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