Talk:Central Air Data Computer
|WikiProject Computing / Hardware||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft||(Rated Start-class)|
Multichip or not multichip?
The F14 CADC was NOT multichip. This is a cannard put out by the pro-Intel forces to attempt to discredit the CADC as being a microprocessor developed before the 4004. The only thing the CADC did NOT have that the Intel 4004 does is a program counter. The program counter in the CADC architecture was placed on the RAS (Random Access Storage, otherwise known as RAM) and ROM chips to facilitate multi-tasking/processing. A PC could have easily been implemented on the primary processor but this was a pratical design decision only.
Read more about the CADC at the CADC website. --Ray Holt
- This is all extremely interesting. The reason I myself haven't looked more closely into whether the CADC was a single- or multi-chip µP is quite simply the website's overall emphasis on the word "chip set", implying more than one chip to make out the CPU. (However, now that I think about it, the 4004 was also an integral part of a chipset---the MCS-4---i.e. RAMs, ROMs, I/O circuits, etc, without which the CPU would be pretty useless.)
- After reading your comment above and browsing Holt's 1971 paper I'm still not 100% sure I completely understand how the CADC system would make up a CPU by combining a single unit of the chipset with a ROM (and optionally a RAS). Therefore, could you please specify what you mean by the "primary processor"? Is it one of the PMU/PDU/SLF units, or one of the other units mentioned?
- As for the "first µP" question, IMO two points of consideration are:
- The CADC is clearly a much more capable and in fact scalable µP system---more of "a real computer"---than the 4004 & Co
- The 4004 may arguably still be reckoned as the first single chip µP if it is the only CPU fitting the "official definition"(?) of a single chip µP
- But another way to look at all this would perhaps be to consider how many chips one actually needs to build a simple computer: the 4004 would also at least need a ROM chip, as the CADC does, to hold its instructions. A RAS/RAM is not essential, of course, since the computer in question might just be doing some simple I/O and calculations fitting within its on-chip registers. Please comment, folks. --Wernher 04:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The F-14 CADC had one main chip called the SLF that acted as the CPU. All other chips were RAM, ROM and support. The entire F-14 computer was made up of combinations of 6 chip types. The Intel 4004 also was a set but it also required 59 TTL circuits around it to work. As for the 4004 being arguable the first 'single chip' fitting the 'official definition.' their was no definition at the time the 4004 was designed. All definitions came later in trying to fit the 4004 as being first. Five years after the F-14 CADC design Intel was still grappling with the definition, 1973 from Hank Smith, Microprocessor Marketing Manager, Intel Corp.
1973 from Hank Smith, Microprocessor Marketing Manager, Intel Corp. IEEE 1973 WESCON Professional Program Session 11 Proceedings “A CPU uses P-channel MOS and is contained in 1, 2, 3 or 4 LSI standard dual-in-line packages from 16 – 42 pins per package”. -- [Ray Holt]
Four-Phase Systems AL1
There is also the Four Phase Systems AL8, which preceded the CADC by a couple years, and may well have also been a single-chip 8-bit microprocessor, but it was intended to be utilized as an 8-bit slice of a 24-bit architecture. --Anonymous
- Perhaps you mean the AL1? It almost seems to be a "chip lost to history". :-) Google got me one barely "usable" hit on it, The 8008 and the AL1, which is nothing more than a mailing list excerpt from the "Interesting People Elist". I have written to one of the participants, Nick Tredennick, asking him if he could help us get some more docs on the AL1. --Wernher 06:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- If you do get more docs on the AL1, the Four Phase Systems AL1 article would be a good place to use them as references. --DavidCary (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
This article has serious problems with sources. I found three of the different URLs cited were actually verbatim copies of the same page. That page appears to be self-published by Ray Holt himself. While I certainly respect Mr. Holt's achievements, that's got nothing to do with the requirements for acceptable sources for this encyclopedia. Further, two of the citations were for specific quotes, and the quotes were not actually present in the text given. I don't know if this is due to link rot or what. Finally, the one remaining source is either moved or deleted, and the site restricts archiving so we can't get it back at that URL. In short, my attempts to verify the information in this article actually made things worse. If any of the original authors are watching, could you please see about clearing up your sources? I'll help with citation formats and such if needed. Thanks. