4 ms·

Does anyone think that these plans in conjunction with 3D printers would result in a lot of fun?

jgrahamc 15y ago
It's not outside the realm of possibility that by the time we have done the study of the plans followed by a computer simulation that the construction of the machine may be simply File -> Print... On the other hand, we probably want to hand build it for historical reasons.
- stan_rogers 15y ago
  It would seem to me that building the Analytical Engine without following the same sort of material and construction constraints that the Difference Engine #2 project followed would be, in a sense, invalid. The theoretical validity of the means of computation, the "instruction set" and so on could be proven by a "perfect materials" simulation of the machine alone, but things like "signal propagation" (or, rather, the mechanical equivalent thereof) are part and parcel of the physical construction of the machine. There has to be at least some degree of vindicating Babbage involved in a project of this sort. If it turns out that personality conflicts and a certain shortsightedness on the par of the BA were all that stood between the machine as dream and a major change in the course of history (as some people believe), that makes a very different story than the one that posits that the machine could not have been constructed as imagined; that the partial mill's errors were at least partly due to the fundamental limitations of the materials and processes available for construction at the time. Yes, it would be nice to know whether the machine could have worked in theory, but it's a much more interesting question to consider what difference the machine might have made if it could have worked in practice.
  - jgrahamc 15y ago
    I am with you 100% on this. That's why I got Doron Swade involved. It is absolutely vital that this be done in a manner that means we can know whether Babbage would have been able to construct a computer if other obstacles were removed (such as money and his personality).

It's not outside the realm of possibility that by the time we have done the study of the plans followed by a computer simulation that the construction of the machine may be simply File -> Print... On the other hand, we probably want to hand build it for historical reasons.

stan_rogers 15y ago
It would seem to me that building the Analytical Engine without following the same sort of material and construction constraints that the Difference Engine #2 project followed would be, in a sense, invalid. The theoretical validity of the means of computation, the "instruction set" and so on could be proven by a "perfect materials" simulation of the machine alone, but things like "signal propagation" (or, rather, the mechanical equivalent thereof) are part and parcel of the physical construction of the machine. There has to be at least some degree of vindicating Babbage involved in a project of this sort. If it turns out that personality conflicts and a certain shortsightedness on the par of the BA were all that stood between the machine as dream and a major change in the course of history (as some people believe), that makes a very different story than the one that posits that the machine could not have been constructed as imagined; that the partial mill's errors were at least partly due to the fundamental limitations of the materials and processes available for construction at the time. Yes, it would be nice to know whether the machine could have worked in theory, but it's a much more interesting question to consider what difference the machine might have made if it could have worked in practice.
- jgrahamc 15y ago
  I am with you 100% on this. That's why I got Doron Swade involved. It is absolutely vital that this be done in a manner that means we can know whether Babbage would have been able to construct a computer if other obstacles were removed (such as money and his personality).