Using photonics for real-time processing.
Radium
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt/msg/faea8c19d1bcc8d0?hl=en&
:
> On May 22, 3:47 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 9:14 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 8:52 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > My dream PC is as hardware, real-time, and digital as possible. In
> > > > addition, it uses the least amount of buffering required [hopefully
> > > > none] and experiences the least amount of latency possible [again,
> > > > hopefully none].
> > > This may be your dream but it may also be a nightmare. You also said
> > > you wanted low power and no fan. If you want a lot of speed, you
> > > really want a good cooling system and a whole lot of power. If you
> > > want to make a faster system with low power, you want to make use of
> > > things like lookup tables and hashes.
>
> > Couldn't the problem of excessive heat and large use of power be
> > solved [or at least mitigated] by using lower voltages while still
> > running things in real-time [and with the least amount of storage,
> > software, buffering, and latency possible] and not using fans?
> No. It largely can't be avoided. If you have to do your sine function
> from first principles and you want speed, you need a huge number of
> operations per second.
Do you think the heat generated and power requirements will decrease
when photonic chips are available?
AFAIK, photonic circuits produce less heat than electric circuits.
However I am aware that even when photonics becomes the norm [i.e. if
is does], electricity will still be necessary for power supply.
I am thinking of a purely optical computer that is powered by a main
400 nm laser. The main laser if of course powered by electricity.
This optical PC contains 400 nm lasers but no LEDs. AFAIK, lasers tend
to be more efficient that LEDs.
So do you think a chip based on lasers - instead of electricity - can
be as real-time, hardware, and digital as possible while using the
least amount of buffering required [hopefully none] and experiencing
the least amount of latency possible [again, hopefully none] and at
the same time being high-speed not getting hot enough to need any
cooling equipment?
I think it would be easier to do this in photonics that electronics.
Since electronics seem to easily overheat.
Bob Myers
"Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179985600.5...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Do you think the heat generated and power requirements will decrease
> when photonic chips are available?
If you can describe just what you mean by "photonic
chips" and the principles on which such things might
operate, then maybe that question would be more readily
answered.
Bob M.
SteveH
Or he could just stop talking bollocks
Michael A. Terrell
He would implode. Do you have any idea what kind of mess that would
make?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Radium
> If you can describe just what you mean by "photonic
> chips" and the principles on which such things might
> operate, then maybe that question would be more readily
> answered.
An electronic chip uses electricity for storage, recording, playback,
transmission, reception, and processing of signals.
A photonic chip uses monochromatic light [hopefully in the form of
lasers] for storage, recording, playback, transmission, reception, and
processing of signals.
The problem is, how to store photons?
MooseFET
wrote:
> SteveH wrote:
>
> > Bob Myers wrote:
> > >news:1179985600.5...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > >> Do you think the heat generated and power requirements will decrease
> > >> when photonic chips are available?
>
> > > If you can describe just what you mean by "photonic
> > > chips" and the principles on which such things might
> > > operate, then maybe that question would be more readily
> > > answered.
>
> > > Bob M.
>
> > Or he could just stop talking bollocks
>
> He would implode. Do you have any idea what kind of mess that would
> make?
No, I disagree. He would explode. It would be an exothermic BS
reaction making more heat than light.
Klaus Fehrle
> The problem is, how to store photons?
Holografic memory?
Regards
Klaus
MooseFET
Storing photons directly requires crystals that are supercooled. This
isn't very practical. You really just want to store the information
it contains.
Far less than half the atoms you were made from 10 years ago are still
in your body. You are still you, however. You are the information
encoded in those atoms not the atoms. The same is true of software.
It is not the electrons of photons. It is the bits.
martin griffith
<gluc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Silver Indium Antimony Tellurium alloy?
martin
Donald
Yes, but this is a write _only_ solution.
donald
>
>
> martin
Michael A. Terrell
> > make?
>
> No, I disagree. He would explode. It would be an exothermic BS
> reaction making more heat than light.
I was talking about his vacuum packed head imploding.
krw
kens...@rahul.net says...
> On May 24, 6:11 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 23, 11:21 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > If you can describe just what you mean by "photonic
> > > chips" and the principles on which such things might
> > > operate, then maybe that question would be more readily
> > > answered.
> >
> > An electronic chip uses electricity for storage, recording, playback,
> > transmission, reception, and processing of signals.
> >
> > A photonic chip uses monochromatic light [hopefully in the form of
> > lasers] for storage, recording, playback, transmission, reception, and
> > processing of signals.
> >
> > The problem is, how to store photons?
>
>
> Storing photons directly requires crystals that are supercooled. This
> isn't very practical. You really just want to store the information
> it contains.
>
> Far less than half the atoms you were made from 10 years ago are still
> in your body.
Don't know about you, but I was made a tad longer than ten years ago.
;-)
> You are still you, however. You are the information
> encoded in those atoms not the atoms. The same is true of software.
> It is not the electrons of photons. It is the bits.
Hmm, maybe the concept of the teleporter isn't so bad....
--
Keith
martin griffith
Sorry, I thought it was a light_only_solution
martin
Rich Grise
> Bob Myers wrote:
>> "Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1179985600.5...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>> Do you think the heat generated and power requirements will decrease
>>> when photonic chips are available?
