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

On 10-5-2016 13:33, Stephen wrote:
> 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.
>

Of course we have our anthem too:

You know that it would be untrue
You know that I would be a liar
If I was to say to you
Girl, we couldn't get much higher

Come on baby, light my fire
Come on baby, light my fire
Try to set the night on fire

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.05.2016 um 10:36 schrieb Stephen:

> 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.

And a flame war you can have!
(Cue: Who By Fire)

Seriously -- I see how one might argue about /some/ of his songs, but
let me say just one word:

Suzanne.

Anyone disliking /that/ song must have inhaled too much petrol fumes
while working offshore.

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.05.2016 um 13:20 schrieb Thomas de Groot:

> Listening to Cohen should be compulsory for certain persons. For example
> before or better during a POV-Ray render.

Hear, hear!

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.05.2016 um 14:02 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 10-5-2016 13:33, Stephen wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Of course we have our anthem too:
> 
> You know that it would be untrue
> You know that I would be a liar
> If I was to say to you
> Girl, we couldn't get much higher
> 
> Come on baby, light my fire
> Come on baby, light my fire
> Try to set the night on fire

Nice try, but not Cohen.

(Cue: "Joan of Arc")

Post a reply to this message

On 5/10/2016 4:47 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 10.05.2016 um 10:36 schrieb Stephen:
>
>> 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.
>
> And a flame war you can have!
> (Cue: Who By Fire)
>

Gene Kelly - Singin' In The Rain
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=291ET6Py6H8


> Seriously -- I see how one might argue about /some/ of his songs, but
> let me say just one word:
>
> Suzanne.
>

You're not a fan of "Die Leiden des jungen Werthers" are you, by any 
chance?


> Anyone disliking /that/ song must have inhaled too much petrol fumes
> while working offshore.
>

Funnily enough. It was when I was working offshore I gave up listening 
to pop music.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.05.2016 um 19:38 schrieb Stephen:
> On 5/10/2016 4:47 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 10.05.2016 um 10:36 schrieb Stephen:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> And a flame war you can have!
>> (Cue: Who By Fire)
>>
> 
> Gene Kelly - Singin' In The Rain
> or
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=291ET6Py6H8

Averted!
Praise be to the GEMA who protected me from whatever song may have been
lurking in the video...

>> Seriously -- I see how one might argue about /some/ of his songs, but
>> let me say just one word:
>>
>> Suzanne.
>>
> 
> You're not a fan of "Die Leiden des jungen Werthers" are you, by any
> chance?

Never read it; I've heard that in a nutshell it's about some suicidal
depressive guy. Not sure what that has to do with "Suzanne" though --
while varous of Cohen's songs do indeed tend towards the dark blue end
of the spectrum, I don't think "Suzanne" falls into that category.

>> Anyone disliking /that/ song must have inhaled too much petrol fumes
>> while working offshore.
> 
> Funnily enough. It was when I was working offshore I gave up listening
> to pop music.

You wouldn't call Cohen's music "pop music", would you?

Post a reply to this message

On 5/10/2016 6:56 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 10.05.2016 um 19:38 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 5/10/2016 4:47 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 10.05.2016 um 10:36 schrieb Stephen:

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=291ET6Py6H8
>
> Averted!
> Praise be to the GEMA who protected me from whatever song may have been
> lurking in the video...
>

Happy, happy talk.

>>> Seriously -- I see how one might argue about /some/ of his songs, but
>>> let me say just one word:
>>>
>>> Suzanne.
>>>
>>

24 seconds, I lasted. And that was pushing it.
I would rather listen to something like this.

[Victoria Wood spoiler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKRcm5v30tw

>> You're not a fan of "Die Leiden des jungen Werthers" are you, by any
>> chance?
>
> Never read it;

Hallelujah! You were saved a fate worse than boredom.


^^^
¦¦¦

;-)

> I've heard that in a nutshell it's about some suicidal
> depressive guy. Not sure what that has to do with "Suzanne" though --
> while varous of Cohen's songs do indeed tend towards the dark blue end
> of the spectrum, I don't think "Suzanne" falls into that category.
>

Well there was a whole movement of youths that read it and didn't live 
to be anyone's ancestors.
I may be a wee bit biased. I grew up going to parties where there were 
whole rooms of girls swooning over the thought of a romantic death. And 
the boys competing with each other over who was the most lovelorn*. It 
really put a dampener on things.
And none of them had taken drugs.

