 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] aol com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
