DOCSLIB.ORG

ATLAS@50 Then and Now

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ATLAS@50 Then and Now ATLAS@50 Then and now Science & Technology Facilities Council The origins of Atlas In the years following the Second World War, there was huge interest in nuclear physics technologies both for civilian nuclear energy research and for military nuclear weapons. These technologies required ever-increasing amounts of computer power to analyse data and, more importantly, to perform simulations far more safely than would be possible in a laboratory. By 1958, 75% of Britain’s R&D computer power was provided by the Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) at Aldermaston (using an American IBM 704), Risley, Winfrith and Harwell (each using a British Ferranti Mercury). These were however what we would now call The advisory panel for the super-computer single-user systems, capable of running only included Freddy Williams (a pioneer in radar and Foreword one program at a time, so were essentially very computer technology) from Victoria University large desktop calculators. Indeed, the name of Manchester, Maurice Wilkes (designer of It is now known as Rutherford Appleton Laboratory buildings R26 and R27, but over “computer” referred to the human operator; EDSAC, the Electronic Delay Storage Automatic its 50+ year history, the Atlas Computer Laboratory in the parish of Chilton has been the machinery itself was known as an Calculator) from Cambridge, Albert Uttley of the “automatic calculating machine.” RRE (Royal Radar Establishment), and Ted Cooke- part of many seminal moments in computing history. Yarborough (designer of the Dekatron and CADET British manufacturers of automatic calculating computers) from AERE Harwell; Christopher Over its 50+ year history it has also housed It was cleaned and restored as far as we could, machines were doing well until IBM announced Strachey (a pioneer in programming language many mainframe and super-computers including and took pride of place at an event held to that their first transistorised computer was to design) was in charge of design. the Ferranti Atlas 1, a Sigma 2, a PDP15, an ICL celebrate the 50th anniversary of its inauguration. be launched in a couple of years’ time in 1961. 1906A, two IBM 360/195s, an Atlas 10, and It now makes occasional appearances at other This was the model 7030, known as STRETCH, three Crays (an X-MP, a Y-MP and a J90). These events held at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. which would cost $13.5M and (according to the machines have all been decommissioned now, marketing hype) be two orders of magnitude but the consoles of the Atlas 1, one of the IBM This publication attempts to capture something faster than their current IBM 704 model. (As it 360/195s and half the Cray X-MP have been about what made the Ferranti Atlas 1 super- turned out, the performance of STRETCH was preserved together with a physical archive of computer, the building which housed it, and disappointingly only six times faster, and the papers, manuals and other artefacts, and a virtual the people who worked on it, such a significant price was dropped to $7.78M.) part of British computing history. archive known as the Chilton Computing web site. Britain was now in danger of losing its competitiveness so at a meeting in January 1957, Ferranti Ltd was a family-run British electrical engineering The console of the Atlas computer was and equipment firm established in 1885, with its HQ rediscovered in July 2014; it had been languishing Lord Halsbury, Director of the National Research in Manchester. It specialised in building high voltage in storage for so long that even the paperwork Development Corporation (NRDC), announced an transformers and other equipment for the electrical grid, in domestic “brown goods” such as televisions, radios, had been forgotten. ambitious £1M project to develop a new British high-performance computer – a super-computer and electric clocks, and was a major developer of radar systems, defence electronics and avionics during the to rival STRETCH. Second World War. In the 1940s and 1950s, Ferranti collaborated with various university research groups to He had some doubts however: “Are we strong develop a series of computers including the Ferranti Mark enough to compete? Ought we to try? Could we 1, Pegasus, Orion, and a solid state version of the Mark 1 afford not to?” known as Mercury. 2 3 The NRDC had not given up however and awarded A second Atlas was shared between British a grant of £300K to both Ferranti (with Tom Petroleum (BP) and London University, managed Kilburn as lead designer) and EMI (with Christopher by the University of London Atlas Computing Strachey as lead designer) to pursue the design of Service (ULACS, or ACS for short). two super-computers. Clearly there was a certain amount of professional rivalry, but in the end the The third and largest Atlas was installed in the EMI project did not happen, and the Ferranti one purpose-built Atlas Computer Laboratory in was in progress anyway. Christopher Strachey Berkshire (now Oxfordshire), located between was an enthusiastic self-taught designer, but he AERE Harwell and the National Institute for was not an engineer as Tom Kilburn was; he also Research in Nuclear