>>
>> If you can describe just what you mean by "photonic
>> chips" and the principles on which such things might
>> operate, then maybe that question would be more readily
>> answered.
>
Is Asperger's more like autism, or more like Tourette's?
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
> MooseFET wrote:
>> On May 24, 2:14 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
>> >
>> > He would implode. Do you have any idea what kind of mess that would
>> > make?
>>
>> No, I disagree. He would explode. It would be an exothermic BS
>> reaction making more heat than light.
>
> I was talking about his vacuum packed head imploding.
Boy, you never miss an opportunity to cast insults, do you?
It must really suck to be you.
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
I keep telling you - you'll have to discover the principles yourself, and
inform the rest of the world how it's done - everybody else thinks it's
impossible.
Good Luck!
Rich
Rich Grise
Sulfur Hydrogen Iodine Tellurium, I'd think. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Radium
> Is Asperger's more like autism, or more like Tourette's?
Asperger's resembles autism and ADHD more than anything else. As a
kid, my diagnosis kept swinging from ADD to ADHD to autism, and back
and forth, until the doctors found my symptoms to specifically match
Asperger's.
Scott Alfter
Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>SteveH wrote:
>>
>> Bob Myers wrote:
>> > "Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1179985600.5...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Do you think the heat generated and power requirements will decrease
>> >> when photonic chips are available?
>> >
>> > If you can describe just what you mean by "photonic
>> > chips" and the principles on which such things might
>> > operate, then maybe that question would be more readily
>> > answered.
>> >
>> > Bob M.
>>
>> Or he could just stop talking bollocks
>
> He would implode. Do you have any idea what kind of mess that would
>make?
As long as he's nowhere nearby, I don't care. Let him implode. :-)
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
martin griffith
Michael A. Terrell
>
> Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > He would implode. Do you have any idea what kind of mess that would
> >make?
>
> As long as he's nowhere nearby, I don't care. Let him implode. :-)
You don't want to watch from a safe distance?
Bob Myers
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:46555795...@earthlink.net...
> SteveH wrote:
>> Or he could just stop talking bollocks
>
>
> He would implode. Do you have any idea what kind of mess that would
> make?
Not to mention the paperwork that would then be involved....
Bob M.
Bob Myers
That's pretty much the answer I expected from you, given
the obviously superficial level of thought you've put into
this, but please note that the above doesn't even come
close to answering the question I posed. "Operating
principles" means far more than a one-word simple
sentence describing the gross functionality you expect to
provide. You need to say something about HOW.
Bob M.
Bob Myers
"krw" <k...@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.20bf7676f...@news.individual.net...
>> encoded in those atoms not the atoms. The same is true of software.
>> It is not the electrons of photons. It is the bits.
>
> Hmm, maybe the concept of the teleporter isn't so bad....
Right - now work out the data rates implied by the transporter
concept. You get a truly scary-big number...
Bob M.
Bob Myers
"Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.24...@example.net...
>
> Sulfur Hydrogen Iodine Tellurium, I'd think. ;-)
>
I was thinking more along the lines of resublimated
thiotimoline with unobtainium interconnects, fabricated
on a substrate of dilithium-passivated polymerized
cavorite.
Bob M.
Rich Grise
Thanks for the info.
Speaking of ADHD, I think it's basically that the kids are bored shitless
- I had "preschool" in my Mom's lap, with her reading to me. By the time
I got to kindergarten, I was already reading at about a 2nd grade level or
so - I think if they'd have invented ADHD in 1952, I would have been put
on ritalin or something. Thank The Force, nowadays I get to choose my own
drugs. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Radium
> You need to say something about HOW.
Using the optical equivalents of the electric stuff in electronic
chips.
Don Bowey
<nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
Data rate and energy use are no problem. Transporters are currently based
on the Radium Theory.
Don
>
> Bob M.
>
>
Michael A. Terrell
Paperwork is no problem, as long as it doesn't involve an ISO 9001
audit. I REALLY HATE ISO 9001 audits!
BTW, while I was stationed at Ft Rucker Alabama in the early '70s the
base clinic was overloaded so I had to take another solider to a
civilian doctor off base. I was waiting in the air conditioned waiting
room when two big civilians walked in and saw me in uniform. They headed
straight for me, to pick a fight. I stood up and told them that I was
required by law to tell them that I had been trained by the US Army to
kill with my bare hands, and that I would fight, but that I only fought
to the death.
I glanced at my watch and told them I had to be somewhere in 22
minutes, and had to leave in 10 minutes. I smiled at the moron in the
back and told him to go call the coroner, that his friend would be dead
within seven minutes if he still wanted to fight.
Just then my friend came out of the back and asked what was going
on. I sighed and said, "These morons want me to fight the big one.".
He said, "Oh, God, Not again!". I shrugged and said, "I've already
warned them that I only fight to the death". He turned to look at them
and said, "Dammit! The last time you killed someone, it took us two
full weeks to to the damn paperwork before they let us go!". You should
have seen them trying to get out of the building. It was like Moe and
Curly of the 'Three Stooges' trying to push their way out through a door
that opened in. :)
A good bluff is better than a good fight, any day! :-)
Michael A. Terrell
>
> Data rate and energy use are no problem. Transporters are currently based
> on the Radium Theory.
