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

On 5/12/2016 5:36 PM, clipka wrote:
> 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.
>

Yes, that's right. My job was to run about with a butterfly net and 
collect the petrol vapour.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/12/2016 6:24 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
> 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.

Nurse!

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 2016-05-10 08:02, also sprach Thomas de Groot:

> 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
>
Oh Romeo and Juliet
Samson and Delilah
Baby you can bet
Their love they couldn't deny
Your words say split
But your words, they lie.
'Cause when we kiss...
oooo
Fire.

-- 
dik

Post a reply to this message

Am 2016-05-11 02:53, also sprach Thomas de Groot:

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

It is already done, and not done.

-- 
dik

Post a reply to this message

On 13-5-2016 0:51, dick balaska wrote:
> Am 2016-05-10 08:02, also sprach Thomas de Groot:
>
>> 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
>>
> Oh Romeo and Juliet
> Samson and Delilah
> Baby you can bet
> Their love they couldn't deny
> Your words say split
> But your words, they lie.
> 'Cause when we kiss...
> oooo
> Fire.
>

Thank you Brother Balaska.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 13-5-2016 0:52, dick balaska wrote:
> Am 2016-05-11 02:53, also sprach Thomas de Groot:
>
>>
>> So, what are you waiting for to implement this in your next alpha?
>> Should have been done yesterday.
>>
>
> It is already done, and not done.
>

Somehow I always get the dead cat.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2016 7:52 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 13-5-2016 0:52, dick balaska wrote:
>> Am 2016-05-11 02:53, also sprach Thomas de Groot:
>>
>>>
>>> So, what are you waiting for to implement this in your next alpha?
>>> Should have been done yesterday.
>>>
>>
>> It is already done, and not done.
>>
>
> Somehow I always get the dead cat.
>

You are doing something wrong, then.
Try going to the world where it's living. See, easy.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 12/05/2016 à 18:30, nemesis a écrit :
> 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
>

By that time, the reflective sphere on a checkered plane meme will be 
replaced by a render made with a quantum computer of the Schrödinger's 
cat in a semi-transparent-polarising box.

"What is the colour of the cat in the box ?" is the input to trigger the 
start of the computation. (White, Black, .... )

Post a reply to this message

>> 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?

It was a while ago I did my electronics course, but I was under the 
impression a FET worked a bit like a voltage controlled resistor. So 
with zero volts on the gate the resistance between drain and source was 
effectively infinite (so no current would flow), and as you increase the 
gate voltage the resistance went down to almost zero at a high enough 
gate voltage (so there would be current flowing, determined by whatever 
the output was connected to, but the voltage drop across the transistor 
would be near-zero).

For digital circuits you switch between fully on and fully off, whereas 
in an analog design (eg audio amplifier) you work in the "inbetween" 
region, controlling the output current based on the gate voltage. In 
this inbetween region, you have a non-zero voltage drop, and a non-zero 
current flow, so this generates heat inside the device according to P=VI.

Feel free to correct me where my understanding :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2016 10:20 AM, scott wrote:
> Feel free to correct me where my understanding :-)

Are you forgetting about the constant heater current? ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Feel free to correct me where my understanding :-)
>
> Are you forgetting about the constant heater current? ;-)

My course was this millennium (just)...

Post a reply to this message

On 13-5-2016 9:28, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/13/2016 7:52 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 13-5-2016 0:52, dick balaska wrote:
>>> Am 2016-05-11 02:53, also sprach Thomas de Groot:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, what are you waiting for to implement this in your next alpha?
>>>> Should have been done yesterday.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is already done, and not done.
>>>
>>
>> Somehow I always get the dead cat.
>>
>
> You are doing something wrong, then.
> Try going to the world where it's living. See, easy.
>

It is living but I burn my fingers instead.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2016 11:52 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Feel free to correct me where my understanding :-)
>>
>> Are you forgetting about the constant heater current? ;-)
>
> My course was this millennium (just)...

Just going back to basics.

