So, what did Apollo have then, an abacus? Do tell...

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.

While I agree with the Doc, I reckon it could have been further developed. This is just a parallel twin and the Brits had a lot of experience with them in motorcycles. A 490cc Triumph Tiger Daytona could put out over 40bhp as standard. Although that wouldn't be a pleasant car to drive.

Tim

_________________
1951 Morris Commercial J Type Van
1955 BSA C11G
1961 Morris Mini Traveller
1969 Triumph TR6R
1977 Leyland Moke Californian

[Thread hijack]

State of the art in reliable, robust, never fail computer engineering in the 60s was stuff like ferrite core RAM and tiny nickel-iron cores woven together with thousands of copper wires and encapsulated in plastic for ROM. 64K of that stuff would weigh a fair bit and be very bulky. Same sort of thing used in US Navy shipboard computing (not so much any more ). It needed to be on the trailing edge of technology for reliability sake, but leading edge to make it as lightweight as possible. The stuff that was in the Apollo rockets had to survive extreme vibration and accelerations. Remember that programs were written on punch cards back then and they were just moving to paper tape and - OMG - magnetic tape. If a programmer stuffed it up, they would literally cut the tape and splice a "patch" into the program tape - this is where the term comes from. The program was loaded into high density core rope to make the equivalent of what we call firmware today. The program determines the weaving or wiring sequence of the rope. So they had to have a "perfect" program before weaving and sending people of into space with it. Even then they relied on the astronauts feeding in data and making decisions on what the computer fed back - very much a semi-auto system.

Check this 1974 article out for more details - http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm

You are a machinist Kev(OK a fitter), so you will understand the beauty of the mechanical computers that were around in the 40's and 50's> hand machined cams and toroids that represented sin, cos, tan, exponential, integrating and differentiating functions. This was the base that the Apollo programs predecessors were based on. Good old analogue mechanical stuff. Going for the "new" kind of computing was a big risk for the Apollo program, but the only way they would ever get it light enough to get to the moon.

[/hijack]

cheers
michael

_________________
the world is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page
66 Mini Minor sponsored by http://www.lifeonthehedge.com.au/ The Dog Harness Specialists
It was a pleasure ausmini. I'll miss all you misfits and reprobates

I heard somewhere that they had three systems. One and two back ups.
The Harbour Bridge, all those simultaneous equations on slide rules to make it join in the middle.
Not like our engine mounts though.
I guess someone's slide was in back the front when they designed them.

I heard somewhere that they had three systems. One and two back ups.
The Harbour Bridge, all those simultaneous equations on slide rules to make it join in the middle.
Not like our engine mounts though.
I guess someone's slide was in back the front when they designed them.

" Matt the VolksMan" ....sorry don't ring for me

_________________
David L


My greatest fear in life is that when I die my wife will sell my Mini and tools for the price I told her I paid for them!

Plenty of room under the bonnet, tho' I would have waited for the 650cc up grade.

If you believe the story about the XC9003 and "orange box" prototypes being a few inches narrower than the final car then the extra space could have been valuable. I agree, a 650cc version would have been a useful improvement. It still would have been terribly underpowered though, unless the body was a lot lighter.

Tim

_________________
1951 Morris Commercial J Type Van
1955 BSA C11G
1961 Morris Mini Traveller
1969 Triumph TR6R
1977 Leyland Moke Californian

is there a working one of these anywhere in existance. I have never heard of a two cylinder block, let alone seen one.

And Appollo had less computing power than your digital watch.

_________________
Aussie Leyland, Aussie Factory, Aussie Mini S.

Thanks mickmini, that NASA link was very interestinggggg.
BTW, I'm a fitter & machinist (among other engineering quals...)

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.

I wonder what the Cooper S version might have had...if John Cooper touched it at all..

_________________
SooperDooperMiniCooperExpertEngineering

All garage work involves equal measures of enthusiasm, ingenuity and a fair degree of irresponsibility.

Extra vibration
Nothing vibrates like a British twin.

An A series as per his Formula Junior cars

_________________

True, but that's partly because British twins are almost all 360° engines, both pistons go up and down together. Its probable that the prototype twin was a 180° engine with one piston coming up as the other goes down. 180s vibrate a lot less but you get a rocking couple on the crankshaft, so you need better bearings. 180s tend to be able to rev more.

The current model Triumph Bonneville has a traditional 360° arrangement so that its exhaust note sounds right, but it also has balance shafts, a bit like a camshaft with a big lumpy lobe on it. The spinning balance shafts counteract the vibrations of the two pistons going up and down together and make it very smooth.

Tim

_________________
1951 Morris Commercial J Type Van
1955 BSA C11G
1961 Morris Mini Traveller
1969 Triumph TR6R
1977 Leyland Moke Californian

660 cc is the same as modern Japanese kei cars. Surprising someone hasn't tried to adopt the dohc 660cc from the Suzuki cappuccino. Can put out more than double in race trim (120kw or so)