Alex Gibson wrote:> And what level are you taking software to ? > Firmware ? > HDL (hardware description languages) ? > rtl ? > netlist ?An interesting question. From a purely practical standpoint, it might be that software is that part of the functionality for which it is overwhelmingly cost-effective to patch/upgrade already manufactured (and even shipped) units, while hardware is something for which you have to scrap at least some physical parts (or even the whole thing) in order to change. That would break some usual assumptions though... code in an OTP microcontroller soldered to the board becomes "hardware" while an FPGA is "software" if its configuration rom is in circuit programmable.
Software vs. Hardware. The Harsh Truth
Started by ●October 22, 2005
Reply by ●October 26, 20052005-10-26
Reply by ●November 2, 20052005-11-02
Radium wrote:> Tim Wescott wrote: >> Thats because they're theory books, not books on practice. You could >> condemn the universities for not teaching much practical stuff, but most >> of the "practical" stuff that I would have been taught is now obsolete, >> and I'm not even close to retirement age. > >> What I learned that was >> useful was the basic stuff that'll never change even when we're not >> using electrons any more, and how to leverage that basic knowledge into >> something that's useful _now_. > > Photonics will replace electronics eventually. Hope they use 400 nm > lasers. >Why 400nm lasers? That sounds like it's in the electromagnetic spectrum, I don't want no electromagnetic waves traveling in a chip that has to be anywhere near me... I've heard those wave things cause cancer. haha
Reply by ●November 3, 20052005-11-03
400 nm does not cause cancer. Only ionizing radiation can cause cancer. 400 nm is not in the ionizing range. Its safe. 400 nm is around the shortest wavelength that is non-ionizing. This would be the most efficient for most system.
Reply by ●November 3, 20052005-11-03
Radium wrote:> 400 nm does not cause cancer. Only ionizing radiation can cause cancer.Living organisms are not for the most part ionic bonded. Or even covalent bonded. Nope, biology works thanks to extremely tiny forces - induced dipole attractions and stuff like that. Go ahead, calculate the lowest frequency which can ionize anything. But then throw that number away, because it's an answer to the wrong question.
Reply by ●November 3, 20052005-11-03
Radium wrote:> 400 nm does not cause cancer. Only ionizing radiation can cause cancer. > > 400 nm is not in the ionizing range. Its safe. > > 400 nm is around the shortest wavelength that is non-ionizing. This > would be the most efficient for most system.Ionizing radiation is not the only cause of cancer... Lots of chemical compounds have also been linked to inducing cancer growth, including benzene (I believe) and many derivatives. Do you not think that the power of a particular electromagnetic wave might not also have some contribution to cancerous cell creation. I believe it's due to a mutation in simple cell reproduction (that occurs all the time). This mutation may be caused by the presence of some unwanted chemical compound, or by large electromagnetic fields at the time the cell is being reproduced. There is much discussion over whether 50/60Hz electrical power signals could cause cancers, certainly 50/60Hz doesn't correspond to a wavelength of less than 400nm, in fact I think you'll find the wavelength of 50/60Hz is not really valid on the nm scale at all... in fact it's pretty senseless on a meter scale too. What makes you think ionization energy is the only cause of cancer?
Reply by ●November 3, 20052005-11-03
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message news:1131046618.481558.142110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> 400 nm does not cause cancer. Only ionizing radiation can > cause cancer. > > 400 nm is not in the ionizing range. Its safe. > > 400 nm is around the shortest wavelength that is > non-ionizing. This > would be the most efficient for most system. >Those are very interesting assertions. I wonder if you've ever seen the ionized field around a very high power, very low frequency transmitting antenna. I think you might not be so sure that any of those are true statements.
Reply by ●November 3, 20052005-11-03
John E. Hadstate wrote:> "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message > news:1131046618.481558.142110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > >>400 nm does not cause cancer. Only ionizing radiation can >>cause cancer. >> >>400 nm is not in the ionizing range. Its safe. >> >>400 nm is around the shortest wavelength that is >>non-ionizing. This >>would be the most efficient for most system. >> > > > Those are very interesting assertions. I wonder if you've > ever seen the ionized field around a very high power, very > low frequency transmitting antenna. I think you might not > be so sure that any of those are true statements.Lightning is air ionized by DC. The vapor in most fluorescent bulbs is ionized by 50 or 60 Hz. Radium's "knowing" something doesn't make it true. -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●November 3, 20052005-11-03
John E. Hadstate wrote:> "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message > news:1131046618.481558.142110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > 400 nm does not cause cancer. Only ionizing radiation can > > cause cancer. > > > > 400 nm is not in the ionizing range. Its safe.> Those are very interesting assertions. I wonder if you've > ever seen the ionized field around a very high power, very > low frequency transmitting antenna. I think you might not > be so sure that any of those are true statements.Two different mechanisms. Of course an electric field, even a static electric field, can cause ionization. So can being hit by a photon of sufficient energy. Which is to say sufficiently short wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. Some people like to calculate the energy of the weakest ionic bond, and then figure out the longest wavelength of a photon that could break it. But if you have a high enough voltage on your antenna you can ionize the air even if the photons you are throwing off aren't energetic enough to ionize anything that absorbs them. And, as I pointed out above, most critical biological processies depend on bond energies that are only a tiny fraction of that of the weakest ionic bond - attractions between induced dipole moments, etc. These could presumably be disturbed by much weaker photons.
Reply by ●November 4, 20052005-11-04
High-voltage, low-frequency electric current can ionize air. However, that is very different from ionizing radiation and its effects on cellular DNA.
Reply by ●November 4, 20052005-11-04
Radium wrote:> High-voltage, low-frequency electric current can ionize air. However, > that is very different from ionizing radiation and its effects on > cellular DNA.It is ionizing radiation... it's exactly the same as the arc formed when welding, both of which are ionizing radiation and contain UVA, UVB, UVC as well as a host of visible wavelengths in addition to large infra-red components. Not 100% sure on the gamma content of this form of discharge, but imagine it to be pretty negligible. You didn't include that gamma radiation is also a common source blamed for inducing cancerous growth. As for your initial comment regarding ionization energy, all forms of light can be sufficient to exceed the ionization energy of a particular molecular compound. This is the effect used in photo-diodes to generate a current based on light input.