Science (NIRNS) Rutherford had what Maurice Wilkes described as “strong Laboratory. personal views” which could make working with In 1972, it was estimated that the Atlas him difficult. development project had cost £2M, of which £50K had been contributed by the University. It Ceremonial inauguration of the first Atlas computer, In Manchester, on Friday 7th December 1962, the Manchester, 7th December 1962. first production Atlas computer was ceremonially had been a long and sometimes tortuous project Professor Tom Kilburn at the which Sebastian de Ferranti said should have been Atlas Engineer’s console, Manchester. Pictured are Sir John Cockcroft (seated), switched on by Sir John Cockcroft. Sebastian de Ferranti andTom Kilburn. called BISON (Built In Spite of NRDC). The plan was that development contracts would Kilburn was asked to redesign part of the system. be placed with universities and government When he realised that he had not been appointed departments, and various manufacturing lead engineer on a project involving something he companies including EMI, English Electric and had designed however, Tom Kilburn backed out Ferranti were approached to build the machine. altogether. The longer-term project also failed to Their responses were mixed. English Electric get off the ground. were uninterested; EMI and Ferranti were more enthusiastic, but they and AERE Harwell had A few months later, Ferranti and Tom Kilburn’s concerns about the proposed design, about the team at Manchester made the decision to take management of the project, the expense, and the matters into their own hands and to build a large financial viability of the end result. scientific machine based largely on MUSE. This project was supported by John Cockcroft, Director Frustrated by the lack of progress, the Second of AERE Harwell, but unsurprisingly NRDC were Harwell Computer Conference was held in less enthusiastic as they felt it was incompatible February 1958 (the first was held in April 1957) with their aims. It was clear that the need for a between AERE Harwell, NRDC, RRE, the National super-computer – *any* super-computer – was Physical Laboratory (NPL), the Ministry of Supply becoming more pressing, that the Manchester (later the Ministry of Defence), and the universities project was making significant progress, and that of Cambridge and Oxford. Two recommendations the NRDC was getting nowhere. were made to try and get the super-computer project moving again: a short-term project to In October 1958 it was announced that the assess MUSE (the MicroSecond Engine designed Manchester machine designed by Tom Kilburn was by Professor Tom Kilburn at the Department of to be called Atlas, and would be built by Ferranti’s Electrical Engineering at Victoria University of Computer Division headed by Peter Hall in a Manchester), and a longer-term project to develop former steam locomotive factory in West Gorton. new components and techniques. (The premises were spacious, although soot in the electrical components was a constant problem.) These ideas also met with a mixed response. Although MUSE was thought to be a good basis for further development, its performance fell short of that required for the super-computer so Tom The London Atlas being Commissioned at Ferranti, August 1963. 4 5 The Ferranti Atlas computer at Chilton The hardware The third and largest Atlas computer was ordered by UKAEA on 22nd September Atlas was a 48-bit word machine, with 48K of core store arranged in six pairs of 1961. It cost £3.1M, and Ferranti were understandably so pleased that they hosted stacks, 128 half-words of B store, 8K words of Fixed Store (ROM), 1K words of a celebratory dinner at The Savoy. Supervisor working store, four drums each of 24K words drum store, 16 Ampex TM2 magnetic tape drives, two IBM magnetic tape drives, and 16 Data Products The machine took three years to construct and was finally delivered to its new home in June 1964. It model 5045 file disks each 16.8M word capacity. was considered so valuable that it was transported from Manchester using 19 separate trucks so that if there was an accident only one piece would be lost. It was up-and-running just four months later Core store: Core store consisted of Bakelite frames approximately 20cm square containing a 68x68 grid of thin (albeit with an “at risk” service), and by February wires with a (magnetic) ferrite doughnut-shaped core at 1966 it was in full operation 24/7 with three shifts each junction. Each core represented one bit and could be of Operators plus engineering support. magnetised clockwise or anticlockwise to indicate a binary 0 or 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Computer Conservation Society
