If you are a certain age, you doubtlessly remember Heathkit. They produced a wide array of electronic kits that were models of completeness and clear instructions. They started with surplus war parts in 1947 and wound up a major player in ham radio and early personal computers. But they made so many other things like TVs, radio control planes, and test equipment. All of it was made for you to build yourself. [Unseen History] released a video with the story of Heathkit from the start to the finish.
The company started out building kit airplanes, but after the war, they built a kit for an oscilloscope using military surplus. The less than $40 scope was still pricey in 1947 when a pound of bacon sold for 64 cents. But a “real” oscilloscope at the time would cost at least $400. The rest is history.
You probably flash new firmware on a variety of devices regularly, even though that’s rare for non-technical types. But what about your hard drive firmware? Most of us don’t want to touch our operating drives, so unless you are dealing with surplus drives or have a special project in mind, you may not think much about the firmware running your spinning rust storage. [I Code 4 Coffee] uses hard drives in an unusual way to exploit Xbox 360s, and wound up reverse engineering some drive firmware with an eye to making changes.
The analysis started with three hard drives and an SSD. Looking for people who’ve done similar work wasn’t as productive as you might think. There isn’t much call for modifying hard drive firmware, and what data there is can be outdated.
One thing that was available was firmware dumps taken with a PC-3000 data recovery tool. What follows is a deep dive down the hard drive rabbit hole. There are backdoor vendor commands and connections to the diagnostic RS-232 port on some drives. You can find the technical artifacts on GitHub.
The HP-41C analog on my phone gives the right answer.
Three resistors in parallel: 4.7 k,Ω 22 kΩ, and 3.3 kΩ. Quick! What’s the equivalent value? You can estimate it, of course, but if you want the actual 1.8 kΩ (approximately) answer, you probably reached for some kind of calculating aid. I have two slide rules on my desk, and plenty more a few steps away, but I don’t use them much, honestly. I have a very old HP-41C — arguably the best calculator ever made — but I am usually afraid to use it as it is almost 50 years old and difficult to repair. I also have an HP-28S on my desk, a replica HP-41C, and a few others in desk drawers. There are also dozens of calculators on my desktop computer, my phone –including the official HP Prime app — and the web browser.
I often see newer calculators from HP, like the Prime G2, or “new” HP-like calculators like the ones from SwissMicros, and think I should pick one up. Well, technically, HP licensed their calculators to Moravia, so even a “real” HP calculator isn’t from HP anymore. But, in the end, I always realize that my need for a physical calculator is so diminished that I can’t justify buying anything new, and I can barely even spring for a $10 one at the thrift store unless it is a real collectible.
Mind you, I’m not talking about RPN versus algebraic. I could say the same thing for TI, Casio, or Sharp calculators. I just don’t know why I need one anymore, even though I still, for some strange reason, want them.
The Prime seems impressive, if I could ever find time to finish reading the manual.
For the record, I did use an HP-41C to check the resistor math, but it was in the form of an app on my phone, not a real calculator. On the same computer I’m writing this on, I have HP-41C emulators, the Prime emulator, and a bunch of other calculators. Yet I still pick up my phone and use the familiar key layout of the HP-41C. I don’t know why. The replica 41C, unfortunately, has a landscape-oriented keyboard, so while I like it, it doesn’t satisfy my finger’s muscle memory.
Which leads to this Ask Hackaday. Do you use a calculator? Why? If you don’t, do you use a fake calculator on your phone or computer? Or do you just send your math to Google or Wolfram? I suspect some of the answer will be generational. I was in high school before calculators started showing up in schools, but they took over quickly.
There is something satisfying about having a purpose-built device to do your math. No long boot sequence. No switching apps. No messages coming in while you are typing in numbers. For the ultimate convenience, you could wear it on your wrist. The Apollo mission that docked with a Russian spacecraft carried an HP-65, and nine early Space Shuttle missions used an HP-41C. But even astronauts now don’t have a standard-issue calculator. Pilots sometimes use electronic E6Bs, but many still use the mechanical version.