AKA Science Friction. ;-)
MooseFET
> In article <1180013423.766028.66...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> kensm...@rahul.net says...
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 6:11 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 11:21 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > If you can describe just what you mean by "photonic
> > > > chips" and the principles on which such things might
> > > > operate, then maybe that question would be more readily
> > > > answered.
>
> > > An electronic chip uses electricity for storage, recording, playback,
> > > transmission, reception, and processing of signals.
>
> > > A photonic chip uses monochromatic light [hopefully in the form of
> > > lasers] for storage, recording, playback, transmission, reception, and
> > > processing of signals.
>
> > > The problem is, how to store photons?
>
> > Storing photons directly requires crystals that are supercooled. This
> > isn't very practical. You really just want to store the information
> > it contains.
>
> > Far less than half the atoms you were made from 10 years ago are still
> > in your body.
>
> Don't know about you, but I was made a tad longer than ten years ago.
The universe was created May 24,1997 including us complete with what
appear to be memories of a time before that.
[....]
> > You are still you, however. You are the information
> > encoded in those atoms not the atoms. The same is true of software.
> > It is not the electrons of photons. It is the bits.
>
> Hmm, maybe the concept of the teleporter isn't so bad....
It would be more like a fax machine. You'd end up with extra copies.
MooseFET
> "Rich Grise" <r...@example.net> wrote in message
Ambihelical crystals of cororite-319 and delerium make a better
substrate for the creation of the rectubular structures.
The little lost angel
You're not getting it. Stating the HOW means sufficient detail that
somebody can actually follow your steps to create such a machine.
Alluding to som unproven equivalents does not make HOW.
What you are saying is the equivalent of me claiming to know how to
build a superluminal space craft by using the superluminal equivalents
of the subluminal stuff in spacecrafts. Which is basically garbage.
--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations,
Lost to the world, Lost to myself
Bob Myers
That's a start. And what ARE those, exactly? Or
is your understanding of this on the same level as
that you've exhibited regarding the "electric stuff"?
Bob M.
Bob Myers
"MooseFET" <kens...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1180056594.2...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> > Sulfur Hydrogen Iodine Tellurium, I'd think. ;-)
>>
>> I was thinking more along the lines of resublimated
>> thiotimoline with unobtainium interconnects, fabricated
>> on a substrate of dilithium-passivated polymerized
>> cavorite.
>
> Ambihelical crystals of cororite-319 and delerium make a better
> substrate for the creation of the rectubular structures.
Perhaps, but I would then worry about the resistance
of such structures to long-term exposure to Cochrane
radiation in transverse bimodal warp fields of the sort
which will be needed for the hyperoscillating photonic
buffer stabilization. I suppose next you'll want to suggest
ionized frijolium as a buffering agent instead, but if so, I
would have to remind you how well THAT sort of thing
held up during the last Kreelak invasion. You continue
to propose this kind of nonsense, and all your base will
belong to us.
Bob M.
R. Steve Walz
>
> On May 23, 11:21 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
> > If you can describe just what you mean by "photonic
> > chips" and the principles on which such things might
> > operate, then maybe that question would be more readily
> > answered.
>
> An electronic chip uses electricity for storage, recording, playback,
> transmission, reception, and processing of signals.
>
> A photonic chip uses monochromatic light [hopefully in the form of
> lasers] for storage, recording, playback, transmission, reception, and
> processing of signals.
>
> The problem is, how to store photons?
You see, this is why this kind of question only appears on newbie
groups, *.basics etc., and that is because it is a common misconception
that such things are directly convertible. The problem with photons is
that we don't have gates that work with them, and they must be converted
to electronic signals each time to run them through electronic gates
to peform processing and then need to be converted back to photons to
send across the chip. This makes the chip many many times the size
required, which is NOT a benefit. Also, the conversion is slower than
just sending them by electronics!! And all lasers, even solid state
ones now are signficantly larger than tiny electronics. There would be
no benefit unless lasers could be pumped in from outside, like power and
ground, and unless there were direct photonic gates that were do-able,
which last I looked was only so using tiny Fabry-Perot interferometers!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rst...@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Radium
> You see, this is why this kind of question only appears on newbie
> groups, *.basics etc., and that is because it is a common misconception
> that such things are directly convertible. The problem with photons is
> that we don't have gates that work with them, and they must be converted
> to electronic signals each time to run them through electronic gates
> to peform processing and then need to be converted back to photons to
> send across the chip. This makes the chip many many times the size
> required, which is NOT a benefit. Also, the conversion is slower than
> just sending them by electronics!! And all lasers, even solid state
> ones now are signficantly larger than tiny electronics. There would be
> no benefit unless lasers could be pumped in from outside, like power and
> ground, and unless there were direct photonic gates that were do-able,
> which last I looked was only so using tiny Fabry-Perot interferometers!
What if the photonic PC is purely optical and is powered by a main 400
nm laser and this main laser is powered by electricity?
