive rolloer coaster sans
wheels.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d7085918-1568-4c57-a38e-4068f192b0e6@googlegroups.com:

ROFL. Where did you come up with that? Sure, the moon program
helped accelerate the pace of semiconductor technology, but it was
never the only application. IBM, DG, DEC and others were building
computers for commercial use, the military and commercial users
were using semiconductors. Like all technology, it would have been
a huge commercial success with or without the Apollo program, and
with or without NASA.

You are a true idiot. IBM was using tubes and that was not going
to cut it on the moon. Yes the transistor was being put to use, but
you have no grasp of scale.

NASA and the military worked with Fairchild to make the very first
integrated circuit chip, and other chips which were used on the Moon
shot. Intel came out of those original scientists. Oh and that chip
was not "commercially available" for many years, so your conclusion
jump fails like all your other quick google glance and act like you
know fuck all methods. You know NOTHING about what went down then.
Even a turbine impeller blade shape was top secret in 1960. You are
an absolute dope.

 

On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 23:47:10 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d7085918-1568-4c57-a38e-4068f192b0e6@googlegroups.com:

ROFL. Where did you come up with that? Sure, the moon program
helped accelerate the pace of semiconductor technology, but it was
never the only application. IBM, DG, DEC and others were building
computers for commercial use, the military and commercial users
were using semiconductors. Like all technology, it would have been
a huge commercial success with or without the Apollo program, and
with or without NASA.




You are a true idiot. IBM was using tubes and that was not going
to cut it on the moon. Yes the transistor was being put to use, but
you have no grasp of scale.

You're *always* wrong, AlwaysWrong. The IBM 7070 came out in 1958 and
the 7090 in 1959. Neither used tubes.

NASA and the military worked with Fairchild to make the very first
integrated circuit chip, and other chips which were used on the Moon
shot. Intel came out of those original scientists. Oh and that chip
was not "commercially available" for many years, so your conclusion
jump fails like all your other quick google glance and act like you
know fuck all methods. You know NOTHING about what went down then.
Even a turbine impeller blade shape was top secret in 1960. You are
an absolute dope.

You know *nothing*, AlwaysWrong. You insist on proving it to the
world every day. At least you're consistent.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 7:47:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

You are a true idiot. IBM was using tubes and that was not going
to cut it on the moon. Yes the transistor was being put to use, but
you have no grasp of scale.

NASA and the military worked with Fairchild to make the very first
integrated circuit chip, and other chips which were used on the Moon
shot. Intel came out of those original scientists. Oh and that chip
was not "commercially available" for many years, so your conclusion
jump fails like all your other quick google glance and act like you
know fuck all methods. You know NOTHING about what went down then.
Even a turbine impeller blade shape was top secret in 1960. You are
an absolute dope.trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d7085918-1568-4c57-a38e-4068f192b0e6@googlegroups.com:

ROFL. Where did you come up with that? Sure, the moon program
helped accelerate the pace of semiconductor technology, but it was
never the only application. IBM, DG, DEC and others were building
computers for commercial use, the military and commercial users
were using semiconductors. Like all technology, it would have been
a huge commercial success with or without the Apollo program, and
with or without NASA.

Texas Instuments made the first intergrated circuit. NASA and the military were not involved in making the first ic.

Dan

 

krw@notreal.com wrote in news:uu0ajetdmd8fnu5lsm91rtj9q7ltolfat6@
4ax.com:

You're *always* wrong, AlwaysWrong. The IBM 7070 came out in 1958 and
the 7090 in 1959. Neither used tubes.

Neither used IC chips either. They were 100% discreet wired.

Try again.

 

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:37c009c3-782a-4ebe-ad96-e2987b0c5141@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 7:47:15 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:



You are a true idiot. IBM was using tubes and that was not
going
to cut it on the moon. Yes the transistor was being put to use,
but you have no grasp of scale.