I suppose it was pre-goths.
And I don't do introspection, either.

*That may just have been a ploy for nefarious reasons.

>>> Anyone disliking /that/ song must have inhaled too much petrol fumes
>>> while working offshore.
>>
>> Funnily enough. It was when I was working offshore I gave up listening
>> to pop music.
>
> You wouldn't call Cohen's music "pop music", would you?
>

Yes, I would. (For most values of popular.)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.05.2016 um 21:49 schrieb Stephen:

>>>> Seriously -- I see how one might argue about /some/ of his songs, but
>>>> let me say just one word:
>>>>
>>>> Suzanne.
>>>>
>>>
> 
> 24 seconds, I lasted. And that was pushing it.

Tsk, tsk.
Now I'd call you a peasant, but that would be an insult to farmers.


> I would rather listen to something like this.
> 
> [Victoria Wood spoiler]
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKRcm5v30tw

As a novelty -- interesting.
As something to listen to a second time -- nah.

Definitely too much petrol fumes.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/10/2016 10:54 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 10.05.2016 um 21:49 schrieb Stephen:
>
>>>>> Seriously -- I see how one might argue about /some/ of his songs, but
>>>>> let me say just one word:
>>>>>
>>>>> Suzanne.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> 24 seconds, I lasted. And that was pushing it.
>
> Tsk, tsk.
> Now I'd call you a peasant, but that would be an insult to farmers.
>
>

You call that Flame War Bait?

  for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

[by you know who]

>> I would rather listen to something like this.
>>
>> [Victoria Wood spoiler]
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKRcm5v30tw
>
> As a novelty -- interesting.
> As something to listen to a second time -- nah.
>

The difference is. I would listen to it again in a couple of years.


> Definitely too much petrol fumes.
>

BTW Where do you think we got the petrol? The nearest petrol station was 
either in Bergen or Lerwick and helicopters don't use petrol.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.05.2016 um 00:31 schrieb Stephen:

>> Definitely too much petrol fumes.
> 
> BTW Where do you think we got the petrol? The nearest petrol station was
> either in Bergen or Lerwick and helicopters don't use petrol.

Last time I checked, petrol is a component of crude oil, right?

Post a reply to this message

On 5/11/2016 12:52 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 11.05.2016 um 00:31 schrieb Stephen:
>
>>> Definitely too much petrol fumes.
>>
>> BTW Where do you think we got the petrol? The nearest petrol station was
>> either in Bergen or Lerwick and helicopters don't use petrol.
>
> Last time I checked, petrol is a component of crude oil, right?
>

Yes, you get petrol from crude after it has been processed at a refinery.
It doesn't come out of the ground as petrol.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 10-5-2016 17:51, clipka wrote:
> Am 10.05.2016 um 14:02 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 10-5-2016 13:33, Stephen wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Of course we have our anthem too:
>>
>> You know that it would be untrue
>> You know that I would be a liar
>> If I was to say to you
>> Girl, we couldn't get much higher
>>
>> Come on baby, light my fire
>> Come on baby, light my fire
>> Try to set the night on fire
>
> Nice try, but not Cohen.
>
> (Cue: "Joan of Arc")
>

Cohen? No, of course not! He is but one of our saints.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 10-5-2016 17:48, clipka wrote:
> Am 10.05.2016 um 13:20 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>
>> Listening to Cohen should be compulsory for certain persons. For example
>> before or better during a POV-Ray render.
>
> Hear, hear!
>

So, what are you waiting for to implement this in your next alpha? 
Should have been done yesterday.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 5/11/2016 7:53 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 10-5-2016 17:48, clipka wrote:
>> Am 10.05.2016 um 13:20 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>
>>> Listening to Cohen should be compulsory for certain persons. For example
>>> before or better during a POV-Ray render.
>>
>> Hear, hear!
>>
>
> So, what are you waiting for to implement this in your next alpha?
> Should have been done yesterday.
>

You could change this file.
C:\Program Files\POV-Ray\v3.7\sounds\Parse Error.wav


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> 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.

My old company had an LCD design where half of each sub-pixel was 
reflective and half transmissive. It looked just as good under direct 
sunlight as in a dark room. However it needed a much brighter (=larger 
and hotter) backlight and obviously was more expensive. You can find 
this technology in some old high-end Nokia phones and in BMWs with 
built-in satnav older than 2-3 years. I don't think any consumer stuff 
uses those any more unfortunately, mainly due to the high cost, but it's 
still used for military LCDs.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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?

