You’re cutting yourself a single slice of cake. You grab a butter knife out of the drawer, hack off a moist wedge, and munch away to your mouth’s delight. The next day, you’re cutting forty slices of cake for the whole office. You grab a large chef’s knife, warm it with hot water, and cube out the sheet cake without causing too much trauma to the icing. Next week, you’re starting at your cousin’s bakery. You’re supposed to cut a few thousand slices of cake, week in, week out. You suspect your haggardly knifework won’t do.
In the home kitchen, any old knife will do the job when it comes to slicing cakes, pies, and pastries. When it comes to commercial kitchens, though, presentation is everything and perfection is the bare minimum. Thankfully, there’s a better grade of cutting tool out there—and it’s more high tech than you might think.
In the heart of Manchester, UK, a groundbreaking event took place in 1948: the first modern computer, known as the Manchester Baby, ran its very first program. The Baby’s ability to execute stored programs, developed with guidance from John von Neumann’s theory, marks it as a pioneer in the digital age. This fascinating chapter in computing history not only reshapes our understanding of technology’s roots but also highlights the incredible minds behind it. The original article, including a video transcript, sits here at [TheChipletter]’s.
So, what made this hack so special? The Manchester Baby, though a relatively simple prototype, was the first fully electronic computer to successfully run a program from memory. Built by a team with little formal experience in computing, the Baby featured a unique cathode-ray tube (CRT) as its memory store – a bold step towards modern computing. It didn’t just run numbers; it laid the foundation for all future machines that would use memory to store both data and instructions. Running a test to find the highest factor of a number, the Baby performed 3.5 million operations over 52 minutes. Impressive, by that time.
Despite criticisms that it was just a toy computer, the Baby’s significance shines through. It was more than just a prototype; it was proof of concept for the von Neumann architecture, showing us that computers could be more than complex calculators. While debates continue about whether it or the ENIAC should be considered the first true stored-program computer, the Baby’s role in the evolution of computing can’t be overlooked.
Over the decades there have been many denominations coined to classify computer systems, usually when they got used in different fields or technological improvements caused significant shifts. While the very first electronic computers were very limited and often not programmable, they would soon morph into something that we’d recognize today as a computer, starting with World War 2’s Colossus and ENIAC, which saw use with cryptanalysis and military weapons programs, respectively.
The first commercial digital electronic computer wouldn’t appear until 1951, however, in the form of the Ferranti Mark 1. These 4.5 ton systems mostly found their way to universities and kin, where they’d find welcome use in engineering, architecture and scientific calculations. This became the focus of new computer systems, effectively the equivalent of a scientific calculator. Until the invention of the transistor, the idea of a computer being anything but a hulking, room-sized monstrosity was preposterous.
A few decades later, more computer power could be crammed into less space than ever before including ever higher density storage. Computers were even found in toys, and amidst a whirlwind of mini-, micro-, super-, home-, minisuper- and mainframe computer systems, one could be excused for asking the question: what even is a supercomputer?
Somewhere between the period of 1999 and 2007 a plague swept through the world, devastating lives and businesses. Identified by a scourge of electrolytic capacitors violently exploding or splurging their liquid electrolyte guts all over the PCB, it led to a lot of finger pointing and accusations of stolen electrolyte formulas. In a recent video by [Asianometry] this story is summarized.
The bad electrolyte in the faulty capacitors lacked a suitable depolarizer, which resulted in more gas being produced, ultimately leading to build-up of pressure and the capacitor ultimately failing in a way that could be rather benign if the scored top worked as vent, or violently if not.
Other critical elements in the electrolyte are passivators, to protect the aluminium against the electrolyte’s effects. Although often blamed on a single employee stealing an (incomplete) Rubycon electrolyte formula, the video questions this narrative, as the problem was too widespread.
More likely it coincided with the introduction of low-ESR electrolytic capacitors, along with computers becoming increasingly more power-hungry, and thus stressing the capacitors in a much warmer environment than in the early 1990s. Combine this with the presence of counterfeit capacitors in the market and the truth of what happened to cause the Capacitor Plague probably involves a bit from each column, a narrative that seems to be the general consensus.
An Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) defines the software interface through which for example a central processor unit (CPU) is controlled. Unlike early computer systems which didn’t define a standard ISA as such, over time the compatibility and portability benefits of having a standard ISA became obvious. But of course the best part about standards is that there are so many of them, and thus every CPU manufacturer came up with their own.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the number of mainstream ISAs dropped sharply as the computer industry coalesced around a few major ones in each type of application. Intel’s x86 won out on desktop and smaller servers while ARM proclaimed victory in low-power and portable devices, and for Big Iron you always had IBM’s Power ISA. Since we last covered the ISA Wars in 2019, quite a lot of things have changed, including Apple shifting its desktop systems to ARM from x86 with Apple Silicon and finally MIPS experiencing an afterlife in the form of LoongArch.
Meanwhile, six years after the aforementioned ISA Wars article in which newcomer RISC-V was covered, this ISA seems to have not made the splash some had expected. This raises questions about what we can expect from RISC-V and other ISAs in the future, as well as how relevant having different ISAs is when it comes to aspects like CPU performance and their microarchitecture.
In 2015, Tim Ellis and Jordan Noone founded Relativity Space around an ambitious goal: to be the first company to put a 3D printed rocket into orbit. While additive manufacturing was already becoming an increasingly important tool in the aerospace industry, the duo believed it could be pushed further than anyone had yet realized.
Rather than assembling a rocket out of smaller printed parts, they imagined the entire rocket being produced on a huge printer. Once the methodology was perfected, they believed rockets could be printed faster and cheaper than they could be traditionally assembled. What’s more, in the far future, Relativity might even be able to produce rockets off-world in fully automated factories. It was a bold idea, to be sure. But then, landing rockets on a barge in the middle of the ocean once seemed pretty far fetched as well.
An early printed propellant tank.
Of course, printing something the size of an orbital rocket requires an exceptionally large 3D printer, so Relativity Space had to built one. It wasn’t long before the company had gotten to the point where they had successfully tested their printed rocket engine, and were scaling up their processes to print the vehicle’s propellant tanks. In 2018 Bryce Salmi, then an avionics hardware engineer at Relatively Space, gave a talk at Hackaday Supercon detailing the rapid progress the company had made so far.
Just a few years later, in March of 2023, the Relativity’s first completed rocket sat fueled and ready to fly on the launch pad. The Terran 1 rocket wasn’t the entirely printed vehicle that Ellis and Noone had imagined, but with approximately 85% of the booster’s mass being made up of printed parts, it was as close as anyone had ever gotten before.
The launch of Terran 1 was a huge milestone for the company, and even though a problem in the second stage engine prevented the rocket from reaching orbit, the flight proved to critics that a 3D printed rocket could fly and that their manufacturing techniques were sound. Almost immediately, Relativity Space announced they would begin work on a larger and more powerful successor to the Terran 1 which would be more competitive to SpaceX’s Falcon 9.
Now, after an administrative shakeup that saw Tim Ellis replaced as CEO, the company has released a nearly 45 minute long video detailing their plans for the next Terran rocket — and explaining why they won’t be 3D printing it.
Pi Day is here! We bet that you know that famous constant to a few decimal points, and you could probably explain what it really means: the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter. But what about the constant e? Sure, you might know it is a transcendental number around 2.72 or so. You probably know it is the base used for natural logarithms. But what does it mean?
The poor number probably needed a better agent. After all, pi is a fun name, easy to remember, with a distinctive Greek letter and lots of pun potential. On the other hand, e is just a letter. Sometimes it is known as Euler’s number, but Leonhard Euler was so prolific that there is also Euler’s constant and a set of Euler numbers, none of which are the same thing. Sometimes, you hear it called Napier’s constant, and it is known that Jacob Bernoulli discovered the number, too. So, even the history of this number is confusing.
But back to math, the number e is the base rate of growth for any continually growing process. That didn’t help? Well, consider that many things grow or decay through growth. For example, a bacteria culture might double every 72 hours. Or a radioactive sample might decay a certain amount per century. Continue reading “You Know Pi, But Do You Really Know E?”→
