 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2016 9:49, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/8/2016 8:37 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> That reminds me of "Grog" from Heinlein's Strange in a Strange Land....
>> Should be appropriate in this discussion.
>
> I've heard someone using that word on the radio, quite recently. It was
> very popular in the 1970's and 80s. At the time. I even heard someone
> say "Ye grog" instead of "Ye ken". (The phrase is ubiquitous on the east
> coast and in Fife.)
>
> Another one for your collection Thomas. :)
>
Yes...
Now, was it not "grok"? Showing my age...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/05/16 12:19, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 8-5-2016 9:49, Stephen wrote:
>> Another one for your collection Thomas. :)
>>
>
> Yes...
> Now, was it not "grok"? Showing my age...
Indeed it was. Re-read SiaSL and grok in fullness.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/8/2016 12:55 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>> Now, was it not "grok"? Showing my age...
> Indeed it was.
<Slaps own lazy wrist>
> Re-read SiaSL and grok in fullness.
I tried to last year. The authorial voice got in the way of the plot. :(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/8/2016 8:40 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/7/2016 4:38 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (Too much time with a show with guys in the sky - Doug and Mart.)
>
> Thanks, I've not heard this episode. So I won't read the transcript. :-D
I've just listened to it. It was a good one. :)
Thanks again.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 08 May 2016 00:52:27 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> On 08/05/16 00:21, Doctor John wrote:
>>
>> OK. Got it (I can't speak for Stephen tho')
>>
>>
> ... and to demonstrate I really did use G****e:
> CAROLYN (interrupting): No, no, no, no, no. Let me spell this out for
> you in words of one syllable.
I knew you did. :)
> John (a mono-syllabic name)
LOL
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 08 May 2016 08:40:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/7/2016 4:38 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (Too much time with a show with guys in the sky - Doug and Mart.)
>
> Thanks, I've not heard this episode. So I won't read the transcript. :-D
>
> You were a bit too cryptic with your clues.
>
>> Doug and Mart
>
> I would never think of them as Doug and Mart. Only as Douglas and
> Martin.
> Thanks for the clue about the double quotes. I needed it.
> If either of us had gotten it, it would have been a brilliant link. (I
> wonder how many more from that series I've missed.)
I seemed to recall that in one episode, Douglas introduced them to the
passengers in that manner. :)
>
>
> And what's with the "G" word?
> Is it not allowed to say it in polite society?
I was playing the game - Goo-gle is two syllables, hence I had to work
around that problem. :)
> Have we gone back to the days when mentioning IBM was verboten?
Nah. :)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 08 May 2016 17:47:42 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/8/2016 8:40 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 5/7/2016 4:38 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> (Too much time with a show with guys in the sky - Doug and Mart.)
>>
>> Thanks, I've not heard this episode. So I won't read the transcript.
>> :-D
>
>
> I've just listened to it. It was a good one. :)
> Thanks again.
You bet - all of them were good, but I particularly did like Wokingham. :)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/05/2016 20:35, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 06/05/2016 11:48 AM, scott wrote:
>> Yes I got mine overnight, I've just been reading through the user guide.
>> It's written in much the same manner as a book would be on digital
>> circuits, start off with what a "zero" and "one" is, then simple logic
>> gates, more complex circuits, then latches and adders, then things like
>> RAM and a CPU.
>
> Question: Are there any books out there that actually *do* that?
>
> I mean, what little I know about digital logic is gleaned from
> children's books and Wikipedia. I've never seen a *book* that actually
> *explains* this stuff. (Unless it's an electronics book, in which case
> it talks about impedance and capacitance and other such irrelevant
> details.)
It's not irrelevant if you actually plan to make anything work. All
digital electronics (apart from in some basic simulator) is analog
anyway :-) The book I've seen thrown about in many places is this one:
http://artofelectronics.net/the-book/table-of-contents/
Chapter 10 is "digital electronics", but many of the preceding chapters
are worth understanding before you start to make anything "digital". In
the end, a digital "gate" is actually just transistors, so if you
understand how transistors work you'll understand why a gate behaves the
way it does.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2016 14:43, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/8/2016 12:55 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>>> Now, was it not "grok"? Showing my age...