Of course, I do collect slide rules, so maybe I just need to accept that calculators are yet another tech relic to collect. But someone is still buying them. I’d like to be one of them.
[Mellow_Labs] picked up a few LiDAR matrix sensors and found them very exciting. While a normal time-of-flight sensor can accurately determine a range, the matrix sensor is like an array of 64 sensors that can build a 2D map of distances from 2 cm to 3.5 m. [Mellow] wanted to add the sensor to his robot to help it see what was in front of it. You can see how it worked out in the video below.
The robot in question is Zippy, a 3D printed tank-like robot with an ESP32. By default, the robot requires control inputs, but using the sensor will enable autonomous operation. For good or ill, the sensor mounted to Zippy was seeing the floor with about half of the rows. That means about 50% of the data went to waste. However, we think having a robot be able to see the floor in front of it might be a good thing.
[Mellow] used an LLM to write most of the code, so there were a number of iterations required to get things working. This required decimating even more of the data from the sensor. Still, pretty impressive.
If you’ve watched a Saturn V launch, you’ve probably seen how a large rocket will often jettison a stage on the way up. There are several reasons for this — there is no reason to haul an empty fuel container, for example. However, you can probably imagine how the separation works. You release something — probably explosive bolts — and gravity pulls the old stage away from you as you climb on the next stage’s engines. But what about on the way back? The command module drops the service module before reentry. [Apollo11Space] has a video explaining just how complicated that was to pull off. You can watch it below.
The main problem? The service module has almost everything you need: oxygen, a big engine, fuel, and electrical generation capability. If you’ve ever seen a real command module, they are tiny. Somehow, you need to get the command module prepared to be on its own for the amount of time it takes to land, and get the service module safely away.
You’ve probably seen a Foucault pendulum in a museum. This Victorian-era science demonstration is named after physicist Léon Foucault and shows how the Earth rotates compared to a pendulum moving in a fixed plane. [RyanCreates] shows you how you can make your own, and it is surprisingly simple.
All you need is a heavy weight like a small mushroom anchor, fishing line, and a swivel — all things you can pick up at any sporting goods store. You’ll need a way to suspend it all, such as an eye hook in the ceiling.
In addition to the mechanical parts, the build calls for a camera to record the results and a lighter or other source of flame. The reason? To release the pendulum, you burn a thread that prevents it from swinging. This allows for a clean release with no sideways force.
The amount of your rotation depends on your latitude. At 33 degrees north, for example, you can expect 360*sin(33)/24 or 8.17 degrees per hour of rotation. [Ryan] measured a somewhat larger number, which was probably due to an error source, especially since he is measuring the angle using captured camera frames in Photoshop. That has to introduce some error, and small pendulums like this are incredibly sensitive to errors.
If you try it and find the source of the error, we’re sure [Ryan] would love to hear from you. Museum pieces are typically much larger, have ultra-low-friction pivots, and use electromagnets to keep the pendulum moving since, after all, even a Foucault pendulum can’t run forever.
The Hindenburg disaster recently marked its 89th anniversary, and [The History Guy] marked the event with a video that dispels many of the myths surrounding the airship. Example: the disaster did not actually occur on the airship’s maiden voyage. That isn’t true. The ship was on its 63rd voyage. However, it was the first flight of the 1937 season.
The giant ship burned because of the hydrogen gas inside, but the cause of the fire remains debatable and was likely not solely due to hydrogen. In fact, from a technical standpoint, the ship didn’t explode. It only burned.
Some of the myths are just from sloppy reporting or the tendency of people to misunderstand things. Others are a blurring in the common consciousness of the Hindenburg and the Titanic.
It is easy to think of the necessity for safe engineering when you are building, say, a bomb or a spacecraft. But anything capable of wreaking havoc requires careful design and testing. However, ships like the Hindenburg had made many trips without incident. Sure, the Hindenburg was a spectacle, but even the fatality rate was fairly low. Many of those who died jumped to the ground — they might have survived if they had waited a minute.