There is a look of the quantum about thermionic emission.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2016 1:06 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 13-5-2016 9:28, Stephen wrote:
>> On 5/13/2016 7:52 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 13-5-2016 0:52, dick balaska wrote:
>>>> Am 2016-05-11 02:53, also sprach Thomas de Groot:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what are you waiting for to implement this in your next alpha?
>>>>> Should have been done yesterday.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is already done, and not done.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Somehow I always get the dead cat.
>>>
>>
>> You are doing something wrong, then.
>> Try going to the world where it's living. See, easy.
>>
>
> It is living but I burn my fingers instead.
>

On consideration, I still think that you are doing something wrong.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2016 1:14 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> It is living but I burn my fingers instead.
>>
>
> On consideration, I still think that you are doing something wrong.


Just a shot in the dark. Are you keeping your eye on Maxwell's Demon?


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13-5-2016 14:17, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/13/2016 1:14 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>> It is living but I burn my fingers instead.
>>>
>>
>> On consideration, I still think that you are doing something wrong.
>
>
> Just a shot in the dark. Are you keeping your eye on Maxwell's Demon?
>
>

Argh! Forgot about that one!

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 13.05.2016 um 11:20 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?
> 
> It was a while ago I did my electronics course, but I was under the
> impression a FET worked a bit like a voltage controlled resistor. So
> with zero volts on the gate the resistance between drain and source was
> effectively infinite (so no current would flow), and as you increase the
> gate voltage the resistance went down to almost zero at a high enough
> gate voltage (so there would be current flowing, determined by whatever
> the output was connected to, but the voltage drop across the transistor
> would be near-zero).
> 
> For digital circuits you switch between fully on and fully off, whereas
> in an analog design (eg audio amplifier) you work in the "inbetween"
> region, controlling the output current based on the gate voltage. In
> this inbetween region, you have a non-zero voltage drop, and a non-zero
> current flow, so this generates heat inside the device according to P=VI.
> 
> Feel free to correct me where my understanding :-)

There is a fallacy here: In contrast to a bipolar transistor, where the
voltage drop is more or less constant, in a FET it is the resistance
that is more or less constant (and low but non-zero), while the voltage
drop may actually vary wildly, depending on the current flowing; if
there is /any/ external mechanism that serves to stabilize the voltage
across the FET's source-drain channel, it /will/ remain high, and
according to R=V/I will instead drag the current up with it.

Note that R=V/I can be rewritten as I=V/R, so that P=VI = V^2/R --
meaning that, given a sufficiently stabilized voltage, a constant
near-zero resistance will actually lead to a *near-infinite* power
consumption (and consequently heat generation).

You can easily check this by connecting the terminals of a sufficiently
strong power source, such as a car battery, with a sufficiently constant
low-ohmic resistor, such as a piece of thick copper wire. (Spoiler
alert: *Don't!*)

And voltage-stabilizing elements are abundant in any modern digital
circuitry -- you want the power rails' voltage to be as stabile as
possible, after all; also, all the transistor gates to be switched
inevitably act as capacitances themselves, and you have parasitic
capacitances between the "wires"; at the same time you want to minimize
any current-stabilizing effects, such as parasitic inductivity, as they
stand in the way of increasing operating speed.


So again, no -- the fact that in modern digital circuitry switched-on
FETs don't draw any power is not because of any inherent near-zero
voltage drop in the on-state (as demonstrated above such an effect does
not exist), but because due to the design of the circuitry the current
is, for all purposes and intents, actually zero (which happens to have
the side effect that the voltage drop is indeed also zero) when the
circuitry is in a steady state. (As a matter of fact, switched-on FETs
/do/ consume power whenever they participate in the charging or
discharging of another FET's gate.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.05.2016 um 19:24 schrieb Stephen:

> Yes, that's right. My job was to run about with a butterfly net and
> collect the petrol vapour.