>> Indeed it was.
>
> <Slaps own lazy wrist>
>
>> Re-read SiaSL and grok in fullness.
>
> I tried to last year. The authorial voice got in the way of the plot. :(
>
Indeed. I tried too and didn't get very far.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> One thing is absolutely certain though, I'm not about to write a
>> raytracer to run on this thing anytime soon :-)
>>
>
> Since the current computer has a whopping 5 qbits, you have plenty of
> time to learn. IIRC the current state of the art in quantum computation
> is the ability to write a program which proves with high probability
> that 15=5*3, so 3D rendering is a ways off yet.
Grover's algorithm looks interesting, if I ever get that far in the
tutorial. But yes, with just 5 qbits, things are a bit limited...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 7:45 AM, scott wrote:
> It's not irrelevant if you actually plan to make anything work. All
> digital electronics (apart from in some basic simulator) is analog
> anyway :-) The book I've seen thrown about in many places is this one:
>
> http://artofelectronics.net/the-book/table-of-contents/
>
If the content lives up to the TOC. That looks like an excellent book.
If Andrew has not already done it. It would be good to breadboard the
circuits as you do them.
> Chapter 10 is "digital electronics", but many of the preceding chapters
> are worth understanding before you start to make anything "digital". In
> the end, a digital "gate" is actually just transistors, so if you
> understand how transistors work you'll understand why a gate behaves the
> way it does.
A very good point. Most people think that a digital transistor is
different from a transistor for an amplifier.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/2016 07:45 AM, scott wrote:
> On 06/05/2016 20:35, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Question: Are there any books out there that actually *do* that?
>>
>> I mean, what little I know about digital logic is gleaned from
>> children's books and Wikipedia. I've never seen a *book* that actually
>> *explains* this stuff. (Unless it's an electronics book, in which case
>> it talks about impedance and capacitance and other such irrelevant
>> details.)
>
> It's not irrelevant if you actually plan to make anything work. All
> digital electronics (apart from in some basic simulator) is analog
> anyway :-)
Yeah, but it helps to understand the theory before throwing all the
obfuscating real-world complexities into the mix.
> The book I've seen thrown about in many places is this one:
>
> http://artofelectronics.net/the-book/table-of-contents/
>
> Chapter 10 is "digital electronics", but many of the preceding chapters
> are worth understanding before you start to make anything "digital".
OK, I'll take a look.
> In
> the end, a digital "gate" is actually just transistors, so if you
> understand how transistors work you'll understand why a gate behaves the
> way it does.
Or, to put it more correctly, an arrangement of transistors is an
imperfect implementation of how a logic gate is supposed to behave.
Presumably if you were to build a gate out of water valves or lego
bricks, it would have a different set of imperfections.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/2016 10:21 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 a dit:
> Presumably if you were to build a gate out of water valves
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/graphics/76-07-18.png
--
http://weblog.mixart-myrys.org/?post/2016/03/De-la-temporalisation
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I mean, what little I know about digital logic is gleaned from
>>> children's books and Wikipedia. I've never seen a *book* that actually
>>> *explains* this stuff. (Unless it's an electronics book, in which case
>>> it talks about impedance and capacitance and other such irrelevant
>>> details.)
>>
>> It's not irrelevant if you actually plan to make anything work. All
>> digital electronics (apart from in some basic simulator) is analog
>> anyway :-)
>
> Yeah, but it helps to understand the theory before throwing all the
> obfuscating real-world complexities into the mix.
My electronics course at university, and that book I linked to, both
take the approach of teaching the "real-world" stuff first. In fact, my
university electronics course started with explaining what
"conductivity" meant in terms of electrons. I guess you could ignore all
that and assume all logic gates are ideal, but typically that's not
going to be very useful for anything.
>> In
>> the end, a digital "gate" is actually just transistors, so if you
>> understand how transistors work you'll understand why a gate behaves the
>> way it does.
>
> Or, to put it more correctly, an arrangement of transistors is an
> imperfect implementation of how a logic gate is supposed to behave.
>
> Presumably if you were to build a gate out of water valves or lego
> bricks, it would have a different set of imperfections.
