Talk:John Mauchly

Pronunciation

Mauchly is pronounced MOCKly: there is no "ch" sound. Jfgrcar 04:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Flip-flop circuit claim

According to articles in Wikipedia on Flip-flop (electronics) and William Eccles, the flip-flop circuit was invented and patented by Eccles and F.W. Jordan in 1919, not by Mauchly. If there is evidence that Mauchly invented it at Ursinus College, it should be provided here. (But Mauchly was at Ursinus from 1933 to 1941)

Mauchly never claimed he invented the flip-flop. He was well aware of the Eccles-Jordan circuit. He always claimed that it was the use of the flip-flop as a high-speed counter to count cosmic rays at Swarthmore that first inspired him to compute electronically. --Zebbie 20:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ENIAC patent case

In his October 30, 1968 deposition in the Honeywell Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp. case, Mauchly testified that he arrived at the concept of an electronic, general purpose computer while at Ursinus, and had discussed it with others, but could not recall the names of anyone to whom he had revealed this. He was able to produce no evidence of an interest in digital circuits prior to June of 1941, when he visited Atanasoff and examined the Atanasoff–Berry Computer.

These quotes from the findings of Judge Larson (Oct. 19, 1973) in the ENIAC patent case constitute settled law:

• 3.1.17 – Prior to his visit to Ames, Iowa, Mauchly had been broadly interested in electrical analog calculating devices, but had not conceived an automatic electronic digital computer.
• 3.1.18 – As a result of this visit, the discussions of Mauchly with Atanasoff and Berry, the demonstrations, and the review of the manuscript, Mauchly derived from the ABC "the invention of the automatic electronic digital computer" claimed in the ENIAC patent.

This information can be found in Clark Mollenhoff's biography of Atanasoff. Mollenhoff was both a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and a lawyer.

This is not to argue that Mauchly made no advances on the work of Atanasoff, only that his claims of originality and priority in attempting to patent ENIAC were false. --Blainster 21:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There is, however, a difference between something settled as far as a court is concerned and something settled as far as history is concerned. (Especially as the question now has no legal meaning, all patents having expired). The answer really depends on "what do you mean by invent?" and "what do you mean by computer?" There is no single inventor, but ENIAC is a much more important machine historically than ABC and was bigger contribution.--67.53.1.193 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

ABC computing speed

The calculations of the ABC were done with vacuum tube logic circuits, and thus were order of magnitude faster than electro-mechanical computers such as the much later Harvard Mark I. It did have a rotating drum memory system, which limited it to 30 operations per second. The one second per operation that anonymous 141.158.42.148 refers to, was the printout speed per page, not the calculation speed. --Blainster 00:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's valid to try to guess how fast one component of the machine would be if it were somehow used in another design. Arthur Burks, certainly an authority on it's workings, puts the ABC's speed much lower that 30 per second; I believe he thinks you must consider the time it takes to solve a problem, including the human handling of intermediate results on punch cards. 30 OPS is the "peak" rate: one second to do 30 simultaneous additions. --70.90.6.230 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Programmability

Today's definition of computer programmability did not apply to either ABC or ENIAC. ABC was single purpose, and programming the ENIAC meant a few days of rewiring. Use of stored programs was not part of the ENIAC patent claim, even though it was programmable in the sense of being manually rewirable for general purpose use. However the prior design disclosures in Von Neumann's document apparently contributed to the weakness of Mauchly and Eckert's claim through no fault of their own. Ironically, Eckert's advances in memory design for the EDVAC (which served as a basis for Von Neumann's design) employed Atanasoff's ideas of binary operation and regenerative memory. --Blainster 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with (Blainster 19-Jan) comments above and the edits that removed "programmability."

Defined by the Wikipedia: "A computer is a machine capable of undergoing complex calculations. The calculations proceed according to a program — a list of instructions."

The ENIAC was programmable and therefore a computer. "Rewiring" is probably a misleading term; the machine was designed to follow a sequence of instructions, and the sequence was defined by the positions of patchcords and switches. It was in every sense a program; just not a stored program. The Z3 and the Harvard Mark I are also considered programmable machines, although perhaps not "Turing-complete."

