Re: Stinger Specs

>Stinger (AIM-92)  (Jane's #: 6604.331)
>152 x 7-14 cm  (l x d - span)
>Weight: 18 kg
>Warhead: HE
>Propulsion: Solid
>Range: 2-4 km
>Guidance: IR
>
>Exact effective range / altitude is not listed in the quick guide I have
>on my desk.  I will pull it out of a larger volume when I have time.
>

When I was doing my undergraduate work several of us built a heat-seeking
and homing circuit which we subsequently tested in a small (24-inch) solid
propellent rocket.  Four CO-2 cooled germanium sensors picked up radiation
from a small flat-topped piramidal mirror which drove fin servos to 'null'
onto (place its image atop the piramid) the heat source. One evening we
were able to 'shoot down' a lit cigarette tied to fence up in the hills
near the college from a distance of about 1/4-mile.

For some time we considered making available 'Visible Missile" plans/kits,
for a  few hundred dollars, which had everything except the easily obtained
zinc-sulphur propellent (would this be illegal given the laws passed since
the '70s?) so those interested in IR missile technology could learn from a
functioning testbed.  I did quite a bit of serious amateur rocketry in my
teen years through the Northrup Rocketry Club (So. Cal) and launches at a
site near Edwards AFB (they were happy to track our launches and make sure
there was no aircraft hazzard). Our 24-inch rockets reached speeds of over
1000 mph in about 1 second and altitudes of about 10,000 ft.  48-inch
rockets (still small enough for shoulder launch) could reach over Mach 2
and altitude/ranges of about 50,000 ft (all figures insignificant
payloads).

I'm certain I and many of my friends got much of our interest for math and
science and subsequent academic success from such hands-on activities which
were encouraged or supported by teachers, parents, corporations and the
government.  We were forced to solve real chemistry, math, engineering,
physics and material science problems.  This has all vanished is our zeal
to protect youth and society from any activity which might lead injury or
misuse.  I can't even find a place to buy a niece a real chemistry set as
tort laws have forced them from the market.  When considering the plumeting
interest and achievement of our youth in math and science we look nor
further for a reason.

-- Steve

Steve brings us some important issues. Even a few crypto-related issues, later.

At 7:08 PM -0800 12/5/96, Steve Schear wrote:

>When I was doing my undergraduate work several of us built a heat-seeking
>and homing circuit which we subsequently tested in a small (24-inch) solid
....
>functioning testbed.  I did quite a bit of serious amateur rocketry in my
>teen years through the Northrup Rocketry Club (So. Cal) and launches at a
>site near Edwards AFB (they were happy to track our launches and make sure
....
>I'm certain I and many of my friends got much of our interest for math and
>science and subsequent academic success from such hands-on activities which
>were encouraged or supported by teachers, parents, corporations and the
>government.  We were forced to solve real chemistry, math, engineering,
>physics and material science problems.  This has all vanished is our zeal
>to protect youth and society from any activity which might lead injury or
>misuse.  I can't even find a place to buy a niece a real chemistry set as
>tort laws have forced them from the market.  When considering the plumeting
>interest and achievement of our youth in math and science we look nor
>further for a reason.

I never was seriously into rockets, but I sure was heavily into Gilbert
chemistry sets, making low-grade explosives, etc., and, as I shifted into
physics (around the 8th grade), into Tesla coils, radio emissions, plasmas,
tunnel diodes, etc.

(Tunnel diodes may seem low-tech to you Gen-X folks, given that Esaki's
invention never really changed the world as transistors did, but it was
amazing to me as a 10th grader to be experimenting with "quantum
tunneling." Your mileage may vary.)

I'm not sure if Gilbert chemistry sets went off the market for liablity
reasons, or for "lack of interest." The "4-banger" I had in 1961,
supplemented with varius Bunsen burners, arc furnaces, Erlenmayer flasks,
and whatnot, was amazing for its time. (And not terribly expensive, in case
some of the "social democrats" on this list are thinking I lived a

(I used to lie in bed at night, after my eyes adjusted to total darkness,
watching through the lens on my Gilbert "spinthariscope," watching the
flashes and trails of alpha particles striking the scintillator screen.
Little did I know then that these same alpha particles would make my career
15 years later.)

I believe there have been roughly (very roughly) three genarations of
"science kids":

* Generation 1: The kids of the 1920s-40s. The Ernest Lawrences and the
Robert Noyces, who grew up on farms, repairing tractors and farm machinery.
They learned about machinery at a direct level. These were the giants of
the post-war science community, and the founders of modern American chip
companies.

* Generation 2: The Sputnik generation, of the 1950s-60s. They grew up with
Gilbert chemistry sets, Erector sets, "All About" books, and with constant
exposure to nuclear physics, relativily, molecular biology, etc. These were
the workers who staffed the companies formed by the Noyces and Moores of
the world, and the young scientists who pioneered the use of computers.