Of course, but for every gate designed and built using lego or water,
there are probably billions done in silicon, so it's a bit more useful
to learn about that first. Especially if you ever plan on building any
circuit (didn't you say you tried a simple circuit before and it failed?).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 9:21 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> Yeah, but it helps to understand the theory before throwing all the
> obfuscating real-world complexities into the mix.
>
Remember we are thinking Quantum here which is a real-world complexity.
>
>> In
>> the end, a digital "gate" is actually just transistors, so if you
>> understand how transistors work you'll understand why a gate behaves the
>> way it does.
>
> Or, to put it more correctly, an arrangement of transistors is an
> imperfect implementation of how a logic gate is supposed to behave.
>
> Presumably if you were to build a gate out of water valves or lego
> bricks, it would have a different set of imperfections.
If you can get Quantum effects from Lego. The world is your mollusc. :-P
You need to get out of the mindset of:
"One is one and all alone and ever more shall be so."
Quantum is playing the cracks between the keys of the piano.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/16 10:22, Stephen wrote:
>
> Quantum is playing the cracks between the keys of the piano.
>
Now _that_ is a seriously good mental image.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 10:52 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 09/05/16 10:22, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Quantum is playing the cracks between the keys of the piano.
>>
>
> Now _that_ is a seriously good mental image.
>
> John
>
Thanks, but I got it from James Blish's 1954 short story "Beep"
I'm sure there is a line that says physics is physics and you can't play
the cracks of the piano
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/2016 09:54 AM, scott wrote:
>>> It's not irrelevant if you actually plan to make anything work. All
>>> digital electronics (apart from in some basic simulator) is analog
>>> anyway :-)
>>
>> Yeah, but it helps to understand the theory before throwing all the
>> obfuscating real-world complexities into the mix.
>
> My electronics course at university, and that book I linked to, both
> take the approach of teaching the "real-world" stuff first. In fact, my
> university electronics course started with explaining what
> "conductivity" meant in terms of electrons. I guess you could ignore all
> that and assume all logic gates are ideal, but typically that's not
> going to be very useful for anything.
I guess it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is "design
circuitry that can be manufactured in the real world and sold to people
at a profit", there's an awful lot of real-world stuff that's quite
important. If your goal is "I wonder how my PC works", then... not so much.
>> Presumably if you were to build a gate out of water valves or lego
>> bricks, it would have a different set of imperfections.
>
> Of course, but for every gate designed and built using lego or water,
> there are probably billions done in silicon, so it's a bit more useful
> to learn about that first. Especially if you ever plan on building any
> circuit (didn't you say you tried a simple circuit before and it failed?).
Tangentially:
https://hackaday.com/2016/04/30/megaprocessor-is-a-macro-microprocessor/
Apparently the LEDs consume most of the power. And where I was thinking
that LEDs are extremely low-power...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/16 11:12, Stephen wrote:
>
> Thanks, but I got it from James Blish's 1954 short story "Beep"
> I'm sure there is a line that says physics is physics and you can't play
> the cracks of the piano
>
For no apparent reason, I was immediately reminded of Leonard Cohen's
'Anthem'.
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-5-2016 13:12, Doctor John wrote:
> On 09/05/16 11:12, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, but I got it from James Blish's 1954 short story "Beep"
>> I'm sure there is a line that says physics is physics and you can't play
>> the cracks of the piano
>>
>
> For no apparent reason, I was immediately reminded of Leonard Cohen's
> 'Anthem'.
>
> There is a crack, a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in.
>
Somehow, I think this would be an interesting Challenge for the TC-RTC.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/16 12:22, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 9-5-2016 13:12, Doctor John wrote:
>>
>> For no apparent reason, I was immediately reminded of Leonard Cohen's
>> 'Anthem'.
>>
>> There is a crack, a crack in everything
>> That's how the light gets in.
>>
>
> Somehow, I think this would be an interesting Challenge for the TC-RTC.
>
Good idea! But rather than just those lines, why not use the whole song
as a source of inspiration?
