alexrock.com

Mandlebrot Generator

I was watching James Sharman’s video about benchmarking his hombrew CPU recently. In that video he generates a mandlebrot set as a benchmark. I realized I’d never written an implementation of mandlebrot, so thought it might be fun. I probably should have started from scratch, but instead I just copied the apple basic version from the multi-mandlebrot repo, which was the base of the benchmark (the apple basic one seemed the easiest to understand).

This was my first semi-working attempt. The code actually takes long enough to run that I was getting script timeouts, so this version does each render loop on a timeout. It made rendering a lot slower, but does prevent the browser from locking up.

You’ll note that this doesn’t look quite right. I thought it might have been the low resolution, or the way I did the mapping to canvas. I messed around with various params, but it took an embarrassingly long time to realized I’d simply added two values instead of subtracting them.

This version is still quite slow, however. It’s because we are doing a timeout after every loop, which introduces a lot of delay. To speed things up we can instead try do do as much work as possible in one loop, then stop and call ourselves again with a timeout (this allows the browser to run the event loop, giving time to respond to events and avoid the slow script issues).

This is reasonably fast, even at higher resolutions & iterations. However I was curious if we used a web worker if I could make things even faster. Since web workers run on their own thread, we don’t have to worry about locking up the browser and can just run in a single loop. One downside to the worker is we have to communicate all of our results via postMessage which means a copy of each message has to be made. If we do this for each point it actually ends up being slower than our original implementation (presumably due to the overhead of copying). We could just send all the points when the loop is done, but then we can’t see any progress. After a little experimentation sending 50 points at at time seemed a reasonable compromise. (note I had to move off jsfiddle to allow use of the worker)

Perceptually the worker seems slower, however if the “ramp” setting is enabled (which re-draws the image with increasingly more iterations) it’s fairly clear the worker is faster. It’s possible we could get even faster using transferable objects or OffscreenCanvas (not to mention potentially optimizing the algorithm itself) but this “final” version is good enough for me.

HD44780 Character Generator

There’s a few generators for LCD characters out there for the classic HD44780 controller. However none of them give you a realistic preview, so it’s hard to get a sense of how good/bad they look. I created a simple one that will give you a little preview.

Lissajous curve

I saw a reddit post earlier about lissajous curves so I threw together a simple thing to draw one using canvas. You can play with the parameters to get different curves.

Differences between Firefox and Chrome Extensions

This entry was written during my time at IBM for a Firefox extension I had developed related to bookmarks

I’ve been using Google Chrome more often lately. I still prefer Firefox in a lot of ways, but you can’t beat the speed of Chrome.

One thing I miss in chrome is a lot of my extensions, including my project. I decided to take a look at how hard (if even possible) it would be to port my project to Chrome. It turns out, not as bad as I thought (though certainly not trivial).

Chrome’s approach to extensions is fundamentally different than Firefox. In Firefox an extension has pretty much full access to the entire browser – you can monitor and change every request the browser makes, you can modify the way tabs work, heck you can build the best javascript debugger on the planet. Chrome extensions are far more limited in what they can do. They run in their own sandbox, apart from the rest of the browser. You’re limited to a button with a dropdown (popup) display, an i con on the URL bar (also with a potential popup), adding items to context menus, and that’s about it. While you can get access to the websites the user accesses, and even modify them, you can’t fundamentally alter the browsers UI or behavior the way you can do with Firefox. This is not necessarily a bad thing – simplicity has it’s virtues – but it makes a big difference in the approach you take to the extensions.

Despite the differences in approach, the differences in writing an extension for one app or the other is not quite as big as I expected. Firefox extensions (for the most part) have their UI written in XUL(XML User Language), are scripted with JavaScript, and is themed with CSS. Chrome extensions have their UI written in HTML, are scripted with JavaScript, and themed with CSS. Well, hey, we have 2 out of 3, right? And while XUL and HTML are pretty different, they’re not that different, especially when talking into account the HTML5 features chrome supports.

var info={url:getWebNavigation().currentURI.spec,
  title: getWebNavigation().document.title}

        chrome.tabs.getSelected(null, function _getWinInfo(tab){
                var info = {
                        url:tab.url,
                        title:tab.title
                };
            });

//Fake out the report error method so we can still use it in code

    Components = {
            utils:console
    }
    Components.utils.reportError=console.error;

somebundle.getString("somekey")

chrome.i18n.getMessage("somekey")

<link href="http://signature.innovate.ibm.com/index" />
<snx:link linkid="9a18b409-3188-41be-a87c-815d4de784ec"/>

if(someCondition){
    var something="xyz";
}else{
    var something="123";
}
alert(something);

if(someCondition){
    var something="xyz";
}else{
    something="123";
}
alert(something);

var something;
if(someCondition){
    something="xyz";
}else{
    something="123";
}

alert(something);

Much ado about AMC and Jeep intake manifolds

So, I never intended for this blog to contain any useful information about anything in particular, but as time goes on my repository of knowledge about various things has started to include some of what others may actually consider useful, so I suppose I will go back on my intentions for the good of the masses. At any rate, I spent a good deal of time figuring this out and would like to put it somewhere before I forget.