* Generation 3: The computer generation. The 1970s-80s, who grew up with
Commodore PETs and Apple IIs (and some later machines). These are the "new
pioneers"  of the 1980s-90s, the Marc Andreesens and the like.

(I could imagine expanding this to 4 or 5 "generations," but I think you
get the point. Being 44 years old, and almost 45, I claim no knowledge
about what the "latest generation" is all about. Maybe it's the "Beavis and
Butthead" generation...I don't know.)

--Tim May




Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May wrote:
> Steve brings us some important issues. Even a few crypto-related issues, later.
> At 7:08 PM -0800 12/5/96, Steve Schear wrote:
> >When I was doing my undergraduate work several of us built a heat-seeking
> >and homing circuit which we subsequently tested in a small (24-inch) solid

[snip]

> I believe there have been roughly (very roughly) three genarations of
> "science kids":

[snip]

> * Generation 3: The computer generation. The 1970s-80s, who grew up with
> Commodore PETs and Apple IIs (and some later machines). These are the "new
> pioneers"  of the 1980s-90s, the Marc Andreesens and the like.

I would guess that those who became and remained successful technically
(as opposed to becoming "business people") were using HP computers and
such in the 1970s.  I for one was a heavy user then, and PETs, Apples,
Radio Shack, etc. computers weren't reliable enough for serious work.

At 1:12 AM -0800 12/6/96, Dale Thorn wrote:
>Timothy C. May wrote:

>> * Generation 3: The computer generation. The 1970s-80s, who grew up with
>> Commodore PETs and Apple IIs (and some later machines). These are the "new
>> pioneers"  of the 1980s-90s, the Marc Andreesens and the like.
>
>I would guess that those who became and remained successful technically
>(as opposed to becoming "business people") were using HP computers and
>such in the 1970s.  I for one was a heavy user then, and PETs, Apples,
>Radio Shack, etc. computers weren't reliable enough for serious work.


My points were about the _children_ and what they were using when they grew up.

(In fact, note my use of the phrase "who grew up with Commodore PETs and
Apple IIs...")

Indeed, in the 1970s I was using H-P 9825s and DEC PDP 11/34s, but the
teenagers of that decade were, if they were fortunate and energetic, using
PETs, Apple IIs, and the like.

--Tim May


Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 1:12 AM -0800 12/6/96, Dale Thorn wrote:
> >Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> >> * Generation 3: The computer generation. The 1970s-80s, who grew up with
> >> Commodore PETs and Apple IIs (and some later machines). These are the "new
> >> pioneers"  of the 1980s-90s, the Marc Andreesens and the like.
> >
> >I would guess that those who became and remained successful technically
> >(as opposed to becoming "business people") were using HP computers and
> >such in the 1970s.  I for one was a heavy user then, and PETs, Apples,
> >Radio Shack, etc. computers weren't reliable enough for serious work.
> 
> 
> My points were about the _children_ and what they were using when they grew up.
> 
> (In fact, note my use of the phrase "who grew up with Commodore PETs and
> Apple IIs...")
> 
> Indeed, in the 1970s I was using H-P 9825s and DEC PDP 11/34s, but the
> teenagers of that decade were, if they were fortunate and energetic, using
> PETs, Apple IIs, and the like.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> 

DEC PDP 11's - spaghetti code extrordinaire! :-) 

I reall don't miss those old beasts, but they did provide the means to 
learn quite a bit about how a computer (of the day) really functions. 
It's too bad that kids today haven't been subjected to the experience - 
we might start seeing a better appreciation for coding, as well as some 
innovation outside of the "objectivfying" development that is bloating 
many a Wintel hard drive.

...Paul

> Indeed, in the 1970s I was using H-P 9825s and DEC PDP 11/34s, but the
> teenagers of that decade were, if they were fortunate and energetic, using
> PETs, Apple IIs, and the like.

Right On!  PDP 11's rule!!!

My favorite one was an 11/34 with "Hardware Floating Point" that had a
GT-43 vector display processor as a coprocessor.  You'd build a double
buffered display list of vector instructions for the coprocessor,
using your handy dandy fortran program, and then let it rip.  As long
as you weren't trying to do hidden line removal, or draw more than
about 200 vectors, you could get smooth, real-time wire frame
animation.  We had it hooked up to a couple of knob boxes and some
nice three axis joy sticks connected to 10 bit A/D's.

Eric

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <199612071749.JAA08668@comsec.com>, on 12/07/96 
   at 09:49 AM, Eric Blossom <eb@comsec.com> said:

::> Indeed, in the 1970s I was using H-P 9825s and DEC PDP 11/34s, but 
::> the teenagers of that decade were, if they were fortunate and 
::> energetic, using PETs, Apple IIs, and the like.

