 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