NASA and the military worked with Fairchild to make the very
first
integrated circuit chip, and other chips which were used on the
Moon shot. Intel came out of those original scientists. Oh and
that chip was not "commercially available" for many years, so
your conclusion jump fails like all your other quick google
glance and act like you know fuck all methods. You know NOTHING
about what went down then. Even a turbine impeller blade shape
was top secret in 1960. You are an absolute
dope.trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d7085918-1568-4c57-a38e-4068f192b0e6@googlegroups.com:

ROFL. Where did you come up with that? Sure, the moon program
helped accelerate the pace of semiconductor technology, but it
was never the only application. IBM, DG, DEC and others were
building computers for commercial use, the military and
commercial users were using semiconductors. Like all
technology, it would have been a huge commercial success with
or without the Apollo program, and with or without NASA.


Texas Instuments made the first intergrated circuit.

Germanium

NASA and the
military were not involved in making the first ic.

Yes they were. The first Silicon IC chip, which was by Noyce and
Fairchild. Far superior to the TI Germanium device.

Perhaps you should have read a bit more.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 21/7/19 10:10 pm, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 6:33:10 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:65def308-d7b4-49b1-b0f8-faf53920bc42@googlegroups.com:

The classic Bell Labs paper on cellular mobile telephony doesn't
say anything about satellite links -

That's because motorola developed it.
They started in 1946.

AT&T 'conceived' of it (actual cell based telephony), but they went
nowhere with it.

In 1968 the FCC allocated the 800 - 900 MHz band for it.

But no. Cell phone systems need no sat links to operate.

Modern-day cell networks need GPS.
It is used for time-base synchronization at the cell site, among other things, such as E-911 location assist.

And GPS is just the Apollo ranging system (which I described in another
thread today), turned upside-down, with relativistic calculations to
locate the birds, and triangulation to compute the position.

Clifford Heath

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 3:39:03 AM UTC+10, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

On Jul 20, 2019, Bill Sloman wrote
(in article<65def308-d7b4-49b1-b0f8-faf53920bc42@googlegroups.com&gt:

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:35:08 AM UTC+2, bitrex wrote:
On 7/18/19 8:39 PM, tubeguy@myshop.com wrote:
America's biggest mistake was landing on the moon 50 years ago. This was
the start of satellites, which lead to the cell phones. Now we have a
generation of idiot "cell tards". (Kids addicted to cellphones who have
no real lives).


u were America's biggest mistake.

Not while Donald Trump is around.

And the propostion that the Apollo program had anything to do with cellular
telephones seems irrational.

Well, there is an indirect connection - development of high-reliability
semiconductors was very much driven by the needs of the space program, and of
military systems.

The military customers would have been pretty insistent on high reliability, even if there hadn't been a space program. Computer systems did demand high reliability parts - they contain a lot of components - so they would have been equally interested.

The classic Bell Labs paper on cellular mobile telephony doesn't say anything about satellite links - even low orbit satellites are too far away for the customers to let the cell dimensions get small enough to be useful.

I don´t know who first had the idea (some claim Motorola), but Bell Labs
worked out the theory. But the political decision was to keep the Bell System
out of this area, because it was not legally obvious that cell phones should
be a regulated monopoly (unlike landlines for instance), and letting a
regulated monopoly into any unregulated market raises issues of
cross-subsidy, where the monopoly uses monopoly profits to undersell all
competitors.

So, Bell was not allowed to do anything, and Motorola became the first mover.

The Iridium system never made any money - it turned out that there weren't enough customers in place where the population density was too low to support a decent density of cell towers (partly because cell phones became popular
rather faster than the Iridium plan had anticipated).

I don´t know the full story of Iridium, but this is certainly a plausible
theory.

Joe Gwinn (Whose first job out of school was at the Federal Communications
Commission - I was a teenage regulator).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Winfield Hill]

Jeff Liebermann wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote:

tubeguy@myshop.com wrote...
America's biggest mistake was landing on the moon
50 years ago. This was the start of satellites,
which lead to the cell phones.

