More good news

"Kaido Kert" writes:
If the larger HDD capacity comes from increased platter count, it aint new
tech.
If CPUs and and memory chips ramp up clock speeds or go through die shrinks
it aint new tech. If you simply put a bigger data cache on chip it aint new
tech. In a case of die shrink, you might be employing a new manufacturing
tech to achieve smaller semiconductors, but the chip itself stays the same,
although smaller.

This is the point I'm trying to get across with Spaceship One. It
ain't new tech. It's existing technology in order to keep the costs
down.

New algorithms on chip, new physical principles of inner workings of a chip,
like copper interconnects, it might be called new tech.

As for Spaceship One, this would mean something like new materials or
new engine technology (e.g. laser launch). Those sorts of things are
conspicuously absent on Spaceship One.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Vincent Cate wrote:
Sander Vesik
Vince
Incrementally advancing the state of the art is still advancing
the state of the art, even when it is not particularly novel.

Uhh... But "not particularily novel" = definitely not new technology.

If in 2005 they can make larger capacity hard drives, faster
CPUs, and bigger memory chips, you won't count that as new
technology because it is "not particularly novel"? I think
most computer guys count it as the "latest tech".

If you say something like this you are just showing that you
don't actually know anything about how "larger" hard drives,
memory chips and faster CPU-s are actually made, or how "technology"
and "product" cycles work there. Taking for example Pentium 4 and
the obvious new technologies in there compared to P6 core in
PPro, P II & P III like say:

* double pumped alu
* trace cache
* hyperthreading
* SSE2

the reality is that all these are ages old technologies that not
just existed decades ago but have also been used in many CPUs. Same
applies to OoO and eager execution. Where most of new technology
innovation in semiconductors is is usualy in the semiconductor
processes, but even so, most of speed in next years faster processors
will come from refinement and maturity of existing processes.

There is abosultely no new technology in a 3.2 GHz P4 compared to
2.0 GHz P4. They are even manufactured using the same process.

The same - even *MUCH* more applies to ram and hard drives.


If GE makes a new jet engine and it is 5% more efficient, you
won't count it as "new technology" because it is not novel?
The airlines would count it as new technology.

It depends on how they achieved the "5% more efficent" part. It
need not be new technology, it might be resolving maunfacturing
problems *or* it might be relacing well-known alloy X with well-
known alloy Y. Or it might be actual new technology.

And there is in fact a difference which it was.


To me it seems like most of technology advancement is incremental
and not particularly novel. People even talk about the
technology treadmill, in part because the progress is so
steady and regular.

Which is not relevant, except that new technologies have the chance
- it does not mean it will happen, there is just a chance -
of restarting the treadmill and letting you go through a brand new
set of incremental improvements. Inceremental improvements of something
don't usualy go on forever, at some point (which may arrive much
earlier than anybody suspects) every improvement will be increasingly
miniscule.


I am beginning to wonder if many space people have this mindset
that incremental tech advancement does not count. Have people
bought into the NASA way of trying to leapfrog to some distant
tech without incremental improvements? Could this help explain
why launch technology has moved so slowly over the last 30 years?
Did Apollo give space people the wrong idea about tech?

It would appear that you pay too much attention to labels, and
too little to essence.

Launch technology has moved sloly due to lack of incentives to make
it much better.


These new space companies started by computer guys might not
have this hangup.

Might just be something to this...

-- Vince

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Kelly McDonald writes:

On 8 Jan 2004 03:30:39 -0800, (Vincent Cate) wrote:
Also, is this the first time a nitrous-oxide/rubber engine of
this size (or larger) has been used?

Incrementally advancing the state of the art is still advancing
the state of the art, even when it is not particularly novel.

However does it count as "new" technologuy. I'd would say it is more
of a refinement of existing technology.

I wouldn't even call it that. When you scale existing technology up
or down a bit, keeping the design and the manufacturing process
essentially unchanged, this isn't a technology refinement.

