Rtty was fsk. You needed a scope or a needle to

indicate when the BFO was centered.

That would be tuning.

I think the Wiky was talking about the 101 standard, not

the hardware.

One wonders what all the terminal strips were for.

Maybe more phone line or you could connect to more

TTYs

Dwight


________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org> on behalf of Paul Koning via 
cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 7:39:00 AM
To: Pete Lancashire
Cc: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: 110 Baud modem

So Wikipedia is wrong, since it claims that it was introduced in 1958 for ASCII 
and 110 Baud.

Then again, 101/103 modem modulation doesn't care about speed (it isn't 
clocked) up to a limit of 300 baud or so.

I wonder if there is also terminology here: what we now call a "modem" was 
earlier called a "tuning unit" and that term goes back to 5 bit machines and 
the 1950s.  It may be more a radio TTY term than a landline term, but the 
concept is identical.  I remember QST articles around 1958 or so about RTTY 
tuning units, built out of tubes with a relay (differential relay?) thrown in 
for good measure.

        paul

> On May 9, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Pete Lancashire <p...@petelancashire.com> wrote:
>
> The C version came later with the introduction of ASCII ( 5 to 8 bits ) and 
> 110 baud. So it does not go back to the 50's.
>
> I do not know when the C version was released. The ASCII Teletype Model 35 
> was introduced in 1961.
>
> -pete
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Paul Koning <paulkon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 2017, at 10:27 PM, Pete Lancashire via cctalk 
> > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Bell 101C
> >
> > https://goo.gl/photos/hrhAwvzMBLWWteXu6
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_101
>
> Interesting.  Released in 1958 but that unit is stamped 10 years later.
>
> It would be nice to see photos of the circuit boards.  And I sure wonder what 
> those rows of large relays are for.
>
>         paul
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to