Products > Dodgy Technology

Optical Bench REDUX: Digital Switching can have Analog Functions!

<< < (68/71) > >>

RJHayward:
(Sorry, that graph needed to go asymptote to zero).

Graph shows after a few runs, squaring a starting number, you can see; at '1.0', exact, it's unstable but would (continue) producing same new value...if it weren't for a little noise, up or down, in total amplitude.
But starting slightly above an exact '1.0', like at '1.1' will soon go up, approx double, in 3 repeats.
In similar fashion, a start of '0.9' will, after 3 repeats, get you to approx '0.42', or a 1/2 of start.

Hopefully, a group of repeats can exaggerate this result.  You can see how, after a bunch of repeats, the lower start, of '0.9' will get diminished, more and more.

RJHayward:
The lower curve, on the squares graph, will go small, fairly quickly, and so it could be used in a conditional test...as a multiplier.     Err; that is, to say my multiplier function don't work, with 2 variables generally.
One of the multiply parameters has to be built-in, structural.

The other curve, upper curve, takes you nicely upwards, from integer '1.0' but I'm not sure how to get it to saturate, to a consistent form.

Multiply functionality needs a usable, testable decrement, while a COMPLETE decrement functionality needs...a multiply.  That is for doing the squares, in the conditional test.

RJHayward:
Also,...whilst I confessing my sins, that FACTORIAL function mentioned has same flaw / barrier to properly working, having to include a 'counted' addition (same as any multiply would).  That is, any multiply or squaring can be done by way of repeated additions, but still (haven't) solved the methodology for end-of-loop testing (for a zero result).

As BOSS might say: First try to implement these things (microprocessor instructions), but in absence of progress there, AT LEAST document the effort...That way you can account for time spent (minimal anyway).
You've got a pretty decent estimating decrement, but no real way to test that status.

RJHayward:
Of course, need to update the encoded version, when adding, it's not so simple and primitive, as the (former) physical combining.

For example, resembling doing any heavy binary math notation, it's just different, some.  Example of doing addition of '3 + 2' where the numbers encoded would now be:
'4.0 + 3/2' or '5.5' plus '4.0 + 2/2' or '5.0'.
Doing that encoded addition gives result of '10.5' which contains TWO of the base offsets, so subtract a four will give you the answer, encoded with the usual base of '4.0' and at 1/2 scale.  That would be '6.5' result, which is an encoded '5' or the correct answer in uncoded or 'logical' vs physical terms.
Or, another approach could be to use the answer 'low bits' so to speak; That is if you are using encoded OCTAL, that way can just ignore the upper order, and use the lower 3 bits, encoded.

RJHayward:
If you take a look at photo, that's a decorative optical fiber 'tree', although I'm not sure if in this case the type of fiber useful in longer distance digital links.   The communication type will have a fiber core that has different refraction index.

Obviously, predictably, some of the various approaches to passive optical logic (here) have stalled a bit.  Still worth the time (a modest amount).  Lately the problems have revolved around getting suitable video materials, for continued study.

I'm finding yt videos where approx. 80 % have language and/or basic audio troubles, in comprehending halting language barriers; with a sense that many of these presentations are not taking coherence into account.  I tend to select those yt videos that run for more than 15 minutes, and 'click out' when/if the presentation is, well, continuously indiscernible as to coherence!

Anyway, some plans are to continue experiments on the bench, using fibers and various optical sensing diodes.

[#] Next page

Go to full version