The Venerable AMC Straight Six

The AMC straight six has been produced (in some form) from 1964 to 2006, an amazing 42 years of service (AMC had an earlier flat-head I6 they produced from 58-65). Well known by AMC aficionados and Jeepers alike, the AMC I6 was produced in essentially three incarcerations — the 199/232, the 232/258 and the 4.0. The 199 and 232 were produced from 1964-1970, and were the exact same engine with a different stroke to provide the different displacements. In the 1970s AMC stopped producing the 199, and raised the deck height of the 232 by 1/8″ to accommodate the 258, simply the 232 with a longer stroke. This engine was produced with little change until 1986 (the 232 stopped being produced in 1979). In 1987 the AMC I6 got its first major overhaul in years. Although in some ways a different engine than the earlier 258, the 4.0 retained much in common with its ancestor. The connecting rods from a 258 can be used in a 4.0L to give a 4.5L engine. With slight modification, the head from a 4.0L can be used on the earlier I6 series. In 1991, another change was made to the 4.0 to give better flow through the head, increasing horsepower. Other minor changes were made in the life of the engine as time went on before its final discontinuation in 2006.

Intake Manifolds

So, seeing the amount of compatibility between the AMC I6 engine, I wondered if I could fit a fuel injection system from a later model I6 on my 75 AMC 232. I found someone on ebay selling a fuel injection manifold he claimed had been installed on his 258. Taking a chance, I bought it hoping it would fit on my AMC. Although I didn’t actually take my manifold off to check, by comparing various photos and the manifold gaskets I had purchased, I could see fairly clearly that it would not. Since the manifold was useless to me, I decided to try and find out what it would fit, so I could proceed to sell it on ebay. After some extensive search, I came up with the following. Note that this is based on heresay and photographic evidence, and NOT experience. While I think this information is accurate, don’t come complaining to me that the intake from that 1986 Spirit didn’t fit on your 1965 Rambler American.

There are what I would call three eras of intake (and exhaust) manifolds. 1965-1986, 1987-1990, and 1991 and up (I should note that I didn’t check much after 1993, but I don’t think there’s much if any difference to the bolt patterns and such, although another change was made in the head around 96-98 to lower the flow through the heads, so there may actually be a difference.).

1965-1986

The 65-86 era is a huge span, and as you’d expect, there are some changes in those years. However, the bolt patterns and shapes of the ports did not change, so an 86 intake should bolt up to a 65 head without any trouble. The differences are that in 1965-1972 there were no federal emissions requirements, and as such the intakes and exhausts had no EGR valves. In 73 the EGR valve was added, so the manifolds were changed to allow exhaust gas to be recirculated into the intake manifold. During 1973-1980 this consisted of some kind of port between the exhaust and intake, with a gasket between the two. In 81 it seems this was changed somehow, and from 1981-1986 the intake and exhausts were separate, IE there was no gasket between them. There was an EGR valve however, so I presume there was some sort of tube between the two to allow the recirculation of the exhaust gas.

1987-1990

1986 saw the introduction of the 4.0, and as you might expect, the manifolds changed. Although the bolts are actually fairly close between the 4.0 and the 199/232/258, the shapes of the ports are completely different. The exhaust ports are round or nearly so, and the intake ports have an additional jut-out on top to allow some room for the injector stream from each intake port.

1991 and up

1991 is the year where the 4.0 was reworked to produce the 4.0 HO model (high output). This was done mostly by changing the shape and flow of the heads, as well as a new camshaft, and computer improvements. As you might expect, the intake ports changed once again. However, the change wasn’t major. I would describe it as moving the bottom half of the intake up while keeping the top in the same position. Not quite a squash since the top didn’t really change much, but almost. The exhaust looks exactly the same. From what I’ve heard, the earlier 87-90 intakes and exhausts work fine on the later model heads, with one exception. One bolt (I’m not sure which) was moved slightly, so in order to allow the bolting up of the older head, you must use a smaller size stud in this hole or somesuch. I’m not quite sure how this works exactly, since to be honest I didn’t look into it much, but I’ve heard no claims to the contrary that it cannot be done.

So there you have it. A stock fuel injection manifold will not fit on your Rambler American, or any other 65-86 era AMC or Jeep, unless you perform a head swap from a 4.0L engine (or perform extensive modifications to the manifold). However, an intake from 65-86 should be interchangeable on any AMC/Jeep I6 from that same span, with the provision that the exhaust and intake may not mate up perfectly if you put an intake with an EGR valve on an exhaust that did not have one, etc. Manifolds from the 87 and up era should be similarly interchangeable, with the one caveat of the different bolt position.

So go forth, change manifolds, be happy, and don’t come to me if I was completely wrong because the bolts were in a different place in 1968 and 1984.

Random Word Picker

I recently noticed that one of my favorite websites, the random english word picker is down. I think it’s been down for a while, in fact. In an attempt to fill in the void opened by this missing website, I have endeavored to create my own random word picker. I don’t quite remember the layout of the other one, but at any rate mine’s got multiple dictionaries, so that’s nice. Some of them are rather stupid, but, hey, what do you want. If you just want a standard dictionary, use the system dictionary. That is all.

Station Wagon Bandwidth

Up to 50x faster than covered wagon bandwidth! <br /><a href="http://old.alexrock.com/serendipity/archives/19-Station-Wagon-Bandwidth.html#extended">Continue reading "Station Wagon Bandwidth"</a>

Frozen Pudding

Frozen Jello