There are several lines that conjure up (for me at least) some amazing
mental imagery.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 12:22 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 9-5-2016 13:12, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 09/05/16 11:12, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, but I got it from James Blish's 1954 short story "Beep"
>>> I'm sure there is a line that says physics is physics and you can't play
>>> the cracks of the piano
>>>
>>
>> For no apparent reason, I was immediately reminded of Leonard Cohen's
>> 'Anthem'.
>>
>> There is a crack, a crack in everything
>> That's how the light gets in.
>>
>
> Somehow, I think this would be an interesting Challenge for the TC-RTC.
>
>
Seconded.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 12:40 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 09/05/16 12:22, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 9-5-2016 13:12, Doctor John wrote:
>>>
>>> For no apparent reason, I was immediately reminded of Leonard Cohen's
>>> 'Anthem'.
>>>
>>> There is a crack, a crack in everything
>>> That's how the light gets in.
>>>
>>
>> Somehow, I think this would be an interesting Challenge for the TC-RTC.
>>
>
> Good idea! But rather than just those lines, why not use the whole song
> as a source of inspiration?
> There are several lines that conjure up (for me at least) some amazing
> mental imagery.
>
Don't hold your breath. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 11:20 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Tangentially:
>
> https://hackaday.com/2016/04/30/megaprocessor-is-a-macro-microprocessor/
>
There are some strange people in the world. I've read about a couple of
projects like that.
> Apparently the LEDs consume most of the power. And where I was thinking
> that LEDs are extremely low-power...
He uses 10,548 LEDs and at 20 milliamps a pop. That makes, how many amps...?
Now how does he do that?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I guess it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is "design
> circuitry that can be manufactured in the real world and sold to people
> at a profit", there's an awful lot of real-world stuff that's quite
> important. If your goal is "I wonder how my PC works", then... not so much.
Unless, by "how my PC works", you mean why it needs a million tiny (or
not so tiny) capacitors on the motherboard, or why the tracks are laid
out that way, or why certain parts are grounded together and certain
parts are not, or why there are transformers next to the ethernet
socket, why there is a heatsink on some ICs but not others ... etc.
> Tangentially:
>
> https://hackaday.com/2016/04/30/megaprocessor-is-a-macro-microprocessor/
>
> Apparently the LEDs consume most of the power. And where I was thinking
> that LEDs are extremely low-power...
You mean like this one? :-)
http://www.leds4less.co.uk/100w-led-floodlight--ip65-waterproof--1000-watt-equivalent-459-p.asp
Are you aware that you can light your home/office with LEDs now, or
light your way when cycling with them, or even some newer cars use them
for headlights too?
Needless to say, LEDs come in all sizes, but a rough rule of thumb is
that they convert about 10% of the electrical power used into visible
light (the other 90% going to heat). Which makes them "low power",
compared to an equivalent "old" style bulb with the same light output.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.05.2016 um 10:20 schrieb Stephen:
> On 5/9/2016 7:45 AM, scott wrote:
>> Chapter 10 is "digital electronics", but many of the preceding chapters
>> are worth understanding before you start to make anything "digital". In
>> the end, a digital "gate" is actually just transistors, so if you
>> understand how transistors work you'll understand why a gate behaves the
>> way it does.
>
> A very good point. Most people think that a digital transistor is
> different from a transistor for an amplifier.
Try to push an amp or two through a "digital" transistor, and you'll see
that they /are/ different :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 May 2016 10:52:33 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> On 09/05/16 10:22, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Quantum is playing the cracks between the keys of the piano.
>>
>>
> Now _that_ is a seriously good mental image.
I like it.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 4:46 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 09.05.2016 um 10:20 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 5/9/2016 7:45 AM, scott wrote:
>
>>> Chapter 10 is "digital electronics", but many of the preceding chapters
>>> are worth understanding before you start to make anything "digital". In
>>> the end, a digital "gate" is actually just transistors, so if you
>>> understand how transistors work you'll understand why a gate behaves the
>>> way it does.
>>
>> A very good point. Most people think that a digital transistor is
>> different from a transistor for an amplifier.