JackShepherd
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>SteveH wrote:
>>
>> Bob Myers wrote:
>> > "Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1179985600.5...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Do you think the heat generated and power requirements will decrease
>> >> when photonic chips are available?
>> >
>> > If you can describe just what you mean by "photonic
>> > chips" and the principles on which such things might
>> > operate, then maybe that question would be more readily
>> > answered.
>> >
>> > Bob M.
>>
>> Or he could just stop talking bollocks
>
>
> He would implode. Do you have any idea what kind of mess that would
>make?
This time, you're the idiot (again). There are memory arrays being
made now that have no electrical connection to them at all. They are
manipulated by light on the molecular level, and read by light. They
stand to make OC768 infrastructures look like child's play. Less and
less electrical pathways are the goal with fiber optics.
All you have to do, idiot, is read your weekly copy of EE Times.
JackShepherd
wrote:
>martin griffith wrote:
>> On 24 May 2007 06:11:23 -0700, in sci.electronics.design Radium
>> <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On May 23, 11:21 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you can describe just what you mean by "photonic
>>>>chips" and the principles on which such things might
>>>>operate, then maybe that question would be more readily
>>>>answered.
>>>
>>>An electronic chip uses electricity for storage, recording, playback,
>>>transmission, reception, and processing of signals.
>>>
>>>A photonic chip uses monochromatic light [hopefully in the form of
>>>lasers] for storage, recording, playback, transmission, reception, and
>>>processing of signals.
>>>
>>>The problem is, how to store photons?
>>
>>
>>
>> Silver Indium Antimony Tellurium alloy?
>
>Yes, but this is a write _only_ solution.
>
If one cannot READ it, then it is NOT memory.
JackShepherd
When was the last time you read a copy of EE Times?
You only speak for you.
JackShepherd
You've never heard of holographic memory arrays?
SteveH
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 07:32:01 +0000, SteveH wrote:
>> Bob Myers wrote:
>>> "Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Do you think the heat generated and power requirements will
>>>> decrease when photonic chips are available?
>>>
>>> chips" and the principles on which such things might
>>> operate, then maybe that question would be more readily
>>> answered.
>>
>
>
> Rich
What's that got to do with talking bollocks?
SteveH
martin griffith
Michael A. Terrell
>
> When was the last time you read a copy of EE Times?
That must be your favorite porn magazine. You sure seem to get off
on it.
JackShepherd
Calling it "write only" is a misnomer, at best. Especially by today's
standards.
If it is written to, but never read from, it has no function. If one
checks it to see if the "write" step was successful, then it has been
read.
JackShepherd
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>JackShepherd wrote:
>>
>> When was the last time you read a copy of EE Times?
>
>
> That must be your favorite porn magazine. You sure seem to get off
>on it.
No. However, seeing you in one of your wrong moments has entertainment
value.
MooseFET
wrote:
> Rich Grise wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2007 07:32:01 +0000, SteveH wrote:
> >> Bob Myers wrote:
> >>>news:1179985600.5...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> Do you think the heat generated and power requirements will
> >>>> decrease when photonic chips are available?
>
> >>> If you can describe just what you mean by "photonic
> >>> chips" and the principles on which such things might
> >>> operate, then maybe that question would be more readily
> >>> answered.
>
> >> Or he could just stop talking bollocks
>
> > Is Asperger's more like autism, or more like Tourette's?
>
> > Thanks,
> > Rich
>
> What's that got to do with talking bollocks?
Someone with Aspergers won't understand that it is bollocks until they
find their own way to dal with the subject. Someone with Tourettes
will know that it is bollocks but not be able to stop themselves from
saying them.
As you can see it makes a huge difference. In the Aspergers case, it
may be best to try again on explaining the subject. Perhaps you will
hit on the formulation that works. In the Tourettes case, you are
best to ignore the outbursts and try to stay with the main thread of
the discussion.
Bob Myers
"JackShepherd" <SomewhereOnT...@Someplaceintime.org> wrote in
message news:mp3d531k50lnres6j...@4ax.com...
> You've never heard of holographic memory arrays?
Yes, I have. A "holographic" memory array is hardly an example
of something that demonstrates the principles required for the
full system that our "friend" Radium seems to be envisioning
here. Or are you under the impression that "memory arrays" perform
"processing"?
> When was the last time you read a copy of EE Times?
I'm a bit late on this week's issue, since my copy would be back
in the office and I've been at a tech conference all week. Now,
please permit me to ask a question - are you usually in the habit
of coming in late to threads such as this one, taking them far more
seriously than they could possibly deserve, and spouting such
nonsense (apparently with the primary motivation being the
demostration of your own possession of a copy of an industry
journal)? I ask simply because I want to know whether or not to
killfile you now, or if you intend to actually contribute something of
worth to the group at some point in the future.
Bob M.
Don Bowey
<nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
Good post. I was too lazy to say it, but you said it all, and very well.
Don
SteveH
Hmmmm..
Michael A. Terrell
Damn, you're thick! You are the first moron that I've ever heard of
who can't see that it was a joke. It was an 'April Fools Day' joke from
Signetics in 1972, and a VERY well known classic. I guess that you've
never learned to read a datasheet because you spend too much time in the
bathroom with the EE Times?