The satellite to cell-phone connection is tenuous.
A better bogeyman would be the invention of the
flat lithium battery. The cell-phone popularity
never would have happened with Ni-Cd batteries.

I beg to differ. The cell phone would have been
larger and heavier,but so much as to make it unusable.

It's not the weight and size, but the poor lifetime.
Those old-style batteries quickly degraded, leaving
users with a bad experience... unreliable, unusable.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 9:18:31 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote in news:uu0ajetdmd8fnu5lsm91rtj9q7ltolfat6@
4ax.com:

You're *always* wrong, AlwaysWrong. The IBM 7070 came out in 1958 and
the 7090 in 1959. Neither used tubes.

Neither used IC chips either. They were 100% discreet wired.

Try again.

ROFL

You claimed IBM was using TUBES. Now it's "discreet wired".
Discreet wired what? Transistors, moron.

Wrong, always wrong.

 

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 7:47:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d7085918-1568-4c57-a38e-4068f192b0e6@googlegroups.com:

ROFL. Where did you come up with that? Sure, the moon program
helped accelerate the pace of semiconductor technology, but it was
never the only application. IBM, DG, DEC and others were building
computers for commercial use, the military and commercial users
were using semiconductors. Like all technology, it would have been
a huge commercial success with or without the Apollo program, and
with or without NASA.




You are a true idiot. IBM was using tubes and that was not going
to cut it on the moon. Yes the transistor was being put to use, but
you have no grasp of scale.

Wrong, always wrong. The first semiconductor based computers were
in existence in 1953, both in the US and the UK. The UK not only
hasn't been to the moon, they didn't even have a space program.
Yet they had a solid state computer in 1953.
IBM was using transistors, the iconic 360 line was introduced in 1964,
5 years before the moon landing and obviously IBM was working on
the 360 for years before that. So was Sperry Rand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC_Solid_State

"The UNIVAC Solid State was a magnetic drum-based solid-state computer announced by Sperry Rand in December 1958 as a response to the IBM 650. It was one of the first computers to be (nearly) entirely solid-state, using 700 transistors, and 3000 magnetic amplifiers (FERRACTOR) for primary logic, and 20 vacuum tubes largely for power control. "


Noyce and Kilby had independently invented the first IC in 1959, that's
before there was a space program.

NASA and the military worked with Fairchild to make the very first
integrated circuit chip,

That;s a big lie. Noyce who was a founder of Fairchild and Kilby at TI
are credited with the invention of the IC. It's well documented and there
is nothing in it about NASA and the military being involved. Obviously
NASA could not have been involved because it did not even exist at the time..
Wrong, always wrong.





and other chips which were used on the Moon
> shot. Intel came out of those original scientists.

Intel did come out of Fairchild, when Gordon Moore and Noyce left
to start it. But, so what? It's just like it is today, creative
talented entrepreneurs leaving a company to start another. And that
was AFTER we had landed on the moon. As for the



Oh and that chip
> was not "commercially available" for many years,

More BS. What chip is this? Intel's first chip was a static ram, fool
and it was commercially available. The moon shot computers were built
out of very basic gate technology ICs that were commercially available
at the time.

so your conclusion

jump fails like all your other quick google glance and act like you
know fuck all methods. You know NOTHING about what went down then.
Even a turbine impeller blade shape was top secret in 1960. You are
an absolute dope.

Wrong about computers, wrong about ICs, now the village idiot segues into
impellers. Wrong, always wrong.

 

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 01:18:25 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote in news:uu0ajetdmd8fnu5lsm91rtj9q7ltolfat6@
4ax.com:

You're *always* wrong, AlwaysWrong. The IBM 7070 came out in 1958 and
the 7090 in 1959. Neither used tubes.

Neither used IC chips either. They were 100% discreet wired.