>
> Try to push an amp or two through a "digital" transistor, and you'll see
> that they /are/ different :P
>
One
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.05.2016 um 14:57 schrieb scott:
> Needless to say, LEDs come in all sizes, but a rough rule of thumb is
> that they convert about 10% of the electrical power used into visible
> light (the other 90% going to heat). Which makes them "low power",
> compared to an equivalent "old" style bulb with the same light output.
With single-wavelength indicator LEDs as in the example, the efficiency
can be a good deal higher (typically about 40% for red LEDs, if
Wikipedia can be trusted on this one).
Still, even indicator LEDs need to be able to compete at least with
indirect daylinght on a sunny day, which is a *shitload* of lumen.
Which is why under many lighting conditions /anything/ employing
reflection -- whether it is reflective LCDs or e-ink -- is more
efficient than even the best LEDs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.05.2016 um 11:52 schrieb Doctor John:
> On 09/05/16 10:22, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Quantum is playing the cracks between the keys of the piano.
>>
>
> Now _that_ is a seriously good mental image.
With slight emphasis on "mental"? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 5:14 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 09.05.2016 um 11:52 schrieb Doctor John:
>> On 09/05/16 10:22, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>> Quantum is playing the cracks between the keys of the piano.
>>>
>>
>> Now _that_ is a seriously good mental image.
>
> With slight emphasis on "mental"? ;)
>
See you, Jimmy!
Pick your ship and name your place. :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/16 17:34, Stephen wrote:
>
> Pick your ship and name your place. :-P
>
To which the traditional reply is:
Outside, now, and if I'm not there in 5 minutes, start without me.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/2016 01:57 PM, scott wrote:
>> I guess it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is "design
>> circuitry that can be manufactured in the real world and sold to people
>> at a profit", there's an awful lot of real-world stuff that's quite
>> important. If your goal is "I wonder how my PC works", then... not so
>> much.
>
> Unless, by "how my PC works", you mean why it needs a million tiny (or
> not so tiny) capacitors on the motherboard,
I have to admit, I have frequently wondered why this *digital* device
has hundreds of *analog* components on it (mostly capacitors and
inductors). I mean, I get why they're on the motherboard rather than on
the silicon die, but why do you need them at all?
> or why the tracks are laid
> out that way, or why certain parts are grounded together and certain
> parts are not, or why there are transformers next to the ethernet
> socket, why there is a heatsink on some ICs but not others ... etc.
Is there a simple relationship between circuit design and heat output? I
mean, is it something as simple as number of switching elements and how
fast they switch per second? Or is it something more complicated?
>> Tangentially:
>>
>> https://hackaday.com/2016/04/30/megaprocessor-is-a-macro-microprocessor/
>>
>> Apparently the LEDs consume most of the power. And where I was thinking
>> that LEDs are extremely low-power...
>
> You mean like this one? :-)
>
>
http://www.leds4less.co.uk/100w-led-floodlight--ip65-waterproof--1000-watt-equivalent-459-p.asp
>
> Are you aware that you can light your home/office with LEDs now, or
> light your way when cycling with them, or even some newer cars use them
> for headlights too?
Well yes, but those aren't what the guy was using. He's not trying to
light the building, just tell you which circuits are on or off. :-P
> Needless to say, LEDs come in all sizes, but a rough rule of thumb is
> that they convert about 10% of the electrical power used into visible
> light (the other 90% going to heat). Which makes them "low power",
> compared to an equivalent "old" style bulb with the same light output.
Interesting. I didn't realise the efficiency was still that low.
(Obviously incandescent bulbs are notoriously inefficient. But I thought
LEDs were a bigger step forward than that...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/2016 01:13 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/9/2016 11:20 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Tangentially:
>>
>> https://hackaday.com/2016/04/30/megaprocessor-is-a-macro-microprocessor/
>
> There are some strange people in the world. I've read about a couple of
> projects like that.
Personally, I say well played to the guy. It must have cost him a damned
*fortune* to do all this!
I see so many projects that are all like "an entire computer built using
only 7400s"... and then you realise they actually meant "ICs in the 74xx
product catalog", not just the 7400 itself. So that means entire
flip-flops, adders, counters, encoders, etc in a single chip, not the
individual logic gates you were expecting. And then you find out it uses
off the shelf 64KB RAM chips. And then the guy added a "graphics card"
that's actually a Raspberry Pi. So... an entire computer with 2,000,000x
the processing power of the "computer" you're building? :-P And at this
point, all kind of credibility is kinda lost.
