 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:35:37 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's
>>> completely vanished off the face of existence?
>>
>> It hasn't - some of it didn't work out.
>
> I meant optical computing specifically. Nobody talks about it any more.
> So what happened to it?
I've read a few articles on it recently. Seems that *some* people are
still talking about it.
>>> So why is absolutely nobody using this stuff? I can only imagine that
>>> the answer is the same as for the 3D IC. In other words, "it's too
>>> expensive" combined with "we haven't reached the hard limits of
>>> current methods yet".
>>
>> There is a certain amount of technological inertia to overcome -
>> current methods are cheap, developing new methods costs a lot of money,
>> especially when you start talking about large-scale production.
>>
>> So in essence, you're correct. :)
>
> Heh. Thought so.
>
> In that case, presumably once current technologies start hitting
> hard(er) limits, new ones will start to be viable.
Yep.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <aze### [at] qwerty org> wrote:
> The bad:
> Most of those components are cm sized, or monstrously huge compared to
> electronic parts.
Guess what the size of the first transistors (well, the equivalent of
transistors used in the first electronic computers) were.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/04/2011 07:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 11:33, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> The article linked claims that materials with a "non-linear refractive
>> index" can be used to make signals interact.
>
> Guess what causes something to have a non-linear refractive index?
> Electrons.
I'll take your word for it. ;-)
>> No, I mean like if component A needs to be connected to component Z at
>> the
>> other end of the die, you could stick in an optical link, rather than
>> trying
>> to route a trace the entire way across the die. And doing so might be
>> a big
>> win in terms of signal propogation speed, capacitance, etc.
>
> Maybe. But you still have to convert it from electronics to light and
> back again.
Indeed. A hybrid optical-electronic IC looks far more plausible to me
than a purely optical one.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/04/2011 06:25 PM, Stephen wrote:
> I remember reading an article in the late 50's or early 60's saying that
> flatscreen monitors would be impossible. Of course it was talking about
> CRTs
Our lab *had* several flat CRTs. (We recently got rid of them. They were
quite old by now.)
Of course, the glass was flatter than the actual tube, to give a greater
impression of flatness than actually exists. The monitors were huge, so
the radius of curvature is lower anyway. And by twiddling knobs, you can
adjust which part of the image is out of focus. ;-)
I'm still looking forward to the day when they invent a way to have
high-resolution images at the cinema. Currently they can't even seem to
get all of it in focus...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/04/2011 08:37 PM, Warp wrote:
> Alain<aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
>> The bad:
>> Most of those components are cm sized, or monstrously huge compared to
>> electronic parts.
>
> Guess what the size of the first transistors (well, the equivalent of
> transistors used in the first electronic computers) were.
Indeed. I gather people currently make chips for use in projectors that
flip microscopic mirrors around, so certainly making micro-scale optics
isn't impossible...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/04/2011 07:50 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 11:35, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I meant optical computing specifically. Nobody talks about it any
>> more. So
>> what happened to it?
>
> I hear about it pretty regularly, as research. People are still trying
> to figure out how to get it interfaced to the electronics efficiently
> and so on.
OK. So, in the words of that awful TV advert, "I'm not dead babeh. I'm
just, uh, havin' a break".
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/04/2011 6:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a
>> > studio format.
> That's why it sucks so hard as a backup medium - it was only intended to
> be used for lossy data (ie, audio), and was adapted for use for backup
> medium.
Are you sure about that, Jim?
I seem to remember that in the mid 70s I used DAT tape to load
programmes and data into a Burroughs mini computer.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/04/2011 6:35 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 12/04/2011 5:52 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> and flatscreen monitors:
>
>> I remember reading an article in the late 50's or early 60's saying that
>> flatscreen monitors would be impossible. Of course it was talking about CRTs
>
> Ironically, there exists a technology to make flatscreen CRTs, with all
> the advantages of CRT (such as contrast) with less of the disadvantages
> (such as distortion, misalignment, etc). The basic idea is that there's
> one (static) electron ray per pixel. (Well, three, one for each color
> component.)
>
> For some reason the technology has never been commercialized, even though
> it could potentially be feasible.
>
I think that idea would have been beyond the ken of man at the time.
Nice to have heard it though.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/04/2011 7:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 10:25, Stephen wrote:
>> On 12/04/2011 5:52 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> and flatscreen monitors:
>>
>> I remember reading an article in the late 50's or early 60's saying that
>> flatscreen monitors would be impossible. Of course it was talking
>> about CRTs
>
> There's also a version where the guns are at the bottom and the beam
> gets curved as it passes up the back of the plate. IIRC, they had two
> guns, one for purplish and one for greenish, so the colors weren't as good.
>
Never heard of that, very interesting.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
see, your blog would be much more active if you reserved such texts for
it. ;)
You know you're in the future when you have your telephone, stereo, book
library, TV set, bank account and games right with you all the time in
your pocket. And Space Invaders looks better than Star Wars.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