That explains a lot. :)

Post a reply to this message

On 5/17/2016 9:29 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 12.05.2016 um 19:24 schrieb Stephen:
>
>> Yes, that's right. My job was to run about with a butterfly net and
>> collect the petrol vapour.
>
> That explains a lot. :)
>

It does. :P

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> There is a fallacy here: In contrast to a bipolar transistor, where the
> voltage drop is more or less constant, in a FET it is the resistance
> that is more or less constant (and low but non-zero), while the voltage
> drop may actually vary wildly, depending on the current flowing;

I thought the resistance (between source and drain) changes 
significantly as you change the gate voltage though? Otherwise how does 
a FET amplifier work? Like this one:

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/teaching/CDHW/Electronics2/PHY2028-C16.1.gif

That's the bit I'm missing/not understanding. If the effective 
resistance (Vds/Id) is always a constant, near zero (much less than 10K 
I assume), then wouldn't that mean the outputs in that circuit (Vd and 
Vs) were always 7.5V or thereabouts?

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.05.2016 um 10:18 schrieb scott:
>> There is a fallacy here: In contrast to a bipolar transistor, where the
>> voltage drop is more or less constant, in a FET it is the resistance
>> that is more or less constant (and low but non-zero), while the voltage
>> drop may actually vary wildly, depending on the current flowing;
> 
> I thought the resistance (between source and drain) changes
> significantly as you change the gate voltage though? Otherwise how does
> a FET amplifier work? Like this one:

Yes, of course -- the resistance does indeed vary with gate voltage.
However, given a constant gate voltage (which is kind of a prerequisite
for the "digital on" state), the resistance across the drain-source
channel remains pretty much constant.


> http://newton.ex.ac.uk/teaching/CDHW/Electronics2/PHY2028-C16.1.gif
> 
> That's the bit I'm missing/not understanding. If the effective
> resistance (Vds/Id) is always a constant, near zero (much less than 10K
> I assume), then wouldn't that mean the outputs in that circuit (Vd and
> Vs) were always 7.5V or thereabouts?

No, that's a misunderstanding; when I said the resistance was constant
near-zero, I was referring to the "digital on" state. In the "digital
off" state, the resistance is also constant, but near-infinite, and if
the gate is driven with an alternating voltage as is customary in analog
circuitry, the resistance will vary with time.

But varying the drain-source voltage or current will not change the
resistance, so in that sense the resistance can be considered "constant"
(across the drain-source parameter space, rather than time) even in
analog operating modes.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/18/2016 2:48 PM, clipka wrote:
> Yes, of course -- the resistance does indeed vary with gate voltage.
> However, given a constant gate voltage (which is kind of a prerequisite
> for the "digital on" state), the resistance across the drain-source
> channel remains pretty much constant.

I thought Scott was talking about the linear amplification state.

Which is where this part of the thread started. Transistors have three 
states. On, off and in between. The in between state is always there 
even is the transition between on and off is very small. You even get 
ringing in FET circuits.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/18/2016 2:48 PM, clipka wrote:
 > Yes, of course -- the resistance does indeed vary with gate voltage.
 > However, given a constant gate voltage (which is kind of a prerequisite
 > for the "digital on" state), the resistance across the drain-source
 > channel remains pretty much constant.

I thought Scott was talking about the linear amplification state.

Which is where this part of the thread started. Transistors have three 
states. On, off and in between. The in between state is always there 
even is the transition between on and off is very small. You even get 
ringing in FET circuits.

Post a reply to this message

>> Yes, of course -- the resistance does indeed vary with gate voltage.
>> However, given a constant gate voltage (which is kind of a prerequisite
>> for the "digital on" state), the resistance across the drain-source
>> channel remains pretty much constant.
>
> I thought Scott was talking about the linear amplification state.
>
> Which is where this part of the thread started. Transistors have three
> states. On, off and in between. The in between state is always there
> even is the transition between on and off is very small. You even get
> ringing in FET circuits.

I *think* I understand clipka's point now though. In digital circuits, 
because the output of a FET is usually connected to something with 
extremely high impedance (eg the gate of another FET, or through another 
FET that is off), even in the "in between" state still almost no current 
will flow and hence no power will be dissipated.

This is in contrast to if you had a load (eg 1K) connected to the 
output. In this case, there will be almost no power dissipation in the 
FET if it is fully "on" (no voltage drop across the FET) or "off" (no 
current flow), but there will be in the linear amplification state (eg 
when the FET effective resistance matches the output load).