Michael A. Terrell
Really? You sure made a fool of yourself with that Signetics data
sheet. Even the kids at the Vocational Electronics I mentored course
got it.
Daniel Mandic
> All you have to do, idiot, is read your weekly copy of EE Times.
Well. So why do you read SEB? You have alredy EE...
Best Regards,
Daniel Mandic
martin griffith
A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip
>> >>>>>The problem is, how to store photons?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Silver Indium Antimony Tellurium alloy?
>> >>>
>> >>>Yes, but this is a write _only_ solution.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> If one cannot READ it, then it is NOT memory.
>> >
>> >
>> >http://academics.vmi.edu/ee_js/Research/IC_Datasheets/digital_cmos/Write%20Only%20Memory.pdf
>> >
>>
>> Calling it "write only" is a misnomer, at best. Especially by today's
>> standards.
>>
>> If it is written to, but never read from, it has no function. If one
>> checks it to see if the "write" step was successful, then it has been
>> read.
>
>
> Damn, you're thick! You are the first moron that I've ever heard of
>who can't see that it was a joke. It was an 'April Fools Day' joke from
>Signetics in 1972, and a VERY well known classic. I guess that you've
>never learned to read a datasheet because you spend too much time in the
>bathroom with the EE Times?
Is the EE times any good as a replacement for anal cleansing lamina?
martin
Michael A. Terrell
You put it on the floor and set your pet on it. if it glances down
and sees what its standing on it will walk off the EE Times and crap on
the floor.
As far as toilet paper, those glossy pages are full of clay and can
cut you, if you're not careful.
The little lost angel
>What if the photonic PC is purely optical
How?
Radium
lost angel) wrote:
> On 24 May 2007 23:00:11 -0700, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >What if the photonic PC is purely optical
>
> How?
I wish I knew. My guess is, it would contain optical components that
are analogous to the electric components of electronic PCs.
Daniel Mandic
> On 24 May 2007 23:00:11 -0700, Radium <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What if the photonic PC is purely optical
>
> How?
How!
We already heard that there are no Light-Memory DDR4 RAM available. No
Chips at all...
There are various communication things going with light and very fast,
but ending always into an Electronic IC etc. AFAIK.
Best regards,
Daniel Mandic
Daniel Mandic
> I wish I knew. My guess is, it would contain optical components that
> are analogous to the electric components of electronic PCs.
Hi Radium!
Of course, you can carry your Ferrari on the back of your Pick-up, when
you drive for shopping.
If it is not Quantic-Mechanic then I don't know, but It's not digital
anymore. The Potence by 2 is a bottleneck, IMHO.
Makes much heat when big byte broad quality is accuired, etc.
Errm.
Best regards,
Daniel Mandic
krw
gluc...@gmail.com says...
You do realize that photons don't interact with each others, as
opposed to electrons.
--
Keith
Robert Myers
>
> You do realize that photons don't interact with each others, as
> opposed to electrons.
>
Check with your local field theorist before trying this at home.
Robert.
Radium
> You do realize that photons don't interact with each others, as
> opposed to electrons.
Yes.
JackShepherd
<nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
> - are you usually in the habit
>of coming in late to threads such as this one, taking them far more
>seriously than they could possibly deserve, and spouting such
>nonsense (apparently with the primary motivation being the
>demostration of your own possession of a copy of an industry
>journal)?
Fuck you. This is Usenet, and not everyone reads every thread at the
same time it is started, or at the same time your stupid ass does.
Just like you don't read every copy of EE Times the same time I do, or
apparently, Radium does.
That is all he does. He reads about a new technology (or old in this
case), and then asked a question about it to see how many of you
"experts" even have a clue about what is going on.
You apparently don't, since it IS being put to use, and they ARE doing
away with as many electrical connections in such links as possible.
JackShepherd
<nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
> I ask simply because I want to know whether or not to
>killfile you now, or if you intend to actually contribute something of
>worth to the group at some point in the future.
Fuck you, asswipe. Your put downs of the OP show that it is YOU that
needs to be filtered.
JackShepherd
1) It was the cover story article.
2) Not everyone reads Usenet articles at the same time, nor at the time
they are started.
3) Yes, you are lazy.
4) and a bit stupid if you think what he wrote was "said very well".
JackShepherd
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Damn, you're thick! You are the first moron that I've ever heard of
>who can't see that it was a joke. It was an 'April Fools Day' joke from
>Signetics in 1972, and a VERY well known classic. I guess that you've
>never learned to read a datasheet because you spend too much time in the
>bathroom with the EE Times?
scale one to ten.
The signetics joke class: 10
Your joke class: 1 or less.
Your level of immaturity: above ten.
JackShepherd
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>JackShepherd wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:41:19 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
>> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >JackShepherd wrote:
>> >>
>> >> When was the last time you read a copy of EE Times?
>> >
>> >
>> > That must be your favorite porn magazine. You sure seem to get off
>> >on it.
>>
>> No. However, seeing you in one of your wrong moments has entertainment
>> value.
