 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If you try to build a mechanical computer, the main thing stopping you
from running it faster is inertia. Components have to have connecting
rods to transmit mechanical force from one component to another, and the
further apart these components are, the larger and heavier the
connecting rods. So you have to waste power accelerating them, and then
waste power bringing them to a halt again. The faster you want to
compute, the more force you end up needing to use, and the more power
you waste.
Now consider trying to build an electronic computer. Now the problem is
that the long connections from component to component act as tiny
capacitors, each one a low-pass filter trying to filter out your
high-frequency data signals. And the only way to overcome this, it
seems, is to use higher and higher voltages.
Inertia verses capacitance. Mechanical force verses voltage. It's in
interesting parallel...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If you try to build a mechanical computer, the main thing stopping you
> from running it faster is inertia. Components have to have connecting
> rods to transmit mechanical force from one component to another, and the
> further apart these components are, the larger and heavier the
> connecting rods. So you have to waste power accelerating them, and then
> waste power bringing them to a halt again. The faster you want to
> compute, the more force you end up needing to use, and the more power
> you waste.
Not to mention inducing vibrations that can skew results - or even
physically damage the device.
>
> Now consider trying to build an electronic computer. Now the problem is
> that the long connections from component to component act as tiny
> capacitors, each one a low-pass filter trying to filter out your
> high-frequency data signals. And the only way to overcome this, it
> seems, is to use higher and higher voltages.
>
Not to mention inducing harmonics (yes, even with digital signal) that
can skew results - or even worse physically damage the device.
> Inertia verses capacitance. Mechanical force verses voltage. It's in
> interesting parallel...
Not only are both signal analysis and vibration dynamics using the same
differential equations, they even use the same symbols for schematics
diagrams (a resistor looks exactly like a spring, a capacitor looks
exactly like a damper or shock absorber)!
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Now consider trying to build an electronic computer. Now the problem is
>> that the long connections from component to component act as tiny
>> capacitors, each one a low-pass filter trying to filter out your
>> high-frequency data signals. And the only way to overcome this, it
>> seems, is to use higher and higher voltages.
>
> Not to mention inducing harmonics (yes, even with digital signal) that
> can skew results - or even worse physically damage the device.
Well, I mean, everyone knows that the Fourier series for a square wave
has transfinite extent...
>> Inertia verses capacitance. Mechanical force verses voltage. It's in
>> interesting parallel...
>
> Not only are both signal analysis and vibration dynamics using the same
> differential equations, they even use the same symbols for schematics
> diagrams (a resistor looks exactly like a spring, a capacitor looks
> exactly like a damper or shock absorber)!
Not any more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor
According to the IEC, the symbol for a resistor is now supposed to be a
rectangle, not a zigzag. Personally I think it looks dumb, but hey...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 07.08.2012 14:42, schrieb Invisible:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor
>
> According to the IEC, the symbol for a resistor is now supposed to be a
> rectangle, not a zigzag. Personally I think it looks dumb, but hey...
I grew up with the IEC symbol (probably just a DIN symbol back then), so
I think the American symbol looks somewhat ugly, but hey...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2012 6:11 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 07.08.2012 14:42, schrieb Invisible:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor
>>
>> According to the IEC, the symbol for a resistor is now supposed to be a
>> rectangle, not a zigzag. Personally I think it looks dumb, but hey...
>
> I grew up with the IEC symbol (probably just a DIN symbol back then), so
> I think the American symbol looks somewhat ugly, but hey...
>
I grew up with the zig zag symbol and think the rectangle looks bland.
But hey... :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> According to the IEC, the symbol for a resistor is now supposed to be a
>>> rectangle, not a zigzag. Personally I think it looks dumb, but hey...
>>
>> I grew up with the IEC symbol (probably just a DIN symbol back then), so
>> I think the American symbol looks somewhat ugly, but hey...
>>
> I grew up with the zig zag symbol and think the rectangle looks bland.
> But hey... :-P
Well MY symbol is gonna kick YOUR symbol in the nuts! :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2012 8:16 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Well MY symbol is gonna kick YOUR symbol in the nuts! :-P
No way.
I don't have any. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