    Issue Number 52 Autumn 2010 Computer Conservation Society Aims and objectives The Computer Conservation Society (CCS) is a co-operative venture between the British Computer Society (BCS), the Science Museum of London and the Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI) in Manchester. The CCS was constituted in September 1989 as a Specialist Group of the British Computer Society. It is thus covered by the Royal Charter and charitable status of the BCS. The aims of the CCS are: To promote the conservation of historic computers and to identify existing computers which may need to be archived in the future, To develop awareness of the importance of historic computers, To develop expertise in the conservation and restoration of historic computers, To represent the interests of Computer Conservation Society members with other bodies, To promote the study of historic computers, their use and the history of the computer industry, To publish information of relevance to these objectives for the information of Computer Conservation Society members and the wider public. Membership is open to anyone interested in computer conservation and the history of computing. The CCS is funded and supported by voluntary subscriptions from members, a grant from the BCS, fees from corporate membership, donations, and by the free use of the facilities of both museums. Some charges may be made for publications and attendance at seminars and conferences. There are a number of active Projects on specific computer restorations and early computer technologies and software.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Conservation Society
    Issue Number 88 Winter 2019/20 Computer Conservation Society Aims and Objectives The Computer Conservation Society (CCS) is a co-operative venture between BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT; the Science Museum of London; and the Science and Industry Museum (SIM) in Manchester. The CCS was constituted in September 1989 as a Specialist Group of the British Computer Society. It is thus covered by the Royal Charter and charitable status of BCS. The objects of the Computer Conservation Society (“Society”) are: To promote the conservation, restoration and reconstruction of historic computing systems and to identify existing computing systems which may need to be archived in the future; To develop awareness of the importance of historic computing systems; To develop expertise in the conservation, restoration and reconstruction of historic computing systems; To represent the interests of the Society with other bodies; To promote the study of historic computing systems, their use and the history of the computer industry; To publish information of relevance to these objectives for the information of Society members and the wider public. Membership is open to anyone interested in computer conservation and the history of computing. The CCS is funded and supported by a grant from BCS and from donations. There are a number of active projects on specific computer restorations and early computer technologies and software. Younger people are especially encouraged to take part in order to achieve skills transfer. The CCS also enjoys a close relationship with the National Museum of Computing. Resurrection The Journal of the Computer Conservation Society ISSN 0958-7403 Number 88 Winter 2019/20 Contents Society Activity 2 News Round-Up 9 The Data Curator 10 Paul Cockshott From Tea Shops to Computer Company: The Improbable 15 Story of LEO John Aeberhard Book Review: Early Computing in Britain Ferranti Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Part I Background
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-19746-5 - Transitions and Trees: An Introduction to Structural Operational Semantics Hans Huttel Excerpt More information PART I BACKGROUND © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-19746-5 - Transitions and Trees: An Introduction to Structural Operational Semantics Hans Huttel Excerpt More information 1 A question of semantics The goal of this chapter is to give the reader a glimpse of the applications and problem areas that have motivated and to this day continue to inspire research in the important area of computer science known as programming language semantics. 1.1 Semantics is the study of meaning Programming language semantics is the study of mathematical models of and methods for describing and reasoning about the behaviour of programs. The word semantics has Greek roots1 and was first used in linguistics. Here, one distinguishes among syntax, the study of the structure of lan- guages, semantics, the study of meaning, and pragmatics, the study of the use of language. In computer science we make a similar distinction between syntax and se- mantics. The languages that we are interested in are programming languages in a very general sense. The ‘meaning’ of a program is its behaviour, and for this reason programming language semantics is the part of programming language theory devoted to the study of program behaviour. Programming language semantics is concerned only with purely internal aspects of program behaviour, namely what happens within a running pro- gram. Program semantics does not claim to be able to address other aspects of program behaviour – e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • The Standard Model for Programming Languages: the Birth of A
