Re:Friction Losses and Gain Stages
on
Lego Logic Gates
·
· Score: 1
Ok, I'll try to explain it in the simplest terms possible.
find something. put it on the carpet. try to push it, and judge how easy it was. find something else. put it on the carpet inline with the other thing. try to push it..... repeat until it gets hard/impossible to push the things along the carpet.
Try to work out a way to make it easier to push the things along the carpet, say by standing them on end like domino's.
it's easy.... npn gives a notted output (pve on the collectors nve on the emitter), that's an inverter or not gate.
Or gates are easy too, just think getting the two inputs and binding them together.
You have to use diodes so that the current only flows in one direction, otherwise you'd get a short across the inputs.
The problem with tieing the two inputs together is that it's 'passive' so slowly the amount voltage levels will drop due to resistance in the circuit.
So, what they do it to add not gate (which is active) to the output of the or gate and create a NOR gate.
This is very basic logic gate stuff..
Transistors can also be used to produce and gates the or gates are then notted in TTL producing the NAND gate mentioned in the earlier post.
Basically I'd like to see a computer build using only Diode logic (or gates) and Single NPN Transistors (not gates) instead of IC's, Logo or Valves. Since it is the easiest 'simplest' form of logic.
Everyone can understand NO and everyone can understand some, you could even build a computer out of chimp or small children.
So, nand gates are harder to make from transistors and diodes than or and not gates, they're just easier to use.
looking at youe link the first gate 'DL, diode logic' is the simplest(funny that it being the simplest and at the top) only requiring diodes and resistors.
And look no nand or nor.... Diode Logic only permits the OR and AND functions.
Now read the next bit....
Diode Logic suffers from voltage degradation from one stage to the next.
Which is why you not the or gate, making things simpler to use....
'they start out with a grand vision and end up planning and then re-planning and throwing out code and never really get off the ground. Some die and stay dead, some get picked up by a group of enthusiasts with a more down-to-earth approach of 'Getting something working now, improvements later.' and the project takes off.'
Yep, sounds like most projects at most companies I've worked for, they just have enough money that they can trash a load of R&D but still come up with a product.
Case study, The atom bomb vs world hunger.
The same is true about API's, "developers don't rewrite their programs to use the latest APIs 'just for the heck of it'.", nope management of R&D decide that were going to use XYZ piece of software, it like to generate code using XYZ API's jobs done.
The thing is that XYZ piece of software usually come from Microsoft, and funny enough they do use the latest APIs 'just for the heck of it' or maybe to test them.
Microsoft releases Direct X 9, all new games must now be Direct X 9 or be old hat.
Microsoft releases XP, lots of software get update to be Window XP logo complient.
You can still run some windows 3 software on XP, but it won't have the same user interface!
How much cheaper an Ipod is in New York (US) than York (UK).
They could have picked and one of 10's of other players.
Apples always been a vendor lock-in company, they even killed off the clones of the MAC, the difference here is that Media has for a long time been in the pocket of Apple, and the media arn't talking about portable MP3 players, their talking about IPods.
Which still makes them how many years ahead of everyone else?
Anyhow, I always thought that a: They can only patent how to make a drug not the drug itself. b: Production licensing isn't that high anyway.
c: In that 7-10 years they will go from small batch production to volume production, which is a completely different process and would have a new patent.
most of Africa and India give a shit about drug patents anyway, so it's zero years.
1: Arguee that patents are good enough and they can take the palce of copyright. 2: Get told, stop being so fucking stupid, we need copyrights patents are just, well, what do they do that copyrights don't do.
3: Use the counter argument that patents are pointless to get patents removed from software.
What was the response from bird watchers seeing cars? Or for that matter Teachers finding spelling mistakes or programmers finding that someones used a non-iso date format.
As someone who's been programming for about 20ish years programming has become more of an visual/emotional response than something I think about, just like looking at a picture of someone you know. I should imagine that this kind of 'instinct' applies to most people with most tasks that they do frequently and is not 'pre-programmed'.
Of if my clay tablet is 10foot square (like some of the hieroglyphs are) then you head has to scroll along two axis to read the tablet, up and down, left and right, that's two dimensions.
If the piece of rope is a mile long(and not curled up) you could only scroll the rope along it's length, that's one dimension.
But with a book you can scroll through the pages left+right up+down, or turn to any number page you wish giving 3 dimensions.
If that book has revisions, and you can look at each revision then you could say that it's a 4 dimensional book.
If it also had several authors making several revisions then it would be 5 dimensional. etc....
Now, imagine a space where multiple authors could update versions of a text, displaying it on a PC would mean collapsing 5 dimensions down into 2, 3d environments are an attempt to collapse 5 dimensions down into 3 and then taking a 2d snapshot of the 3d environment.