The ABC was just not programmable. It did one thing at a time, under operator control. Besides read and write punch cards and convert them from decimal to binary, the only operation it performed automatically was to add or subtract the same number repeatedly.

The point is that there is a specific definition of computer, but also a more general one. The general class of things that manipulate numbers will include the ABC, as well as including a desk calculator or a punch card tabulator. The specific computer must have calculations that "proceed according to a program." Within that class of computer we can then differentiate whether the program was hard-wired, set by switches, stored on paper tape, stored in the same memory as the data, etc.

But the ABC wasn't in that class. The complex steps needed to solve a series of simultaneous equations were not part of the ABC. Like a calculator, it required a human to choose and activate the next step. (In addition, the operations available were not general purpose, so one could argue that even as a calculator it was a special-purpose calculator.)

Programmability is absolutely fundamental to the definition of a computer - and that is why Judge Larson's bold statement has been questioned. I think it belongs in the text.

--70.90.6.230 18:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

1) I agree that one common understanding of the word computer today is that it includes reprogrammability. This definition is given in the Wikipedia article about computers. However, Wikipedia does not qualify as a recursive source for its own material, and I see no references for that information in the article. According to the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, third edition, 2000, a computer is any machine that does three things: accepts structured input, processes it according to prescribed rules, and produces the results as output. This published definition does not happen to include a requirement for reprogrammability, and it is a relatively recent definition. I expect you can find one that supports your position. The point is, it is not as clear-cut as you suggest. --Blainster 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

2) The definition of a computer has evolved since the early 1940s, when it typically referred to a person who computes. You are applying your 21st century definition to a mid-20th century machine. You are certainly free to do so, but you should not assume that the word means the same thing today as it did in 1946, or even in 1973 when Judge Larson made his decision. --Blainster 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

3) It happens that the ABC shares two characteristics with all modern computers, that ENIAC lacked. The ABC used binary logic and regenerative capacitor memory, so it is a more advanced design in that respect. However, ENIAC was a great leap in speed and general purpose design. No surprise, considering it was a vastly larger and more expensive project. Eckert & Mauchly deserve the credit for building a successful machine, and creating the computer industry. But that does not diminish the accomplishments of Atanasoff, without whom Mauchly might never have built a computer. --Blainster 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

4) Regarding my recent edit, of course the ABC did follow a sequence of computational steps, (or program). It's "program" was hardwired, so could not be changed. --Blainster 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Blainster's item #4 directly above:

You have stated the simple misunderstanding that is at the heart of the whole issue. The ABC simply did not, could not, do a sequence of different operations automatically. It was designed to be tended to by a human. It's fascinating, really, to see how many steps the operator has to do. On the website for the re-created ABC they have a video showing someone solving a very simple problem (two unknowns, I think.) It seems to take forever, with all the card handling and switch flipping between each step. Zebbie 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On "hardwire" The term hardwire means "To connect equipment or components permanently in contrast to using switches, plugs, or connectors." By this definition, ENIAC wasn't hardwired. It was wired, to be sure, but the wires weren't soldered in place. Zebbie 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

??? - I used "hardwired" to apply to the ABC, not ENIAC. --Blainster 17:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Article criticisms

There are a lot of factual mistakes on this page. Just off the top of my head:

1) Mauchly and Eckert did NOT invent subroutines. The word was first used and with its present meaning in a report written by John von Neumann.

Goldstine, H. H. and von Neumann, J., Planning and coding of problems for an electronic computing instrument, Part II, Volume 3, IAS report, 1948. Pages 215--235 in volume 5 of von Neumann's collected works.

The first computer programming textbook, which also discussed subroutines, was written in 1951, to help program the Cambridge University computer that had been running since 1949.

Wilkes, M. V. and Wheeler, D. J. and Gill, S., The Preparation of Programs for an Electronic Digital Computer, with special reference to the EDSAC and the use of a library of subroutines, Tomash Publishers, Charles Babbage Institute reprint series for the History of Computing, Tomash Publishers, Los Angeles, 1982. Originally published by Addison-Wesley Press in 1951

So other people were writing about and using subroutines in 1948 and 1951, while UNIVAC I was not available until 1951. So explain to me how/where it is known that Mauchly and Eckert invented subroutines?