    The Standard Model for Programming Languages: The Birth of a Mathematical Theory of Computation Simone Martini Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Bologna, Italy INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, Valbonne, France http://www.cs.unibo.it/~martini [email protected] Abstract Despite the insight of some of the pioneers (Turing, von Neumann, Curry, Böhm), programming the early computers was a matter of fiddling with small architecture-dependent details. Only in the sixties some form of “mathematical program development” will be in the agenda of some of the most influential players of that time. A “Mathematical Theory of Computation” is the name chosen by John McCarthy for his approach, which uses a class of recursively computable functions as an (extensional) model of a class of programs. It is the beginning of that grand endeavour to present programming as a mathematical activity, and reasoning on programs as a form of mathematical logic. An important part of this process is the standard model of programming languages – the informal assumption that the meaning of programs should be understood on an abstract machine with unbounded resources, and with true arithmetic. We present some crucial moments of this story, concluding with the emergence, in the seventies, of the need of more “intensional” semantics, like the sequential algorithms on concrete data structures. The paper is a small step of a larger project – reflecting and tracing the interaction between mathematical logic and programming (languages), identifying some
    [Show full text]
  • Short Bios of Attendees Peter Mcburney Is a David Hales Is a Senior Professor of Computer Research Fellow at the Science and Head of the Open University
    Short Bios of Attendees Peter McBurney is a David Hales is a senior Professor of Computer research fellow at The Science and Head of the Open University. I do Department of Informatics at research at the overlap King's College London. He is a member of the Agents and between computer Intelligent Systems (AIS) science and social Group of the Department. McBurney's research science. I am interested in focuses on several areas in multi-agent software open distributed systems that include both machine and human agencies where the systems including: agent communications imposition of central control is not an option and languages (ACLs) and protocols; multi-agent one can't rely on the "invisible hands" of simulation models of public policy and corporate orthodox economic (or game) theory. strategy domains; the presence of reflective intelligent entities able to learn, and able Jeffrey Johnson is Professor of themselves to model the environment they are Complexity Science and Design. in; cyber conflict, cyberwar and cyberweapons. I joined the Open University in Seth Bullock is Professor in 1980 after three years as Senior the Agents, Interaction and Research Associate in the Complexity Group and the Geography Department of Cambridge University, and six Institute for Complex Systems years as Research Fellow in the Mathematics Simulation at the University of Department of Essex University. Southampton. My principal research interest is evolutionary simulation modelling: the Jeremy Pitt is Reader in, and, application of evolutionary modelling techniques deputy head of the Intelligent developed within artificial intelligence (e.g., Systems and Networks Group at genetic algorithms) to problems within evolutionary biology (e.g., the evolution of Imperial College.
    [Show full text]
  • The London University Atlas
    The London University Atlas: A talk given at the Atlas 50th Anniversary Symposium on 5th December 2012. Dik Leatherdale. London >> Manchester London University was, indeed still is, a HUGE organisation even by the standards of this place. It’s a collegiate university the individual colleges spread across the capital from Queen Mary College in the east end to the baroque splendour of Royal Holloway in leafy Egham built, you may be interested to learn, upon the proceeds of Victorian patent medicines hardly any of which had any beneficial effect whatsoever. In the “build it yourself” era, two of the colleges took the plunge. At Imperial College, Keith Tocher, Sid Michaelson and Tony Brooker constructed the “Imperial College Computing Engine” using relays. With the benefit of hindsight, this looks like a dead end in development. But Imperial weren’t the only team to put their faith in relay technology. Neither were they the last. Yet amazingly, the legacy of ICCE lived on because of a chance lunchtime conversation years later between Tom Kilburn and Tony Brooker, the Atlas adder logical design was derived from that of ICCE. Over in the unlikely surroundings of Birkbeck College, Andrew Booth was building a series of low cost, low performance machines. His ambition was to build computers cheap enough for every college to be able to afford one. You might say he invented the minicomputer a decade before anybody noticed. His designs were taken up by the British Tabulating Machine company and became the ICT 1200 series; for a while the most popular computer in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Alan Turingturing –– Computercomputer Designerdesigner