>
>
> Really? You sure made a fool of yourself with that Signetics data
>sheet. Even the kids at the Vocational Electronics I mentored course
>got it.
I was talking about you railing Radium on a topic you obviously know
nothing about.
JackShepherd
Taking your maturity lessons from Terrell, I see.
Bathroom humor and porn lames are his speed, but you as well? Sad.
krw
gluc...@gmail.com says...
Then you must also understand that an optical transistor is going to
be a problem.
--
Keith
Michael A. Terrell
Yawn.
Michael A. Terrell
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:37:50 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >JackShepherd wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:41:19 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
> >> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >JackShepherd wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> When was the last time you read a copy of EE Times?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That must be your favorite porn magazine. You sure seem to get off
> >> >on it.
> >>
> >> No. However, seeing you in one of your wrong moments has entertainment
> >> value.
> >
> >
> > Really? You sure made a fool of yourself with that Signetics data
> >sheet. Even the kids at the Vocational Electronics I mentored course
> >got it.
>
> I was talking about you railing Radium on a topic you obviously know
> nothing about.
Ok, jackoff. Tell us who sells this breakthrough optical memory. AT
THE MOMENT IT IS ONLY A LABORATORY CURIOSITY. 20 + years ago Bubble
memory was supposed to be the biggest computing breakthrough ever. When
was the last time you saw a computer with working bubble memory? You're
living in a fantasy land, just like Radium. I suppose you believe all
of his other theories, as well.
Michael A. Terrell
Aren't you due back at the home?
Mark Zenier
Bob Myers <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>"JackShepherd" <SomewhereOnT...@Someplaceintime.org> wrote in
>message news:mp3d531k50lnres6j...@4ax.com...
>> You've never heard of holographic memory arrays?
>
>Yes, I have. A "holographic" memory array is hardly an example
>of something that demonstrates the principles required for the
>full system that our "friend" Radium seems to be envisioning
>here. Or are you under the impression that "memory arrays" perform
>"processing"?
Maybe Radium has a library of old "Electronics" magazines from the
1960/70s. There was a multi-part saga of an outfit promising a "Laser"
computer using optical processing with capabilities a magnitude greater
than the state of the art of the time. So someone at Boeing Computer
Services, knowing that it was some sort of stock scam, ordered one to
call their bluff. At which time the "entrepreneur" turned the tables and
announced the order, claiming that Boeing was endorsing his technology.
It, of course, faded away rapidly, but provided much amusement.
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
Don Bowey
"JackShepherd" <SomewhereOnT...@Someplaceintime.org> wrote:
So what? Not everyone reads EE Times. Your implying that you do read it is
useless and supercilious.
>
> 2) Not everyone reads Usenet articles at the same time, nor at the time
> they are started.
But the intelligent readers start at the beginning so they can contribute in
context to later posts rather than appear as the egocentric fool you appear
to be.
>
> 3) Yes, you are lazy.
Not so lazy that I don't at least scan the EE Times when it arrives. Your
references to it were crap.
>
> 4) and a bit stupid if you think what he wrote was "said very well".
I understand why you disagree with us; you are in denial. Your post were
shallow.
Daniel Mandic
Your words end to nowhere.
You have to keep care when you knock on a Number like Mr. Terell.
Graham is even more worse when haggling back.
Best Regards,
Daniel Mandic
JackShepherd
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Ok, jackoff. Tell us who sells this breakthrough optical memory. AT
>THE MOMENT IT IS ONLY A LABORATORY CURIOSITY. 20 + years ago Bubble
>memory was supposed to be the biggest computing breakthrough ever. When
>was the last time you saw a computer with working bubble memory? You're
>living in a fantasy land, just like Radium. I suppose you believe all
>of his other theories, as well.
It seems that you have been sleeping again. Ever heard of MRAM?
You lose... again.
Not a lab curiosity, chump. Neither is the technology that was
mentioned by the magazine last week.
Don Bowey
"JackShepherd" <SomewhereOnT...@Someplaceintime.org> wrote:
MRAM is not optical, jackass.
Try finding something with relevance to the topic.
You lose... Again.
JackShepherd
Try reading, next time, JCKASS. The dolt was talking about magnetic
bubble memory. MRAM is today's modern equivalent.
You are fucking lost.
>
>Try finding something with relevance to the topic.
Try not telling me what to do, JACKASS.
>You lose... Again.
No. I was right. You just don't know how to fucking read.
You lose... Again.
Don Bowey
"JackShepherd" <SomewhereOnT...@Someplaceintime.org> wrote:
This was the topic topic, since you can't seem to follow it. It was
addressed to you:
"Ok, jackoff. Tell us who sells this breakthrough optical memory."
The bubble memory comment was an aside.
JackShepherd
They will be marketing it next year. Do your own research, idiot. I
told you where the article is. Do you have a problem with that?
Do you even know what OC768 is? It will beat that by about 16 times.
>
>The bubble memory comment was an aside.
>
So was the MRAM response, you dumbfuck.
Don Bowey
"JackShepherd" <SomewhereOnT...@Someplaceintime.org> wrote:
As a matter of fact, yes I know what OC768 is. But your mentioning it
doesn't bless you with any detail knowledge of it. Same with your
topic-dropping previous comments.