At least *this* project appears to be doing stuff for real. And he's
obviously given a lot of thought to making it *visual* what's going on,
which is nice. Aesthetics are often forgotten on hard-core electronics
projects like this.
>> Apparently the LEDs consume most of the power. And where I was thinking
>> that LEDs are extremely low-power...
>
> He uses 10,548 LEDs and at 20 milliamps a pop. That makes, how many
> amps...?
>
> Now how does he do that?
I've never built any circuit that uses more than about 3 LEDs. Which
means the power used by the LEDs is negligible. I guess I failed to
anticipate how things stop being negligible when you have a metric tonne
of them! :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-5-2016 13:48, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/9/2016 12:22 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 9-5-2016 13:12, Doctor John wrote:
>>> On 09/05/16 11:12, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, but I got it from James Blish's 1954 short story "Beep"
>>>> I'm sure there is a line that says physics is physics and you can't
>>>> play
>>>> the cracks of the piano
>>>>
>>>
>>> For no apparent reason, I was immediately reminded of Leonard Cohen's
>>> 'Anthem'.
>>>
>>> There is a crack, a crack in everything
>>> That's how the light gets in.
>>>
>>
>> Somehow, I think this would be an interesting Challenge for the TC-RTC.
>>
>>
>
> Seconded.
>
Good. I am going to prepare this for the future. There two possible
lines in fact: the Blish citation and the Cohen lyrics.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.05.2016 um 23:30 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> I have to admit, I have frequently wondered why this *digital* device
> has hundreds of *analog* components on it (mostly capacitors and
> inductors). I mean, I get why they're on the motherboard rather than on
> the silicon die, but why do you need them at all?
To keep the primary components (mostly transistors) firmly within the
range of operating parameters where they behave "digitally".
Most of the capacitors are there to keep the supply voltages stable. You
wouldn't believe how much noise a digital circuit feeds back into its
power supply, and you don't want that noise to feed forward into other
parts of the circuitry.
> Is there a simple relationship between circuit design and heat output? I
> mean, is it something as simple as number of switching elements and how
> fast they switch per second? Or is it something more complicated?
Power consumption (and hence heat output) of modern (i.e. FET-based)
digital electronic circuitry mainly depends on the total number of
transistors changing state every second, because that's when currents flow.
However, the relationship between per-transistor switching frequency and
power consumption is non-linear (presuming the circuitry is operated at
its limits), since higher switching frequencies require faster charge
transfers, which means shorter pulses of higher currents, which in turn
also require higher voltages to drive them.
In addition to this inevitable "payload" power consumption there will be
various parasitic losses, such as from inevitable signal line
inductivities and capacitances, as well as plain old leakage currents,
all of which obviously get worse with increased operating voltages, chip
area and complexity, but in /very/ non-linear ways.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2016 8:12 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 9-5-2016 13:48, Stephen wrote:
>> On 5/9/2016 12:22 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 9-5-2016 13:12, Doctor John wrote:
>>>> On 09/05/16 11:12, Stephen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, but I got it from James Blish's 1954 short story "Beep"
>>>>> I'm sure there is a line that says physics is physics and you can't
>>>>> play
>>>>> the cracks of the piano
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For no apparent reason, I was immediately reminded of Leonard Cohen's
>>>> 'Anthem'.
>>>>
>>>> There is a crack, a crack in everything
>>>> That's how the light gets in.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Somehow, I think this would be an interesting Challenge for the TC-RTC.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Seconded.
>>
>
> Good. I am going to prepare this for the future. There two possible
> lines in fact: the Blish citation and the Cohen lyrics.
>
< :-) >
Noooooooo! I was talking about "Playing on the cracks of the piano"
Leonard Cohen's music should be banned on public health grounds. [Hate
Marmite]
And yes I am up for a flame war. I have principles.