    AlanAlan TuringTuring –– ComputerComputer DesignerDesigner Brian E. Carpenter with input from Robert W. Doran The University of Auckland May 2012 Turing, the theoretician ● Turing is widely regarded as a pure mathematician. After all, he was a B-star Wrangler (in the same year as Maurice Wilkes) ● “It is possible to invent a single machine which can be used to compute any computable sequence. If this machine U is supplied with the tape on the beginning of which is written the string of quintuples separated by semicolons of some computing machine M, then U will compute the same sequence as M.” (1937) ● So how was he able to write Proposals for development in the Mathematics Division of an Automatic Computing Engine (ACE) by the end of 1945? 2 Let’s read that carefully ● “It is possible to inventinvent a single machinemachine which can be used to compute any computable sequence. If this machinemachine U is supplied with the tapetape on the beginning of which is writtenwritten the string of quintuples separated by semicolons of some computing machinemachine M, then U will compute the same sequence as M.” ● The founding statement of computability theory was written in entirely physical terms. 3 What would it take? ● A tape on which you can write, read and erase symbols. ● Poulsen demonstrated magnetic wire recording in 1898. ● A way of storing symbols and performing simple logic. ● Eccles & Jordan patented the multivibrator trigger circuit (flip- flop) in 1919. ● Rossi invented the coincidence circuit (AND gate) in 1930. ● Building U in 1937 would have been only slightly more bizarre than building a differential analyser with Meccano.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Did What? Engineers Vs Mathematicians Title Page America Vs Europe Ideas Vs Implementations Babbage Lovelace Turing
    Who did what? Engineers vs Mathematicians Title Page America vs Europe Ideas vs Implementations Babbage Lovelace Turing Flowers Atanasoff Berry Zuse Chandler Broadhurst Mauchley & Von Neumann Wilkes Eckert Williams Kilburn SlideSlide 1 1 SlideSlide 2 2 A decade of real progress What remained to be done? A number of different pioneers had during the 1930s and 40s Memory! begun to make significant progress in developing automatic calculators (computers). Thanks (almost entirely) to A.M. Turing there was a complete theoretical understanding of the elements necessary to produce a Atanasoff had pioneered the use of electronics in calculation stored program computer – or Universal Turing Machine. Zuse had mad a number of theoretical breakthroughs Not for the first time, ideas had outstripped technology. Eckert and Mauchley (with JvN) had produced ENIAC and No-one had, by the end of the war, developed a practical store or produced the EDVAC report – spreading the word memory. Newman and Flowers had developed the Colossus It should be noted that not too many people were even working on the problem. SlideSlide 3 3 SlideSlide 4 4 The players Controversy USA: Eckert, Mauchley & von Neumann – EDVAC Fall out over the EDVAC report UK: Maurice Wilkes – EDSAC Takeover of the SSEM project by Williams (Kilburn) UK: Newman – SSEM (what was the role of Colossus?) Discord on the ACE project and the departure of Turing UK: Turing - ACE EDSAC alone was harmonious We will concentrate for a little while on the SSEM – the winner! SlideSlide 5 5 SlideSlide 6 6 1 Newman & technology transfer: Secret Technology Transfer? the claim Donald Michie : Cryptanalyst An enormous amount was transferred in an extremely seminal way to the post war developments of computers in Britain.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Issue of FACS FACTS
    Issue 2021-2 July 2021 FACS A C T S The Newsletter of the Formal Aspects of Computing Science (FACS) Specialist Group ISSN 0950-1231 FACS FACTS Issue 2021-2 July 2021 About FACS FACTS FACS FACTS (ISSN: 0950-1231) is the newsletter of the BCS Specialist Group on Formal Aspects of Computing Science (FACS). FACS FACTS is distributed in electronic form to all FACS members. Submissions to FACS FACTS are always welcome. Please visit the newsletter area of the BCS FACS website for further details at: https://www.bcs.org/membership/member-communities/facs-formal-aspects- of-computing-science-group/newsletters/ Back issues of FACS FACTS are available for download from: https://www.bcs.org/membership/member-communities/facs-formal-aspects- of-computing-science-group/newsletters/back-issues-of-facs-facts/ The FACS FACTS Team Newsletter Editors Tim Denvir [email protected] Brian Monahan [email protected] Editorial Team: Jonathan Bowen, John Cooke, Tim Denvir, Brian Monahan, Margaret West. Contributors to this issue: Jonathan Bowen, Andrew Johnstone, Keith Lines, Brian Monahan, John Tucker, Glynn Winskel BCS-FACS websites BCS: http://www.bcs-facs.org LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2427579/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/BCS-FACS/120243984688255 Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS-FACS If you have any questions about BCS-FACS, please send these to Jonathan Bowen at [email protected]. 2 FACS FACTS Issue 2021-2 July 2021 Editorial Dear readers, Welcome to the 2021-2 issue of the FACS FACTS Newsletter. A theme for this issue is suggested by the thought that it is just over 50 years since the birth of Domain Theory1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Birth of a Mathematical Theory of Computation