You have a problem of staying on=topic, and/or of trying to move the topic
as a self-serving CYA move.
IF it is pertinent to the topic of optical memory (THE topic), please tell
us what is the "IT" that will beat the OC768 transmission rate by 16 times.
>
>>
>> The bubble memory comment was an aside.
>>
> So was the MRAM response, you dumbfuck.
It was the ONLY thing to which you responded. That pretty much makes it
something other than an aside comment, dumbard.
Bernd Paysan
Nah, that's completely correct - photons in a vacuum basically don't
interact with each others. It's a bit more complicated in QFT, but the
difference is small enough to be neglected. Gravitational forces between
photons are even less.
But: Photons can affect electrons, and vice versa. Within a transparent
material, both happens, so photons get some of the electron properties.
They can even interact with each others. People have found photonic gates
and transistors more than a decade ago. But it's not so easy to build a
complete photonic computer.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
JackShepherd
>
>You have a problem of staying on=topic, and/or of trying to move the topic
>as a self-serving CYA move.
Bullshit, idiot. HE mentioned bubble memory, not me, dumbass.
I RESPONDED to his challenge.
YOU are too fucking stupid to grasp that concept.
Bob Myers
"Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180133583.4...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 25, 2:57 pm, a?n?g?...@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little
> lost angel) wrote:
>> On 24 May 2007 23:00:11 -0700, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >What if the photonic PC is purely optical
>>
>> How?
>
> I wish I knew. My guess is, it would contain optical components that
> are analogous to the electric components of electronic PCs.
But, of course, that's not even a guess. It is the
equivalent of a five-year-old making up an invisible
monster to explain the mess in his room.
Bob M.
Bob Myers
"JackShepherd" <SomewhereOnT...@Someplaceintime.org> wrote in
message news:836f5359uu150fsfl...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 09:06:45 -0600, "Bob Myers"
> <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> - are you usually in the habit
>>of coming in late to threads such as this one, taking them far more
>>seriously than they could possibly deserve, and spouting such
>>nonsense (apparently with the primary motivation being the
>>demostration of your own possession of a copy of an industry
>>journal)?
>
>
> Fuck you. This is Usenet, and not everyone reads every thread at the
> same time it is started, or at the same time your stupid ass does.
What a wonderfully mature response.
Of course, the fact that this IS a Usenet groupOr means
that one can always review the entire thread before
jumping in with both feet in one's mouth...unless, of
course, that's simply too much trouble for you.
Or has this simply not yet occured to you?
Bob M.
.
Bob Myers
"JackShepherd" <SomewhereOnT...@Someplaceintime.org> wrote in
message news:l86f53h8des5rmoq6...@4ax.com...
Please feel free to do so. Also please at least try to imagine
the degree of mental anguish that your "filtering" of my posts
will cause me. I have no idea how I will manage to carry on,
and yet, somehow, I suspect that I will.
Bob M.
Michael A. Terrell
>
> Try reading, next time, JCKASS. The dolt was talking about magnetic
> bubble memory. MRAM is today's modern equivalent.
Bullshit. I suppose that you think that the FET is the modern
equivalent of the Deforest Audion?
Freescale has ONE lousy MRAM part, a lousy 256k * 16 at $22.51 each, per
thousand. they are overpriced, and require magnetic shielding. Talk
about a "Boutique Part" It would take eight of them to replace a single
flash memory, and the price takes them completely out of the picture.
You lose, it would NEVER pass design review. Its too expensive, takes
too much board space and requires special shielding, yet has nothing on
the positive side. OTOH, the "Capstore" SRAM that was sold by ZMD was a
very useful part that I put into a design that is on the International
Space Station. http://www.zmd.de/pdf/CapStore.pdf
You are too dense to realize that EE times is a "gee whiz"
publication, like Popular Mechanics and the "Flying Car" articles they
used to run. yes, it COULD be built, but there is no valid reason to do
it.
If you like MRAM so much, why don't you put 4 GB of it in your PC?
So, once again it seems you are the DOLT, dolt.
Michael A. Terrell
>
> They will be marketing it next year.
In real years, or marketing years? I guess that you like to let
marketing people blow smoke up your ass?
Don Bowey
Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> JackShepherd wrote:
>>
>> They will be marketing it next year.
>
>
> In real years, or marketing years? I guess that you like to let
> marketing people blow smoke up your ass?
>
Maybe he IS a marketeer. Sounds like one; knows lots of words, but doesn't
know zip.
Michael A. Terrell
I doubt that he's smart enough for marketing, even though that is
near the bottom of the corporate food chain. Maybe he's the Janitor at
EE times? Janitors get a lot of smoke, too.
The little lost angel
wrote:
>On 5/26/07 1:45 PM, in article bu6h53l4hnb6mpvnr...@4ax.com,
>"JackShepherd" <SomewhereOnT...@Someplaceintime.org> wrote:
>> They will be marketing it next year. Do your own research, idiot. I
>> told you where the article is. Do you have a problem with that?
>> Do you even know what OC768 is? It will beat that by about 16 times.
