[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: wtb: original apple ][ broken as-is for parts
Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> Tristan Mumford wrote:
>> Michael J. Mahon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tristan Mumford wrote:
>>>
>>>>Liam Busey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tristan Mumford wrote:
-chop-
>> It was a shame. It was a nice little 386 notebook. The force was enough
>> to 'percussively desolder' some of the components, rip the case apart
>> (metal shields included), and utilise the keyboard as a makeshift mortar.
>> It also took a chunk out of the table 2 layers deep on a 9 ply board.
>> Then there was the horrible, thick white smoke that filled the house.
>
> Wow--I've always wondered what one of those little lithium cells
> could do... ;-(
>
-slice-
>>>>Try a leaky shed for 6 years.
>>>>I'm going to do a reseat anyway.
>>>>The main issues are the floppy drives and a blown resistor on the
>>>>mainboard. The floppy drives instantly scratch the life out of disks.
>>>>And as for the blown resistor, I don't recall where it was. I just know
>>>>it made operation a little unstable.
>>>
>>>Leaky shed for six years opens up a lot of possibilities!
>>
>>
>> Apparently leaky shed with rats too. Hmmm.
>
> Now I have to put out my mind's eye... ;-)
The apparently damaged powersupply looks more like a compaq one or
something. Although it has a really weird pinout.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>Latest stupid idea:
>>>>Apple2 on wrong end of house to connect using wired network easily. Why
>>>>not USB bluetooth?
>>>
>>>I thought Bluetooth was for a room or two, not whole houses...
>>
>>
>> As Marcus said the class 1 devices are good for 100m maximum. I made sure
>> to grab one with an aerial. I like aerials.
>>
>>
>>>But with all the neat wireless stuff we have these days, it would be
>>>cool if someone would use them to connect an Apple wirelessly...to
>>>a modern machine or to another Apple II. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Thats why I said bluetooth. There's a few reasons:
>>
>> * It's cheap
>> * Ad-Hoc networking is a great idea IMHO.
>> * One less cable to trip over.
>> * It's cheap.
>> * low power consumption.
>>
>>
>>>I've thought about a wireless link for NadaNet, but I need a few hundred
>>>kilohertz bandwidth, and that seems either UHF/microwave or illegal.
>>>(I also need a pretty noise-free channel...maybe infrared... ;-)
>>
>>
>> I know in Jaycar they have (some really high frequency) radio transmitter
>> and receiver modules. Perhaps something like that. I guess that's an
>> option too.
>
> I've also been intrigued with Zigbee (the PHY and MAC layer, not the
> protocols--I'll stick with NadaNet protocols ;-).
I can understand that! It'd be a square peg in a round hole kind of
situation.
I find the way it works fascinating too. I like the flexibility etc. It's
vaguely like the way I always thought networks should be done.
--
-----> http://members.dodo.com.au/~izabellion1/tristan/index.html <-----
===== It's not pretty, it's not great, but it is mine. =====