    The Standard Model for Programming Languages: The Birth of a Mathematical Theory of Computation Simone Martini Universit`adi Bologna and INRIA Sophia-Antipolis Bologna, 27 November 2020 Happy birthday, Maurizio! 1 / 58 This workshop: Recent Developments of the Design and Implementation of Programming Languages Well, not so recent: we go back exactly 60 years! It's more a revisionist's tale. 2 / 58 This workshop: Recent Developments of the Design and Implementation of Programming Languages Well, not so recent: we go back exactly 60 years! It's more a revisionist's tale. 3 / 58 viewpoints VDOI:10.1145/2542504 Thomas Haigh Historical Reflections HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC, 2015 Actually, Turing Vol. 36, No. 3, 205–228, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2015.1082050 Did Not Invent Edgar G. Daylight the Computer Separating the origins of computer science and technology.Towards a Historical Notion of ‘Turing—the Father of Computer Science’ viewpoints HE 100TH ANNIVERSARY of the birth of Alan Turing was cel- EDGAR G. DAYLIGHT ebrated in 2012. The com- viewpointsputing community threw its Utrecht University, The Netherlands biggest ever birthday party. [email protected]:10.1145/2658985V TMajor events were organized around the world, including conferences or festi- vals in Princeton, Cambridge, Manches- Viewpoint Received 14 January 2015 Accepted 3 March 2015 ter, and Israel. There was a concert in Seattle and an opera in Finland. Dutch In the popular imagination, the relevance of Turing’s theoretical ideas to people producing actual machines was and French researchers built small Tur- Why Did Computer ing Machines out of Lego Mindstorms significant and appreciated by everybody involved in computing from the moment he published his 1936 paper kits.
    [Show full text]
  • The Discoveries of Continuations
    LISP AND SYMBOLIC COMPUTATION: An InternationM JournM, 6, 233-248, 1993 @ 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers - Manufactured in The Nett~eriands The Discoveries of Continuations JOHN C. REYNOLDS ( [email protected] ) School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 Keywords: Semantics, Continuation, Continuation-Passing Style Abstract. We give a brief account of the discoveries of continuations and related con- cepts by A. van Vv'ijngaarden, A. W. Mazurkiewicz, F. L. Morris, C. P. Wadsworth. J. H. Morris, M. J. Fischer, and S. K. Abdali. In the early history of continuations, basic concepts were independently discovered an extraordinary number of times. This was due less to poor communication among computer scientists than to the rich variety of set- tings in which continuations were found useful: They underlie a method of program transformation (into continuation-passing style), a style of def- initionM interpreter (defining one language by an interpreter written in another language), and a style of denotational semantics (in the sense of Scott and Strachey). In each of these settings, by representing "the mean- ing of the rest of the program" as a function or procedure, continnations provide an elegant description of a variety of language constructs, including call by value and goto statements. 1. The Background In the early 1960%, the appearance of Algol 60 [32, 33] inspired a fi~rment of research on the implementation and formal definition of programming languages. Several aspects of this research were critical precursors of the discovery of continuations. The ability in Algol 60 to jump out of blocks, or even procedure bod- ies, forced implementors to realize that the representation of a label must include a reference to an environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Construction and the British Computer Industry in the Post-World War II Period
    The rhetoric of Americanisation: Social construction and the British computer industry in the Post-World War II period By Robert James Kirkwood Reid Submitted to the University of Glasgow for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economic History Department of Economic and Social History September 2007 1 Abstract This research seeks to understand the process of technological development in the UK and the specific role of a ‘rhetoric of Americanisation’ in that process. The concept of a ‘rhetoric of Americanisation’ will be developed throughout the thesis through a study into the computer industry in the UK in the post-war period . Specifically, the thesis discusses the threat of America, or how actors in the network of innovation within the British computer industry perceived it as a threat and the effect that this perception had on actors operating in the networks of construction in the British computer industry. However, the reaction to this threat was not a simple one. Rather this story is marked by sectional interests and technopolitical machination attempting to capture this rhetoric of ‘threat’ and ‘falling behind’. In this thesis the concept of ‘threat’ and ‘falling behind’, or more simply the ‘rhetoric of Americanisation’, will be explored in detail and the effect this had on the development of the British computer industry. What form did the process of capture and modification by sectional interests within government and industry take and what impact did this have on the British computer industry? In answering these questions, the thesis will first develop a concept of a British culture of computing which acts as the surface of emergence for various ideologies of innovation within the social networks that made up the computer industry in the UK.
    [Show full text]