::Right On!  PDP 11's rule!!!

::My favorite one was an 11/34 with "Hardware Floating Point" that had a 
::GT-43 vector display processor as a coprocessor.  
::
        that's what I thought until my 11/44 rolled in!   

::You'd build a double 
::buffered display list of vector instructions for the coprocessor, 
::using your handy dandy fortran program, and then let it rip.  As long 
::as you weren't trying to do hidden line removal, or draw more than 
::about 200 vectors, you could get smooth, real-time wire frame 
::animation.  We had it hooked up to a couple of knob boxes and some 
::nice three axis joy sticks connected to 10 bit A/D's.
::
        you're showing your age, too!  

        remember the old, old Logo before the IBM PC --ran on an 11/34?  
    and the sandbox for the turtle. I still had an 11/34 when my 
    youngest son was 2-3; and he would spend hours driving the turtle 
    with its headlight in the sand, trailing its umbilical cord until 
    he would hopelessly entangle it 

        --and the old DEC Gigi keyboard which was only produced for 
    educational sales --I managed to acquire a salesman's demo.

        I still have the Gigi, the special color monitor, and the
    source code tape from U of Toronto via DEC --compiled it on V6
    UNIX if I remember, then Berkeley 3.9  for the 11/44 I had just
    acquired which was obsoleted by a pair of Vaxen in about a year.

        am I showing my age, yet?

        BTW, I think I can still read 9 track tapes.  The old Pertec
    800/1600 is still racked with a minivax with Ultrix V7. anyone
    still wish to play with that old dinosaur?

- --
  Cyberspace is OUR Freedom.  
    FUCK your CDA! and, FUCK your WIPO, too.
        -attila


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later.

iQCVAwUBMqo3wr04kQrCC2kFAQF7nwP+LM3FpVutojYbQCFPrRpOJZqtLC7r5+pw
68yo0gV0xmaMwVvkNSE48x4Y9ApkuLurE6wjDP1OyqY2IpF4vqORejpass223qtU
Iz7mlds+uMP11nnct34OF+Q4vkE+ey5xHhd6Xz1ejRQ0wUaA23NWEabQPMr2iLEd
1aL5uPkp0c0=
=F0ZH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

nuqneH,

> 
>         I still have the Gigi, the special color monitor, and the
>     source code tape from U of Toronto via DEC --compiled it on V6
>     UNIX if I remember, then Berkeley 3.9  for the 11/44 I had just
>     acquired which was obsoleted by a pair of Vaxen in about a year.
> 
Oh really? I thought BSD 2.x was the last for pdp-11. Can i get a copy of 3.9
from you?

>     800/1600 is still racked with a minivax with Ultrix V7. anyone
>     still wish to play with that old dinosaur?
> 
Great thing!


-- 
                                       _     _  _  _  _      _  _
   {::} {::} {::}  CU in Hell          _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
   (##) (##) (##)        /Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|
   [||] [||] [||]            Do i believe in Bible? Hell,man,i've seen one!

Timothy C. May wrote:
> At 1:12 AM -0800 12/6/96, Dale Thorn wrote:
> >Timothy C. May wrote:
> >> * Generation 3: The computer generation. The 1970s-80s, who grew up with
> >> Commodore PETs and Apple IIs (and some later machines). These are the "new
> >> pioneers"  of the 1980s-90s, the Marc Andreesens and the like.

[snip my text]

> My points were about the _children_ and what they were using when they grew up.
> (In fact, note my use of the phrase "who grew up with Commodore PETs and
> Apple IIs...")
> Indeed, in the 1970s I was using H-P 9825s and DEC PDP 11/34s, but the
> teenagers of that decade were, if they were fortunate and energetic, using
> PETs, Apple IIs, and the like.

I hope you find this interesting (or amusing):

When I worked at Olympic Sales in El Segundo (2/81 thru 3/83), Saturday
was the big shopping day for electronics goodies, and the Hughes, Northrop
etc. guys would pile in with their kids and have a good time pestering
the OS salespeople.

I made a lot of observations and notes, and one of the truly fascinating
was how, when parents would bring the kids in, the kids would be faced
with Commodores, Ataris, TIs, Apples, and HPs, all on and running [but
the non-HPs would almost always be running some video software (games
usually) and the HPs would have a text screen up], and the kids would
most often make a beeline for the HP-87s and HP-85s.  Particularly the
younger kids, say, 8 to 12 years old.

The argument at the time (as I recall) was that the parents were right
to steer the kids over to the Apples and Ataris, since they didn't cost
an arm and a leg. It it had been my dad, though, he would have forgone
the Apple until he could get the HP, which is a big part of the reason
I'm able to do what I do today.  More power to dads like mine (in spite
of failings here and there)!