Your so wrong, if anything we are trying to find smaller and smaller things, knowing how the little things work is very important.
Now, I could show someone how to implement a quick sort instead of a bubble sort, but wouldn't it be better if I explained to their how a quick sort worked so that they could implement btrees and leaf merging in other parts of their code.
Other things like doing a a=(a2)+a; instead of a=a*5; or being able to build a computer out of lego wouldn't be possible if we all relied on calculators to do the work for us.
2. 'all known "bad" IP's' Dial up, or just use a new IP, the ip had to be 'known' first. Also you have to get at least 15 seconds of a file (i think?), your allowed to distribute clips and quotes without breaking copyright.
3. I don't think they can go after anyone for downloading, since the server is sending me a copy it is breaking the law, but they can go after you if you try and redistrubite.
The point is that you can demonstrate in a way that people actually think about what's happening.
I remember doing calculus by the book, I didn't learn any more than 'take one of of this and multiply' etc.. which I could have done with mathcad and learnt just a much.
Later on I took up some home study and found out what calculus was, now I could sit down with a piece of paper and work out how to integrate and differentiate various things without having to remember the formula, I can do splines, tell you why the are of a circle is pi.r^2 etc..
This is the benfit of not having a calculator.
I took my exams about 10 years ago and only used a calculator for the trig questions, the paper was easy enough that I still finished before time and since we couldn't leave until everyone had finished I'm glad I didn't use a calculator!
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I'll try to explain it in the simplest terms possible.
.....
find something.
put it on the carpet.
try to push it, and judge how easy it was.
find something else.
put it on the carpet inline with the other thing.
try to push it
repeat until it gets hard/impossible to push the things along the carpet.
Try to work out a way to make it easier to push the things along the carpet, say by standing them on end like domino's.
it's easy....
npn gives a notted output (pve on the collectors nve on the emitter), that's an inverter or not gate.
Or gates are easy too, just think getting the two inputs and binding them together.
You have to use diodes so that the current only flows in one direction, otherwise you'd get a short across the inputs.
The problem with tieing the two inputs together is that it's 'passive' so slowly the amount voltage levels will drop due to resistance in the circuit.
So, what they do it to add not gate (which is active) to the output of the or gate and create a NOR gate.
This is very basic logic gate stuff..
Transistors can also be used to produce and gates the or gates are then notted in TTL producing the NAND gate mentioned in the earlier post.
Basically I'd like to see a computer build using only Diode logic (or gates) and Single NPN Transistors (not gates) instead of IC's, Logo or Valves. Since it is the easiest 'simplest' form of logic.
Everyone can understand NO and everyone can understand some, you could even build a computer out of chimp or small children.
Why not drive the clock at various stages and take some power out of it.
a not gate, 1 transistor 1 resistor. (TL)
a or date 2 diodes 1 resistor. (DL)
No need for DTL or TTL, all a lot easier than making a nand gate.
Why have you only quoted low switching IC's to me.
I don't want IC's I just want transistors and diodes.
So, nand gates are harder to make from transistors and diodes than or and not gates, they're just easier to use.
looking at youe link the first gate 'DL, diode logic' is the simplest(funny that it being the simplest and at the top) only requiring diodes and resistors.
And look no nand or nor....
Diode Logic only permits the OR and AND functions.
Now read the next bit....
Diode Logic suffers from voltage degradation from one stage to the next.
Which is why you not the or gate, making things simpler to use....
A not only requires , it's so simple they've included it a whole 3 pages before the rest of the logic gates.
Thanks for the link, it's been a while and I couldn't remember the names for TL,DTL,TRL
, kinda cut of your nose to spite you face though!.
How are nand gates easier to produce out of diodes and transistors?
The 'only' reason for noting the gate (adding a transistor) is to bring the voltage back up again.
Or and Not gates are 'simpler', as demonstrated by the lego, electronics is the 'complicated' bit.
Not that I could have read the article and worked that one out.
On the simplest scale you only need or and not gates.
A not gate can be constructed with one transistor and an or gate with two diodes.
It would be nice to see a modern day version of an old valve computer, build from transistors and diodes not ic's.
Some found this comment on /. a week ago and sent it in as a story.
somehow I think this is old news.
How? isn't ReactOS a NT 'clone', so it would be just as hard to move from ReactOS to linux, unless you count wine.
'they start out with a grand vision and end up planning and then re-planning and throwing out code and never really get off the ground. Some die and stay dead, some get picked up by a group of enthusiasts with a more down-to-earth approach of 'Getting something working now, improvements later.' and the project takes off.'
Yep, sounds like most projects at most companies I've worked for, they just have enough money that they can trash a load of R&D but still come up with a product.
Case study, The atom bomb vs world hunger.