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.05.2016 um 16:51 schrieb scott:
>>> Yes, of course -- the resistance does indeed vary with gate voltage.
>>> However, given a constant gate voltage (which is kind of a prerequisite
>>> for the "digital on" state), the resistance across the drain-source
>>> channel remains pretty much constant.
>>
>> I thought Scott was talking about the linear amplification state.
>>
>> Which is where this part of the thread started. Transistors have three
>> states. On, off and in between. The in between state is always there
>> even is the transition between on and off is very small. You even get
>> ringing in FET circuits.
> 
> I *think* I understand clipka's point now though. In digital circuits,
> because the output of a FET is usually connected to something with
> extremely high impedance (eg the gate of another FET, or through another
> FET that is off), even in the "in between" state still almost no current
> will flow and hence no power will be dissipated.

Um... no. I was contesting the following statement of yours:

"[...] 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."

More specifically, I contested the claim that the normally-zero heat
output in the "on" state was due to the magnitude of the voltage drop. I
made no claims about the "in between" state of the FET.

I may also like to point out that I did not address the case when
/another/ FET, with the drain-source channel wired in series with the
drain-source channel of the FET in question, is switched on. In that
case, a transient current does indeed flow through the FET in question,
and yes, if the FET in question is in fully "on" state, as long as the
other FET is still in the in-between state, that one will have a
sufficiently high resistance to bear the majority of power dissipation.

In such a transitory state of /other/ parts of the circuitry, a totally
switched-on FET will indeed not consume any noteworthy power thanks to a
much lower voltage drop /compared to its neighbor/ -- but power
consumption will still happen, namely in that neighbor.

Post a reply to this message

> Um... no. I was contesting the following statement of yours:
>
> "[...] 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."
>
> More specifically, I contested the claim that the normally-zero heat
> output in the "on" state was due to the magnitude of the voltage drop.

So if you came up with some transistor where the output resistance was 
not near-zero in the "digital on" state, power consumption shouldn't be 
affected?

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.05.2016 um 09:11 schrieb scott:
>> Um... no. I was contesting the following statement of yours:
>>
>> "[...] 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."
>>
>> More specifically, I contested the claim that the normally-zero heat
>> output in the "on" state was due to the magnitude of the voltage drop.
> 
> So if you came up with some transistor where the output resistance was
> not near-zero in the "digital on" state, power consumption shouldn't be
> affected?

Not in the stable state of the system, no.

Except maybe for the few transistors at the boundary to the outside
world, which may see pull-up resistors and external AC loads.


The system's behaviour during state switching is another matter of course.

Thanks to P=V^2/R, increasing the FETs resistance in the "digital on"
state would actually _reduce_ power consumption -- provided you kept
your design unchanged otherwise. However, switching delay would also
increase linearly with resistance, since you would also reduce the
current, and hence the amount of charge you could transfer to/from the
gates per unit of time.

To counteract that increase in switching time, you would have to
increase the voltage linearly, which would increase the power
consumption quadratically. Thanks to the aforementioned reduction in
power consumption from the increased R, you'd end up with the power
consumption increasing linearly with FET resistance if the operating
frequency is to remain the same.

Post a reply to this message

It's not connected to any actual quantum hardware, but I just ran across 
this nifty little quantum circuit simulator that you can run from within 
your browser: http://algorithmicassertions.com/2016/05/22/quirk.html

Post a reply to this message

> It's not connected to any actual quantum hardware, but I just ran across
> this nifty little quantum circuit simulator that you can run from within
> your browser: http://algorithmicassertions.com/2016/05/22/quirk.html

Neat, that looks way better than the IBM one [reads a bit more] oh wait 
yes he notices that too ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 23/05/16 23:42, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> It's not connected to any actual quantum hardware, but I just ran across
> this nifty little quantum circuit simulator that you can run from within
> your browser: http://algorithmicassertions.com/2016/05/22/quirk.html

Thanks for the link, Kevin.

This is in the best traditions of hackerdom (in its old sense):
"I need a tool to do a job. The tools to do this job are either
expensive, inefficient, awkward to use or unavailable; therefore I will
build my own. I will also give it to the rest of the world for free."

Bravo, Craig Gidney

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