DSPRelated.com
Forums

Software vs. Hardware. The Harsh Truth

Started by Radium October 22, 2005
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message 
news:1131076824.465637.84220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> High-voltage, low-frequency electric current can ionize > air. However, > that is very different from ionizing radiation and its > effects on > cellular DNA. >
And you know this is true because...? Would you believe me if I told you that the radiation of which you speak comes from the electrons in the ionized plasma returning to a lower energy state and not the other way around? The plasma itself can be created by very low frequency fields, even static fields, as you can easily see by studying the ultraviolet radiation released from a welding arc. (Use common sense and caution: the UV radiation can make pits in your cornea and/or glasses, even when you wear a welding hood and filter.) Empirical evidence suggests that it is easier to generate the plasma in high-frequency electromagnetic fields, but all electromagnetic radiation is ionizing to some degree.
Bevan Weiss wrote:
> What makes you think ionization energy is the only cause of cancer?
I never said that cancer is only caused by ionization. Cancer can be caused by many entities, some which are totally un-related to ionization or radiation at all. What I did say is that, non-ionizing radiation is *far* less likely to cause cancer than ionizing radiation. 400 nm is non-ionizing
Bevan, chances are you wouldn't be directly exposed to the light, so no
need to worry about cancer. In addition, 400 nm light does not cause
cancer. You are exposed to it whenver outdoor and in much larger
amounts than what a photonic computer would use anyway.

When you are working with electric chip, surely you don't worry about
being exposed to harmful electric current, do you?

Jerry Avins wrote:

(snip)

> 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.
Well, its not DC anymore once the lightning starts. There is a large discontinuity in the current at that point! -- glen
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.
...Ladies and Gentlemen, here we have now: the microbiology expert... Where did you get all this very nice information from? Remember that comics are not usually a reliable source... bye, -- piergiorgio
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote: > > (snip) > >> 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. > > > Well, its not DC anymore once the lightning starts. There is a large > discontinuity in the current at that point!
:-)! But there would be no lightning without prior ionization. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. &#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;
Crossposting deleted.

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Real_McCoy wrote: > > This is no longer a black and white topic. In the near future all hardware > > will be derived from software. eg algorithms will be simulated in software > > and go straight to hardware via FPGA compilers and such like. ... > > The days of fiddling with transistors are over. > > Over for whom? Who will design the FPGAs? Progress centralizes and > categorizes.
Even the engineers designing FPGAs at the transistor level are probably sitting behind workstations manipulating layers of software well abstracted from the chemical and physical processes used to manufacture any actual chips. If you walk by their cubicles, you might not even be able to tell which ones are fiddling with transistors or gates, and which one are fiddling with DSP software, except maybe by the titles on their bookshelves.