When Ford makes an extended cab version of their F-150, should we view
that vehicle as being higher tech than the standard cab F-150? If
Ford takes an existing engine and increases the cylinder diameter a
bit to increase engine output, is that new technology? Certainly not
if the rest of the engine is unchanged in materials and manufacturing
process.

Bringing this back to aerospace, how about airliners? When fuselage
plugs are used to lengthen an aircraft type (to create a shorter range
aircraft with more seating), does this count as new technology? The
plug was built the same as the rest of the fuselage. The rest of the
plane is largely unchanged.

This isn't new technology or even a refinement of existing technology,
it's just scaling an existing design and working out the bugs.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Kaido Kert wrote:

"Vincent Cate" wrote in message
om...
Sander Vesik
Vince
Incrementally advancing the state of the art is still advancing
the state of the art, even when it is not particularly novel.

Uhh... But "not particularily novel" = definitely not new technology.

If in 2005 they can make larger capacity hard drives, faster
CPUs, and bigger memory chips, you won't count that as new
technology because it is "not particularly novel"? I think
most computer guys count it as the "latest tech".
If the larger HDD capacity comes from increased platter count, it aint new
tech.
If CPUs and and memory chips ramp up clock speeds or go through die shrinks
it aint new tech. If you simply put a bigger data cache on chip it aint new
tech. In a case of die shrink, you might be employing a new manufacturing
tech to achieve smaller semiconductors, but the chip itself stays the same,
although smaller.
New algorithms on chip, new physical principles of inner workings of a chip,
like copper interconnects, it might be called new tech.

Copper interconnect is new tech in the sence that until a point quite recently,
nobody knew how to produce such. Same applies to SOI, high-K oxides and so on.
Not all enhancements to semiconductor technology are only purely on the
manufacturing side, though:
* asynchronous and selftimed circuit design
* new 3d transistor structures
* new transistor "layouts"
* etc etc

comapred to space, it s a very lively industry - its just that the new
technologies tend to be in different places than peopel tend to think.


-kert



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Ruediger Klaehn wrote in
:

If you could drill a hole into the top of the magma bubble and release
the gas through a gas turbine, you could generate a lot of energy and
prevent a violent explosion.

Or you could drill a hole to relieve the pressure and forget about the
turbine. That way you could still prevent the blast.

Scott Lowther wrote in
:

This next eruption could be 2,500 times the size
of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption.
....
Okay. Can we PLEASE get the hell off this damned rock???

If you think this planet is hostile, you should try some of the others. At
least we have a hearty supply food, air and water here.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:47:47 GMT, John Schutkeker
wrote:

Or you could drill a hole to relieve the pressure and forget about the
turbine. That way you could still prevent the blast.

But if you're going to release that pressure *anyway* - you may as
well get some use out of it... ;-)

Sander Vesik wrote:

Vincent Cate wrote:
If in 2005 they can make larger capacity hard drives, faster
CPUs, and bigger memory chips, you won't count that as new
technology because it is "not particularly novel"? I think
most computer guys count it as the "latest tech".

If you say something like this you are just showing that you
don't actually know anything about how "larger" hard drives,
memory chips and faster CPU-s are actually made, or how "technology"
and "product" cycles work there...

There is abosultely no new technology in a 3.2 GHz P4 compared to
2.0 GHz P4. They are even manufactured using the same process.

The same - even *MUCH* more applies to ram and hard drives.

Hard drives do use newer technology to increase capacity. Look up
"enhanced pixie dust" for a recent example.

John Schutkeker wrote:
Scott Lowther wrote in
:

This next eruption could be 2,500 times the size
of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption.
...
Okay. Can we PLEASE get the hell off this damned rock???

If you think this planet is hostile, you should try some of the others. At
least we have a hearty supply food, air and water here.

For now. Which is the whole problem.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

(Len Lekx) wrote in
rs.com:

But if you're going to release that pressure *anyway* - you may as
well get some use out of it... ;-)

Sure, but if there's an emergency, you might not have time to be designing
and installing big equipment.