>
>IF it is pertinent to the topic of optical memory (THE topic), please tell
>us what is the "IT" that will beat the OC768 transmission rate by 16 times.
I think he's talking about this
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199501146
From it
>The storage portion, called the Compact Holographic Data Storage (CHDS)
>system, is "in the development stage," and Gladney said a prototype
>should be ready in the fourth quarter, followed by a commercial product
>in 2008. The 160-Gbit networking unit is "in the research stage" and
>will require another 24 or 36 months "in terms of being ready for
>commercial consideration," he said
and this
>AON's game plan includes a page from the past, specifically its use of
>a lithium niobate crystal as a holographic storage medium. Crystal
>storage "was explored rigorously in the 1990s" by researchers at IBM Corp.
>and elsewhere, but the technology did not yield a commercial product, Gladney said.
Their home page at www.accessopt.com isn't exactly confidence
inspiring and product specs hasn't been updated since 2005. Given the
comment in the article that they *need* 8 million in near term
funding, I suspect they might be talking up vapourware in order to
raise funds just to operate.
Although seriously, the 16x OC768 comment is irrelevant because that's
refering to the networking module's speed, not the optical storage.
--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations,
Lost to the world, Lost to myself
krw
mike.t...@earthlink.net says...
> Don Bowey wrote:
> >
> > On 5/26/07 5:20 PM, in article 4658CEDE...@earthlink.net, "Michael A.
> > Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > JackShepherd wrote:
> > >>
> > >> They will be marketing it next year.
> > >
> > >
> > > In real years, or marketing years? I guess that you like to let
> > > marketing people blow smoke up your ass?
> > >
> >
> > Maybe he IS a marketeer. Sounds like one; knows lots of words, but doesn't
> > know zip.
>
>
> I doubt that he's smart enough for marketing, even though that is
> near the bottom of the corporate food chain. Maybe he's the Janitor at
> EE times? Janitors get a lot of smoke, too.
Anymore, Janator at EE Times is likely one of the more respected
jobs. At least one presumes they do an honest day's work, rather
than lay on their back with their legs spread.
--
Keith
The little lost angel
>On May 25, 2:57 pm, a?n?g?...@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little
>lost angel) wrote:
>> On 24 May 2007 23:00:11 -0700, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >What if the photonic PC is purely optical
>>
>> How?
>
>I wish I knew. My guess is, it would contain optical components that
>are analogous to the electric components of electronic PCs.
You're assuming there are analogous parts, which there might not be so
your dream photonic PC is likely impossible at this point, at least in
the vague terms you described it. So until you have a better idea of
what/how to achieve this, I'll say consign it to the attic storage.
Michael A. Terrell
>
> Anymore, Janitor at EE Times is likely one of the more respected
> jobs. At least one presumes they do an honest day's work, rather
> than lay on their back with their legs spread.
At least his being a janitor would be an honest day's work.
Something he can't do on Usenet. :(
JackShepherd
<nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>"JackShepherd" <SomewhereOnT...@Someplaceintime.org> wrote in
>message news:l86f53h8des5rmoq6...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 09:06:45 -0600, "Bob Myers"
>> <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I ask simply because I want to know whether or not to
>>>killfile you now, or if you intend to actually contribute something of
>>>worth to the group at some point in the future.
>>
>>
>> Fuck you, asswipe. Your put downs of the OP show that it is YOU that
>> needs to be filtered
>
>Please feel free to do so. Also please at least try to imagine
>the degree of mental anguish that your "filtering" of my posts
>will cause me. I have no idea how I will manage to carry on,
>and yet, somehow, I suspect that I will.
>
As well as an E-1 grade, holier than thou piece of shit can, I suppose.
JackShepherd
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> If you like MRAM so much, why don't you put 4 GB of it in your PC?
Because that is not the application it is meant for, dipshit.
>
> So, once again it seems you are the DOLT, dolt.
Hardly.
JackShepherd
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>JackShepherd wrote:
>>
>> They will be marketing it next year.
>
>
> In real years, or marketing years? I guess that you like to let
>marketing people blow smoke up your ass?
It is really sad how you react to being found uniformed on a topic.
First, you deride the publication (which is not as you describe, btw),
then you deride the products in it.
Real good, Terrell. Par for the course for an asswipe that posts a
picture of a donkey EIGHT times in one thread, all because you dislike
the person you are having your "mature" discourse with in the thread.
Great job, asshole.
JackShepherd
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>krw wrote:
>>
>> Anymore, Janitor at EE Times is likely one of the more respected
>> jobs. At least one presumes they do an honest day's work, rather
>> than lay on their back with their legs spread.
>
>
> At least his being a janitor would be an honest day's work.
>Something he can't do on Usenet. :(
You lost. Get over it.
The technology comes from JPL.
Are you gonna put them down too now, boy?
Michael A. Terrell
Yawn. Look at the thousands of ideas they have pumped out since
their inception that lead nowhere. It is a research center, ad their
job is to test theories. Some work, and some don't. Think "Tax funded
Edison Labs".
Michael A. Terrell
Look in the miroor and take the "I'm an ass" sign off.