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I made a correction about the 20-bit ADC before reading the web page, which says "Two state-of-the-art quartz sensors, a 20-bit high precision analog-to-digital converter, a 20-bit high precision digital-to-analog converter, the MOS-LSI chip set, and a very efficient power unit made up the complete CADC." I still don't believe it is possible, or likely, that there was a 20-bit ADC involved; certainly Ray's PPT slide show doesn't claim any such. A 20-bit ADC would be incredible overkill, and would have been nearly impossible to make in that era; it would make no sense to use only 20 bits in the digital part if the ADC was better than about 14 bits, which would have been state-of-the-art at the time. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The ADC and DAC in the CADC were in fact 20-bits. This resolution was determined by the applied mathematician on the project. 14-bit ADC and DAC was state-of-the-art at the time, however, Garrett AiResearch engineers (i.e. Tom Redfern and group) did design a reliable ADC and DAC for this project. As far as sources I have published much of the documentation on my website firstmicroprocessor.com and I have original documentation (design notebook and CADC technical manual) in my possession. [Ray Holt]
I suggest merging Talk:F14 CADC into Talk:Central Air Data Computer. Since most of "Talk:F14 CADC" is already word-for-word identical to sections on this talk page, the result would be the remaining paragraph or two would move to this talk page and then the "Talk:F14 CADC" would become a one-line redirect to this talk page. --DavidCary (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Performance comparison with other processors
Performance comparison with 8008 is problematic, since the CADC computer performs operations serially. Thus, it takes 20 clocks to do an operation, compared with just a few for the 8008. Thus, the 8008 can do an 8-bit operation in 20 microseconds, while the F14 CADC takes 53.2 microseconds for a 20-bit operation. In addition, the text says that microprocessors of the time were at most 8 bits, but the Four Phase System IV was 24 bits. (If the CADC is a microprocessor, so is the Four Phase system.) This paragraph has multiple problems so I plan to remove it. KenShirriff (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
At the moment this is an article which claims to be about Air Data Computers, but mostly talks about processor design internal to one particular ADC. What ADCs do, why they do it and how they do it is barely mentioned.
(As I worked for GEC Rochester while they were building the SCADC I probably shouldn't be the one to write a revised version).
1) Rename the article to Air Data Computers as that's the industry standard term.
2) Add an initial section on pre-ADC air data instruments, which can do double duty by explaining how things like static pressure ports work and how static and dynamic pressures can be combined to produce airspeed (may also need to elaborate on airspeed vs groundspeed), altitude and how other instruments can give attitude and the like. Talk about presentation of data to cockpit instruments.
3) Explain the need for accurate air data as flight controls became systems which integrated pilot inputs and air data to determine how the control surfaces should be moved, rather than a direct pilot/surface linkage existing. NB this almost certainly predates FBW as it's generally understood, even the simplest form of boosted controls is technically an electromechanical computer, and the moment it starts incorporating air speed or angle of attack that's an air data system feeding into it.
4) The CADC section can stay, but ideally needs to reference other contemporary systems. More fundamental than the processor used is whether it used an avionics bus to transmit data, or was directly wired to instruments and flight control system.
5) SCADC needs a section, it was a step change in the technology. Doubly so if that was when ADCs started talking to databuses rather than being directly wired.
6) The current state of the art: Civilian, military. Stealth? Drones?
7) ADC related accidents. There have been rather too many accidents when pressure ports have become blocked by things like ice, or nesting wasps, leading to corrupt data and subsequent accident/incidents eg AF447 (ice) and Birgenair 301 (wasps). There may also be a need to discuss the more complex accidents in which pilots experience spatial disorientation and ignore or misinterpret air data because they're experiencing a somatogravic illusion the aircraft is doing something else - AF447 has elements of this, with the pilot in control convinced the ADC was wrong even after it had corrected itself, resulting in him holding the aircraft in a stalled condition all the way down to the ocean. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)