At 8:44 PM -0800 on 12/5/96, Timothy C. May wrote:

> I'm not sure if Gilbert chemistry sets went off the market for liablity
> reasons, or for "lack of interest." The "4-banger" I had in 1961,
> supplemented with varius Bunsen burners, arc furnaces, Erlenmayer flasks,
> and whatnot, was amazing for its time. (And not terribly expensive, in case
> some of the "social democrats" on this list are thinking I lived a

I can provide a datapoint here. I started getting into chemistry
when I was about 8, which was in 1981. I can't remember the brand
name, but my first (and last, actually) 'value-added' kit was
designed to keep kids from doing anything that could be
dangerous, a fact tactfully explained on the packaging.

To solve that problem, my mother gave me an Edmund Scientific
catalog and a (severely limited, given my family background)
budget for whatever I wanted.

I ordered direct for supplies from then on.

> * Generation 3: The computer generation. The 1970s-80s, who grew up with
> Commodore PETs and Apple IIs (and some later machines). These are the "new
> pioneers"  of the 1980s-90s, the Marc Andreesens and the like.

I would have killed for a computer growing up. I finally got one,
a Mac IIsi, when I went to college (I'm still paying off the
loan I took out to buy it. I gave it to someone when I got another
machine, and it will, if I'm not mistaken, retrieve this message
the next time a certain someone checks mail. That helps
me overlook the fact that I still owe more than the machine
is worth... I learned my lesson.)

There are many in my age bracket who play with non-computer
science; the relevent fact being that whatever the field
of study (I personally know folks doing research in bio, physics,
chemistry and economics (arguably not a science ;)), they all use
computers as a daily part of their work. You can run, but you can't
hide.

> (I could imagine expanding this to 4 or 5 "generations," but I think you
> get the point. Being 44 years old, and almost 45, I claim no knowledge
> about what the "latest generation" is all about. Maybe it's the "Beavis and
> Butthead" generation...I don't know.)

Yes, many of us are devoted to the study of Brute Force Insect
Dissection.

-j

> --Tim May

--
"I'm about to, or I am going to, die. Either expression is used."
                - Last words of Dominique Bouhours, Grammarian, 1702
____________________________________________________________________
Jamie Lawrence                                     foodie@netcom.com

Steve Schear wrote:
> 
> >Stinger (AIM-92)  (Jane's #: 6604.331)
> >152 x 7-14 cm  (l x d - span)
> >Weight: 18 kg
> >Warhead: HE
> >Propulsion: Solid
> >Range: 2-4 km
> >Guidance: IR
> >
> >Exact effective range / altitude is not listed in the quick guide I have
> >on my desk.  I will pull it out of a larger volume when I have time.
> >
> 
> When I was doing my undergraduate work several of us built a heat-seeking
> and homing circuit which we subsequently tested in a small (24-inch) solid
> propellent rocket.  Four CO-2 cooled germanium sensors picked up radiation
> from a small flat-topped piramidal mirror which drove fin servos to 'null'
> onto (place its image atop the piramid) the heat source. One evening we
> were able to 'shoot down' a lit cigarette tied to fence up in the hills
> near the college from a distance of about 1/4-mile.
> 
> For some time we considered making available 'Visible Missile" plans/kits,
> for a  few hundred dollars, which had everything except the easily obtained
> zinc-sulphur propellent (would this be illegal given the laws passed since
> the '70s?) so those interested in IR missile technology could learn from a
> functioning testbed.  I did quite a bit of serious amateur rocketry in my

very interesting.

how to make this propellent?

and why it was banned?

thanks!

death to zealous "child protectors".

> teen years through the Northrup Rocketry Club (So. Cal) and launches at a
> site near Edwards AFB (they were happy to track our launches and make sure
> there was no aircraft hazzard). Our 24-inch rockets reached speeds of over
> 1000 mph in about 1 second and altitudes of about 10,000 ft.  48-inch

khm, it means that the acceleration was 45g. it is a lot, how come
the rockets did not break apart? what were the rocket bodies made
from?

> rockets (still small enough for shoulder launch) could reach over Mach 2
> and altitude/ranges of about 50,000 ft (all figures insignificant
> payloads).

> I'm certain I and many of my friends got much of our interest for math and
> science and subsequent academic success from such hands-on activities which
> were encouraged or supported by teachers, parents, corporations and the
> government.  We were forced to solve real chemistry, math, engineering,
> physics and material science problems.  This has all vanished is our zeal
> to protect youth and society from any activity which might lead injury or
> misuse.  I can't even find a place to buy a niece a real chemistry set as
> tort laws have forced them from the market.  When considering the plumeting
> interest and achievement of our youth in math and science we look nor
> further for a reason.

of course, protection leads to stupidification.

is this rocketry club still operational?

	- Igor.