A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 3rd 13, 03:54 AM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Feb 1, 8:35 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:

Asimov's "positronic brain" for his robots was an unnecessary fantasy
for an artificially intelligent computer,


Yes, that's true.

And Star Trek filed the serial numbers off, and had "duotronic"
computers.

But, ironically, although there is no reason to think that computers
would work faster using positrons to carry information, integrated
circuits _did_ use _holes_ instead of electrons to carry information.

This had the benefit, in PMOS circuits, that gates could be more
tightly packed - although they were slower than the ones in NMOS
circuits which used electrons. So pocket calculators, which could be
slow, but had to be complex, were made from PMOS chips back in the
'seventies.

Today, though, CMOS circuitry, which, unlike either NMOS or PMOS
circuitry, doesn't require current to flow through it (except for
unavoidable leakage) when in a stable state, only when switching, is
used in the most advanced microelectronics as the lower power
consumption allows circuits to be made at a smaller feature size,
which would be far too hot if made from NMOS (even though that would
allow them to run faster, if they could be made to run, in fact they
would be too hot to run at all).

So, if "positronics" could refer to holes as positive charge carriers,
then in real life "duotronics" of a sort _has_ won out.

John Savard
==================================================
Holes are essentially no different to +ve ions in a battery moving to the
negative terminal while -ve ions move to the positive terminal. Why does
conventional current flow the wrong
way (negative to positive) inside Volta's pile when it's positive to
negative outside, and why was the convention based on hole flow? And how do
you make people unlearn convention?
The answer is: You don't! Instead, you teach the next generation the new
paradigm and leave the old fools to carry on insisting they are right and
making even bigger fools of themselves.

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.

Bill Owen is a tool. You are a fool.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.



  #12  
Old February 8th 13, 03:54 AM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

On Feb 2, 8:58*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Feb 2, 2:50*pm, RichA wrote:

Hollywood uses 1 and 3, but could still do good stories if only using
1 & 2.


This is true. Of course, since being a producer, director, or
screenwriter takes years of study in its own right, it's hardly
astonishing that such people seldom have the qualifications needed to
tell the difference between 2 and 3.

John Savard


They need more script-advisers from the scientific world. Note I said
advisers. I don't want the scientist to write the script, I want them
to provide alternative suggestions where the science is clearly wrong
in the script.
  #13  
Old February 8th 13, 04:54 AM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
moviePig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

On Feb 7, 9:54*pm, RichA wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:58*pm, Quadibloc wrote:

On Feb 2, 2:50*pm, RichA wrote:


Hollywood uses 1 and 3, but could still do good stories if only using
1 & 2.


This is true. Of course, since being a producer, director, or
screenwriter takes years of study in its own right, it's hardly
astonishing that such people seldom have the qualifications needed to
tell the difference between 2 and 3.


John Savard


They need more script-advisers from the scientific world. *Note I said
advisers. *I don't want the scientist to write the script, I want them
to provide alternative suggestions where the science is clearly wrong
in the script.


This seems not bad advice. Such advisers would likely be cheap (or
else marketable in the ads), and, more often than merely scrapping an
occasional plot-line, they'd likely be stimulating ones better in all
respects.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the Sun as a ball (was Origin of Skt heli 'sun' anybody?) Yusuf B Gursey Astronomy Misc 0 February 2nd 10 10:52 PM
Journey to the Far Side of the Sun Coming Back In Print Andre Lieven[_3_] History 0 April 11th 08 07:18 AM
China To Build World's First 'Artificial Sun' Energy Device Art Deco Misc 2 January 26th 06 03:37 AM
The 'midnight sun' - how's it work? suave harv UK Astronomy 11 September 1st 05 01:35 PM
MX516 and ST7-ME Side to side Jaime Alemany CCD Imaging 0 February 3rd 04 09:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.