The same is true about API's,
"developers don't rewrite their programs to use the latest APIs 'just for the heck of it'.", nope management of R&D decide that were going to use XYZ piece of software, it like to generate code using XYZ API's jobs done.
The thing is that XYZ piece of software usually come from Microsoft, and funny enough they do use the latest APIs 'just for the heck of it' or maybe to test them.
Microsoft releases Direct X 9, all new games must now be Direct X 9 or be old hat.
Microsoft releases XP, lots of software get update to be Window XP logo complient.
You can still run some windows 3 software on XP, but it won't have the same user interface!
It's a goof job that Real hasn't worked out how to do that or it would have been locked out long ago.
How much cheaper an Ipod is in New York (US) than York (UK).
They could have picked and one of 10's of other players.
Apples always been a vendor lock-in company, they even killed off the clones of the MAC, the difference here is that Media has for a long time been in the pocket of Apple, and the media arn't talking about portable MP3 players, their talking about IPods.
The UK are taking apple to court over price fixing, and did they ever sort out that issue with the beatles?
Which still makes them how many years ahead of everyone else?
Anyhow, I always thought that
a: They can only patent how to make a drug not the drug itself.
b: Production licensing isn't that high anyway.
c: In that 7-10 years they will go from small batch production to volume production, which is a completely different process and would have a new patent.
most of Africa and India give a shit about drug patents anyway, so it's zero years.
Patents prevent others from making a similer product.
copyrights do not.
Copyright prevents me from giving up copies of all the software I own, patent laws do not.
Patents should expire after no more than 5 years at a push, 17 years is just stupidly long, take GIF as an example.
1: Arguee that patents are good enough and they can take the palce of copyright.
2: Get told, stop being so fucking stupid, we need copyrights patents are just, well, what do they do that copyrights don't do.
3: Use the counter argument that patents are pointless to get patents removed from software.
What was the response from bird watchers seeing cars?
Or for that matter Teachers finding spelling mistakes or programmers finding that someones used a non-iso date format.
As someone who's been programming for about 20ish years programming has become more of an visual/emotional response than something I think about, just like looking at a picture of someone you know. I should imagine that this kind of 'instinct' applies to most people with most tasks that they do frequently and is not 'pre-programmed'.
Like all those people with head injuries, syphilis and other problems didn't tell us this years ago.
Try taking acid, it's a lot cheaper than MRI &co, and will point you in the right direction.
Ok, get to page 197 using the page down key.
Your only allowed to press it once.
Of if my clay tablet is 10foot square (like some of the hieroglyphs are) then you head has to scroll along two axis to read the tablet, up and down, left and right, that's two dimensions.
If the piece of rope is a mile long(and not curled up) you could only scroll the rope along it's length, that's one dimension.
But with a book you can scroll through the pages left+right up+down, or turn to any number page you wish giving 3 dimensions.
If that book has revisions, and you can look at each revision then you could say that it's a 4 dimensional book.
If it also had several authors making several revisions then it would be 5 dimensional.
etc....
Now, imagine a space where multiple authors could update versions of a text, displaying it on a PC would mean collapsing 5 dimensions down into 2, 3d environments are an attempt to collapse 5 dimensions down into 3 and then taking a 2d snapshot of the 3d environment.
Your so wrong, if anything we are trying to find smaller and smaller things, knowing how the little things work is very important.
Now, I could show someone how to implement a quick sort instead of a bubble sort, but wouldn't it be better if I explained to their how a quick sort worked so that they could implement btrees and leaf merging in other parts of their code.
Other things like doing a a=(a2)+a; instead of a=a*5; or being able to build a computer out of lego wouldn't be possible if we all relied on calculators to do the work for us.
2. 'all known "bad" IP's'
Dial up, or just use a new IP, the ip had to be 'known' first.
Also you have to get at least 15 seconds of a file (i think?), your allowed to distribute clips and quotes without breaking copyright.
3. I don't think they can go after anyone for downloading, since the server is sending me a copy it is breaking the law, but they can go after you if you try and redistrubite.
clay tablets are 2d, well some of them.
I think knots in rope were used to count livestock and such, they are 1d.
The point is that you can demonstrate in a way that people actually think about what's happening.
I remember doing calculus by the book, I didn't learn any more than 'take one of of this and multiply' etc.. which I could have done with mathcad and learnt just a much.
Later on I took up some home study and found out what calculus was, now I could sit down with a piece of paper and work out how to integrate and differentiate various things without having to remember the formula, I can do splines, tell you why the are of a circle is pi.r^2 etc..
This is the benfit of not having a calculator.
I took my exams about 10 years ago and only used a calculator for the trig questions, the paper was easy enough that I still finished before time and since we couldn't leave until everyone had finished I'm glad I didn't use a calculator!