</ :-) >
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Top posting for effect. ;)
Geek porn. :)
On 5/10/2016 9:11 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 09.05.2016 um 23:30 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>
>> I have to admit, I have frequently wondered why this *digital* device
>> has hundreds of *analog* components on it (mostly capacitors and
>> inductors). I mean, I get why they're on the motherboard rather than on
>> the silicon die, but why do you need them at all?
>
> To keep the primary components (mostly transistors) firmly within the
> range of operating parameters where they behave "digitally".
>
> Most of the capacitors are there to keep the supply voltages stable. You
> wouldn't believe how much noise a digital circuit feeds back into its
> power supply, and you don't want that noise to feed forward into other
> parts of the circuitry.
>
>> Is there a simple relationship between circuit design and heat output? I
>> mean, is it something as simple as number of switching elements and how
>> fast they switch per second? Or is it something more complicated?
>
> Power consumption (and hence heat output) of modern (i.e. FET-based)
> digital electronic circuitry mainly depends on the total number of
> transistors changing state every second, because that's when currents flow.
>
> However, the relationship between per-transistor switching frequency and
> power consumption is non-linear (presuming the circuitry is operated at
> its limits), since higher switching frequencies require faster charge
> transfers, which means shorter pulses of higher currents, which in turn
> also require higher voltages to drive them.
>
> In addition to this inevitable "payload" power consumption there will be
> various parasitic losses, such as from inevitable signal line
> inductivities and capacitances, as well as plain old leakage currents,
> all of which obviously get worse with increased operating voltages, chip
> area and complexity, but in /very/ non-linear ways.
>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/10/2016 10:37 AM, Stephen a dit:
> Geek porn. :)
We also do that in Toulouse :)
http://wemakeporn.tetalab.org/
--
http://weblog.mixart-myrys.org/?post/2016/03/De-la-temporalisation
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 10:37 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 09/05/2016 01:13 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 5/9/2016 11:20 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Tangentially:
>>>
>>> https://hackaday.com/2016/04/30/megaprocessor-is-a-macro-microprocessor/
>>
>> There are some strange people in the world. I've read about a couple of
>> projects like that.
>
> Personally, I say well played to the guy. It must have cost him a damned
> *fortune* to do all this!
>
So do I
> I see so many projects that are all like "an entire computer built using
> only 7400s"... and then you realise they actually meant "ICs in the 74xx
> product catalog", not just the 7400 itself. So that means entire
> flip-flops, adders, counters, encoders, etc in a single chip, not the
> individual logic gates you were expecting. And then you find out it uses
> off the shelf 64KB RAM chips. And then the guy added a "graphics card"
> that's actually a Raspberry Pi. So... an entire computer with 2,000,000x
> the processing power of the "computer" you're building? :-P And at this
> point, all kind of credibility is kinda lost.
>
For people of a certain age, 7400s does mean "ICs in the 74xx product
catalogue". For the rest of it I see what you are getting at.
But let me put an alternative view.
They are not obsessives like the guy above but hobbyists. Doing a little
bit is much better than doing nothing but thinking about it. Credit to
them as well.
> At least *this* project appears to be doing stuff for real. And he's
> obviously given a lot of thought to making it *visual* what's going on,
> which is nice. Aesthetics are often forgotten on hard-core electronics
> projects like this.
>
There was a fashion for computers to show the contents of their
registers in a matrix. {Some men believed that you could see the
workings of the computer mind. </Bad Jeremy Clarkson voice }
Another nice detail.
Then again I wouldn't want to be married to him, unless...
I once knew a guy, offshore. Who built a 1:10 scale model of the Flying
Scotsman. Hand turned/formed/riveted down to making the rivets and
threaded screws.
Nice man but don't ask him to a party. :)
>
> I've never built any circuit that uses more than about 3 LEDs. Which
> means the power used by the LEDs is negligible. I guess I failed to
> anticipate how things stop being negligible when you have a metric tonne
> of them! :-P
Ah! the definition of a scientist. :-P
Electronics was my hobby as well as my job. And most companies
encouraged us to do home projects. At least 30% of a project could be
counted on as tinsmithing. (And hoping your power supply was up to the
job after all those modifications.)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 8:50 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 09/05/16 17:34, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Pick your ship and name your place. :-P
>>
>
> To which the traditional reply is:
> Outside, now, and if I'm not there in 5 minutes, start without me.