2) Goldstine "in a move that was to become controversial, removed any reference to Eckert or Mauchly and distributed the document" is false. There never were any references in the letters from which Goldstine assembled the report.

3) "Eckert and Mauchly suffered additional setbacks due to Goldstine's actions" is also false. By the time the patent case went to court some 15 years later, Eckert and Mauchly had already lost control of their patents because their company went backrupt.

4) I would like to see a supporting reference to the claim that Mauchly's use of "to program" was the first use. The first use of the word with its *modern" meaning is described in this article:

Grier, D. A., "The ENIAC, the Verb ``to program and the Emergence of Digital Computers," IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, (1996), 18(1):51--55.

I could go on. This needs a lot of cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Grcar (talk • contribs) 2007-03-07T01:22:22

Go ahead and be bold in making changes--rest assured, your changes will eventually be evaluated by other editors! :-) I might be able to shed light on your point #1, but it will have to wait for a later date, as I'm away from my notes; your point #3 neglects the infamous Moore School meeting in which it was determined that Eckert and Mauchly would not be able to patent the EDVAC (and thus the stored program concept)--and nor would von Neumann and Goldstine--because of the widespread distribution of the First Draft facilitated by Goldstine. The complete transcript of the meeting can be found in the HvSR exhibits. It is also discussed in the most recent Burks book. (The meeting is sometimes described as contentious and acrimonious, both by historians and by people who were there. The transcript of the meeting does not necessarily reflect this perspective, a fact pointed out by Burks, but IMHO, it is difficult to determine the mood of a meeting simply from its transcript. The fact remains that Eckert-Mauchly and Goldstine-von Neumann were not friendly after that point.) Robert K S 11:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And the above is not to say I think the text Joe objects to couldn't be improved to reflect a more neutral point of view. Robert K S 12:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The transcript of the patent meeting can be found at:

Stern, N., "Minutes of 1947 Patent Conference, Moore School of Electrical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania," Annals of the History of Computing, 1985, 7(2):100--116.

This transcript shows that Mauchly and Eckert had no concern about rights to "the stored program concept". Such a patent would not have held up because similar ideas had already been had and were implemented by Konrad Zuse in Germany for relay computers. He did eventually file patents and IBM was careful to license them early on. I do not know whether the Zuse patents were ever tested in court.

The transcript also shows that the real reason for the patent meeting was to get rid of von Neumann. All through 1945 the goverment lawyers were advising Mauchly and Eckert to file patent disclosures. They could have done the same with the intellectual property of the First Fraft Report, but that would have menat having to deal with von Neumann. To the WASP lawyers who got government jobs at that time, John von Neumann was a just a jewish guy who talked funny and was dangerous because he seemed to know important people. So the lawyers kept silent until they were certain the time to file patents on the First Draft expired.

Joseph Grcar 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

3) "Eckert and Mauchly suffered additional setbacks due to Goldstine's actions" is also false. By the time the patent case went to court some 15 years later, Eckert and Mauchly had already lost control of their patents because their company went backrupt.

I don't think this is accurate. Their company (EMCC) never went bankrupt; they sold it to Remington Rand. Their patents went along with the sale, and the later sale/merger into Sperry Rand. The eventual lawsuit was Honeywell vs. Sperry Rand. Eckert & Mauchly no longer controlled the patents personally, but their legal successors still controlled them. T-bonham (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Loss of clearance during the Red Scare

Another problem is the lack of any mention of Mauchly's loss of clearance/restraining order against his entering company property of the firm he co-owned. Since this led rather directly to the failure of that firm, why isn't it included here, as it is on the entry for the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation? Drieux (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Mauchly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120222171124/http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf to http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Mauchly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824135331/http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/182.html to http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/182.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"...removed any reference to Eckert or Mauchly"

Regarding the "First Draft", the article says "Goldstine, in a move that was to become controversial, removed any reference to Eckert or Mauchly and distributed the document to a number of von Neumann's associates across the country." I see this was challenged in point 2 of Joseph Grcar's 7 March 2007 comments, but was never addressed subsequently. I've added a cn tag for now. There is a big difference between neglecting to add credits in typing up someone else's notes and deliberately deleting them. I haven't found any such assertion elsewhere and am inclined to delete it unless a source is provided soon.--agr (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)