Idiot.

You said (being always wrong):

"IBM was using tubes and that was not going to cut it on the moon."

IOW, you're wrong as always, AlwaysWrong.

> Try again.

I don't have to, moron. You're clearly wrong. As always.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On 21 Jul 2019 19:32:43 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote:

tubeguy@myshop.com wrote...
America's biggest mistake was landing on the moon
50 years ago. This was the start of satellites,
which lead to the cell phones.

The satellite to cell-phone connection is tenuous.
A better bogeyman would be the invention of the
flat lithium battery. The cell-phone popularity
never would have happened with Ni-Cd batteries.

I beg to differ. The cell phone would have been
larger and heavier,but so much as to make it unusable.

It's not the weight and size, but the poor lifetime.
Those old-style batteries quickly degraded, leaving
users with a bad experience... unreliable, unusable.

I beg to differ (again). NiMH and LiIon batteries are good for 700 to
1000 charge cycles. Lead-acid batteries, about 300 cycles. NiCd is
good for at least 1000 and with a properly controlled charge cycle,
can easily do 3000 or more cycles. Properly treated, they can last
almost forever:
"NiCd Battery Still Runs After 28 Years"
<https://www.powerelectronics.com/news/nicd-battery-still-runs-after-28-years>

So why do NiCd batteries have such a bad reputation for short
lifetime? The problem was that when NiCd batteries initially arrived
in the late 1960's and 1970's, the charging systems were really crude.
At best, they had some kind of heat sensor on the cells to terminate
charging when the battery became warm. That doesn't work very well.
I've can cram 5C or more charge current into a NiCd cell without
heating or damage at up to about 85% of full charge. From there, the
cell gets warm and eventually quite hot. Once warm, the cell is
damaged or dead. So, terminating the charge cycle when the battery
gets warm is a really bad idea. There were a bunch of other schemes
that worked to varying degrees. Some could be tricked by starting a
new charge cycle with a fully charged battery. Most chargers had no
intelligence of any kind and would charge at very slow rates on the
assumption that the low current could not overheat and kill the
battery.

There was also the problem of charging cells in series. With equal
current going through the series string of cells, the voltage across
each cell and the heating would depend on the internal resistance,
which could vary considerably. That resulted in overheated cells, and
occasionally a reverse charged cell. What was needed was todays
balance charger, as is popular in RC model airplanes, robotics, and
LED flashlights. Laptop batteries use a BMS (battery management
system) which also provides charge equalization. All this would have
been very useful protecting the early NiCd batteries.

So, if NiCd's were really so wonderful if properly charged, what
killed their popularity? Mostly, it was the cadmium, which is
designated a hazardous substance and pollutant. What was needed was
something more environmentally friendly. NiMH and some (not all)
LiIon chemistries provided the necessary replacement.

However, in the early 1970's, NiCd was still an acceptable technology.
Had NiMH and LiIon not been invented, and someone invented a
successful BMS, cell phone batteries based on NiCd chemistry would
have worked quite well. We would not have had Apple iPhones with
non-replaceable batteries, which is good thing. The phones would have
been larger and heavier, but that would have been tolerated pending
the invention of lower power radios.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a9ef28f6-4f04-4076-9c68-be7958fcff44@googlegroups.com:

The military were never the major customer. MIL-spec parts were
good from 125C to -40C and very expensive. Industrial spec parts
were good from +85C to -20C while the bulk of the production was
commercial parts good from 70C to 0C.

All of those 'specs' did not even come out until the '70s.

Some chip makers' main lines were the high performance mil grade
ceramic carrier parts.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a9ef28f6-4f04-4076-9c68-be7958fcff44@googlegroups.com:

Sadly, the absolute dope here seems to be you. As a graduate
student in Australia I bought a couple of integrated circuits -
uA709 op amps - around 1967 so they were definitely commercially
available.

1967 is NOT 1960.