>
Well?
There is the "See you Jimmie" modifier to take into account and the smiley.
The language is not without its syntax. :)
Which, I think. Puts you into Hump.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2016 9:58 AM, tth wrote:
> On 05/10/2016 10:37 AM, Stephen a dit:
>
>> Geek porn. :)
>
>
> We also do that in Toulouse :)
> http://wemakeporn.tetalab.org/
>
>
And I hope you are very happy doing it. ;)
It looks an interesting project. Art and Technology? No. I got it the
wrong way round.
You could have posted your hackerspaces page. It took me ages to cotton on.
I think it is really great that there are projects like this and the
repairers ones.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/05/16 10:31, Stephen wrote:
>
> Which, I think. Puts you into Hump.
>
I don't know which version you're playing, but, under the Lipka-de Groot
variation, my action entitles me to cross three diagonals. (See also
Henderson's commentary on the 2012 world championship final)
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/05/16 09:36, Stephen wrote:
>
> Noooooooo! I was talking about "Playing on the cracks of the piano"
>
> Leonard Cohen's music should be banned on public health grounds. [Hate
> Marmite]
>
Your musical education is sadly lacking in certain key areas, though you
do score bonus points for appreciating Wagner et al.
> ... I have principles.
>
Don't worry. A short course of amoxycillin will soon cure that :-p
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-5-2016 12:12, Doctor John wrote:
> On 10/05/16 09:36, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Noooooooo! I was talking about "Playing on the cracks of the piano"
>>
>> Leonard Cohen's music should be banned on public health grounds. [Hate
>> Marmite]
>>
>
> Your musical education is sadly lacking in certain key areas, though you
> do score bonus points for appreciating Wagner et al.
>
>> ... I have principles.
>>
>
> Don't worry. A short course of amoxycillin will soon cure that :-p
>
> John
>
Listening to Cohen should be compulsory for certain persons. For example
before or better during a POV-Ray render.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2016 11:12 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 10/05/16 09:36, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Noooooooo! I was talking about "Playing on the cracks of the piano"
>>
>> Leonard Cohen's music should be banned on public health grounds. [Hate
>> Marmite]
>>
>
> Your musical education is sadly lacking in certain key areas, though you
> do score bonus points for appreciating Wagner et al.
>
He goes on a bit as well.
You know the one with Irish princess, a king, a best friend, a forced
marriage, a love potion that looks like a poison. A cheery finale where
the curtain comes down as they all dance around the Maypole.
Ha!
If you are talking modern stuff. Berlioz is your man. Something upbeat.
>> ... I have principles.
>>
>
> Don't worry. A short course of amoxycillin will soon cure that :-p
>
I did not say incorruptibility was one of them. So try again. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2016 12:20 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Listening to Cohen should be compulsory for certain persons. For example
> before or better during a POV-Ray render.
Which chapter of the Spanish Inquisition do you belong to?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-5-2016 13:27, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/10/2016 12:20 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Listening to Cohen should be compulsory for certain persons. For example
>> before or better during a POV-Ray render.
>
> Which chapter of the Spanish Inquisition do you belong to?
>
The tough one. We light the fire under the grill for breakfast.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2016 11:03 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 10/05/16 10:31, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Which, I think. Puts you into Hump.
>>
>
> I don't know which version you're playing, but, under the Lipka-de Groot
> variation, my action entitles me to cross three diagonals. (See also
> Henderson's commentary on the 2012 world championship final)
>
> John
>
Sorry.
I'm playing to the orthodox version of:
"Are you looking at me? Ya bampot. (without reference to hospital food)"
branch.
Sorry for any inconvenience.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2016 12:31 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 10-5-2016 13:27, Stephen wrote:
>> On 5/10/2016 12:20 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Listening to Cohen should be compulsory for certain persons. For example
>>> before or better during a POV-Ray render.
>>
>> Which chapter of the Spanish Inquisition do you belong to?
>>
>
> The tough one. We light the fire under the grill for breakfast.
>
Must be true.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
