Logic Gates (III)
I’ll keep the structure for explanations I gave in the previous post, so in this one I’ll start with this.
‘… the structure of this post: first, I’ll start with the implications of implementing circuits with their complementary versions ( the NOT swapped ones), …’
There are many scientists and scientific forums which base their logical proposals and theories in the ‘modern’ (back to last century ’30s) philosophical, logical and mathematical analysis of falsifiability.
[Note for young people and foreigners: One of the ‘nonsense links’ I gave in the previous post, is a link to a song of the… sixties, or seventies, here in Spain, I was in one case not yet born, and a little girl in the other, but old songs always are played somewhere and this one was a hit from a black man called Basilio, and its title is ‘Black necked swan’. I put it there because of this: Falsifiability, which is (not) also nonsense…]
Leaving apart the theoretical explanation for falsifiability which you can read from the above en.wikipedia link (or any other of your choice), there are some negative effects in using this priciple as a designing motive.
First (and biggest): The complement of an element is defined into a context. That context is the system considered. When we talk about virtual isolated universes in computers, or wrote on papers, this is not a big problem because the universe is a subset of a finite controlled universe: the computer, or the sheet of paper.
Unfortunately, this is NOT the case for laboratories, workshops, factories, and the physical universe into which we, the living people, have to live.
When scientists, manufacturers, and engineers design a method for getting a product, they don’t think (usually) about the vicinities of the factories where the universe being the object for the implementation of the processes considered are located. Generally speaking, if they do so, they only think about legal resctrictions and inforcements for those restrictions (and every so often, some of them, think on how to evade those legal restrictions, to do what they want, regardless of nothing else, apart from their own profits).
The direct consequence of this way of thinking while implementing, is getting the process done in order to obtain the desired product, but they end knowing and using what they need, to achieve the objective, and very little more apart from what they are asked and allowed to do.
In many cases, there are many ‘experts’ which either know nothing, apart from their own field of expertise, always based on what they were tought, their experience, and what is commonplace among their colleagues, or if they once knew, they forgot.
Second: Considering the implementation of processes like being carried out in the laboratory, or factory universe, is how it is thought ALWAYS. That is the correct way of thinking for ANY scientist in the world. And this produces some weird consequences too often, specially when people twist things as much and far as they can, to get done what they want to have done. And the second BIG problem is an ENOURMOUS WASTE OF ENERGY AND MATTER.
And talking about waste, comes the rubbish, the residues, many of them extremely dangerous, but very often hidden under some convenient layer of whatever, or buried, or injected into some place deep under.
You know? it is discouraging looking at birds in the cities, most of them have injuries or scars on their legs, just because the plastic gets tangled into them, due to the widely spread way of handling trash (heaping it all up somewhere, to the winds’ will, which carries some of it again out of the ‘controlled’ residue handled location).
Combining these two very BIG problems, we have an almost unsolving environmental problem, globally. And I will tell you why.
‘… then I’ll tell you some implications of the previous hardware manufacturing in their software programming implementations, …’
For computers of any kind (remember there are many types of computers: supercomputers, distributed systems, personal computers, tablets, netbooks, laptops, mobiles, electronic appliances…) it is much more fast to calculate when a value matches a fixed control value, than to calculate continuously the result for the operations to carry out. Might sound complicated…
Imagine you are in a formula one race, watching the cars running on the road. You will be much more fast calculating when the cars go through the start position, to count the laps they have completed, than if you had to calculate the position of the car (that is how many meters away from the starting point the car is) in every instant of the race. This is how the vast majority of control values are set in programming language nowadays, and it is done so for the sake of optimization of hardware and software resources (and this optimization fever explains also stupidity; the stack, and heap tolerant systems, along with some features such as not to stop an activity calling a superclass, for instance).
Not to stop an activity results in activities, as many as our hardwares allow, running on the background, without we, the end users and consumers, even seeing our displays lit, and so reasonably thinking when we switch off the radio widget, for instance, by pressing the stop button on the display, in our mobiles, the associated activity is switched off accordingly, but this is not the case: our telephone set will be laying flat on a table, or cosily saved in our pocket, looking as if it was inactive, but still receiving, though not showing, the radio signals of our favourite radio station, and consuming our batteries charge and life cycle.
Stupidity and default superclass callbacks for finish() or destroy() or whatever default empty, non exception riser, silent inspection passing ‘smart’ implementations, allow ANY widget in our mobiles to be run without we, the end users and consumers, noticing, and these widgets include: cammeras (back and front), microphones (you know? ‘telephone’, is sound from-to a distant place, and they usually have microphone, earphone, and a keyboard), earphones, recorder, passwords, push functions…
There is a BIG analogy for this in electricity generation, transport, and distribution. Remember the tap-hose basic circuit I explained previously. High voltage grids are compossed, all of them of such type of ‘pebble packed punctured hoses’ losing energy all along their lenght, and that is a lot of heat, and magnetism, which are not (either of them) stopped by the ground, or the atmosphere, but are (both of them) absorbed by the environment, adding magnetism to the Earth’s core, and heat to the vicinities.
Electricity generators are developed on mechanisms that rotate , the control values are much like those I told you for the formula one race example, so we only measure some magnitudes at some particular phase states in order to produce and manage the electricity flow. Electricity generation (I mean the most widely used big centrilized electricity generator systems: nuclear, thermal power plants, and other systems alike), involves the use of a cycle because of the movement of turbines, and any cycling movement has its natural harmonic compounds, and this is somthing an electricity expert engineer not necessarily has to know, and in most cases if they know, they did not give it a second thought.
I will stop here and will continue explaining later.
(Some time afterwards…).
Believe or not, all of this is a big problem because in too many cases products are obtained after applying some techniques which work, but only the useful aspects, in terms of performance and economical benefits, are really controlled, so in many cases there is a vast set of… varying outputs which are not even considered (and this includes unkown | undiscovered properties which are not implemented by computer analysis methods because they are not known, or they are simply left out of the universe considered).
In the next post ‘Logic Gates (IV)’ I’ll comment some intrincate aspects of the PLL integrated circuits implementations (I’ll try to explain with easily understandable by anyone watery analogies for that too).