Aha - so you are not just interested in a fictional perfect logic device 
then? :-) Start at the beginning of the book. All will make sense.

> Is there a simple relationship between circuit design and heat output?

voltage x current

> 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?

As clipka mentioned, a transistor used in digital circuits is either in 
a state where the current flow is zero ("off") OR the voltage drop is 
zero ("on"), so heat output is usually zero. It's switching between 
those two states, when both voltage and current are non-zero, that 
significant heat is dissipated within the transistor.

> 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...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy

Post a reply to this message

On 11-5-2016 9:36, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/11/2016 7:53 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 10-5-2016 17:48, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 10.05.2016 um 13:20 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>
>>>> Listening to Cohen should be compulsory for certain persons. For
>>>> example
>>>> before or better during a POV-Ray render.
>>>
>>> Hear, hear!
>>>
>>
>> So, what are you waiting for to implement this in your next alpha?
>> Should have been done yesterday.
>>
>
> You could change this file.
> C:\Program Files\POV-Ray\v3.7\sounds\Parse Error.wav
>
>
LOL You got me.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.05.2016 um 10:05 schrieb scott:

> As clipka mentioned, a transistor used in digital circuits is either in
> a state where the current flow is zero ("off") OR the voltage drop is
> zero ("on"), so heat output is usually zero. It's switching between
> those two states, when both voltage and current are non-zero, that
> significant heat is dissipated within the transistor.

Um... no?

The fact that modern digital circuitry only draws power when switching
between states has nothing to do with the voltage drop across the
transistor; as a matter of fact, the type of transistor used in modern
digital circuitry acts pretty much like a low-ohmic resistor when
switched on, and will happily draw as much current as you happen to
allow it to, accompanied by a corresponding increase in the voltage drop
and a merry self-heating, up to the point of destruction.

The fact that modern digital circuitry draws virtually no power in
stable state is that (1) they use FET (Field Effect Transistor, aka
unipolar transistor) technology, in which the transistor's control
terminal (the "gate") is isolated from the other terminals (the "source"
and "drain"), controlling the source-drain voltage exclusively through
the presence of charge (held there by a sufficiently high
gate-source/drain voltage); as a result, the DC component of the gate
current is zero, i.e. the only time when current flows to or from the
base is when the base voltage is changed. And (2) the FETs are always
wired in such a way that in a stable state each switched-on FET connects
the power rail with nothing but other FETs' gates, or switched-off FETs
that would connect those same gates to the other power rail in the
complementary state.

(So yeah, the voltage drop across a switched-on transistor in a modern
digital circuit typically /is/ zero, but only in the same sense as the
voltage drop across a simple resistor with one terminal wired to a power
source and the other terminal floating in mid-air is also zero.)


Pre-FET-era digital circuitry was instead based on bipolar transistors,
in which a current must flow through the control terminal (called the
"base" in that case) to switch the transistor on. Those transistors did
in fact have a constant voltage drop in the "on" state, but even that
was distinctively non-zero.


(As an interesting side note, the earliest transistor prototypes were
actually FETs; however, they were not feasible to manufacture back then,
so bipolar transistors took the lead for a while.)

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36203043
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen

> General-purpose machines, which IBM calls "universal" quantum computers, will
eventually use more than 100,000 qubits
.

funny name for the measure:  quantum bits, qubits.  homophonous to the biblical
cubits :)

povray for quantum computing?  expect more 20 years, after they get into GPUs

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.05.2016 um 08:09 schrieb Stephen:
> On 5/11/2016 12:52 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 11.05.2016 um 00:31 schrieb Stephen:
>>
>>>> Definitely too much petrol fumes.
>>>
>>> BTW Where do you think we got the petrol? The nearest petrol station was
>>> either in Bergen or Lerwick and helicopters don't use petrol.
>>
>> Last time I checked, petrol is a component of crude oil, right?
>>
> 
> Yes, you get petrol from crude after it has been processed at a refinery.
> It doesn't come out of the ground as petrol.

Ha -- but it does come out of the ground /with/ petrol being part of it!
So where there's crude oil, there /are/ petrol fumes. QED.

Post a reply to this message