On 4/12/19 10:18 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in > news:PsadnaT9IIUypSzBnZ2dnUU7-KGdnZ2d@supernews.com: > >> On 4/12/19 4:08 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org >> wrote: >>> Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in >>> news:q8qgla$i3p$3@dont-email.me: >>> >>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:36:41 -0400, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>> >>>>> It's a pretty cool achievement, though. I remember seeing Gerd >>>>> Binnig's first pictures of atoms taken with his STM thirty-odd >>>>> years ago. >>>> >>>> Now *THAT* was worth waiting for! >>>> >>> Not long after in epitaxy, IBM started "writing" with atoms on >>> their >>> chips. >>> >>> Which they then used these types of microscopy to examine. >>> >> >> BITD making an IBM logo in some novel fashion was a good way to >> get a nice bonus. Making chips that way is ridiculously >> uneconomic, from that day to this. >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs >> > > It was a mere one off to show the capacity of the technology at > the time. > > A bigger advance was liquid photolithography, which is what has us > now below 22nm feature sizes. We are now at 14nm and 7nm even. Wow! > > We do some pretty fancy pulling pushing and shoving of electrons > around on little pieces of finely structured earth. >Immersion litho is certainly a help, but the main thing that allows 193 nm light to print smaller patterns is the high contrast of photoresist. Modern litho (i.e. in the last 10 years or so) forces chip patterns to consist mostly of parallel lines with additional steps to cut them. The high density comes from multiple patterning, i.e. you print one set of narrow lines, bake, develop, spin more resist, bake, print another set offset from the previous one, lather rinse repeat. Initially it was double patterning, but at 10 nm they're doing it at least 4 times per level. Ex Pen $ive. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
OT black hole pic.
Started by ●April 11, 2019
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On 13/04/19 09:36, Martin Brown wrote:> On 12/04/2019 18:06, Cursitor Doom wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 21:28:14 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >> >>> It sure was a ton of extended hype over that one fuzzy image. >> >> I expected as much. Every now and again there's a lunar eclipse which is >> a bit closer than normal and it's really no big deal at all. But you >> should hear the way it's hyped up by the MSM. I think the last one we had >> they really excelled themselves: "super wolf blood moon" FFS! I didn't >> even bother going outside to see it. I don't reckon I missed anything. > > A lunar eclipse can be very impressive and would have been terrifying to the > ancients if they didn't know what was going on. You can get anything from pale > orange to blood red colour in total lunar eclipse.Yes indeed. I saw my first blood moon eclipse by accident on a very clear winter's night in 1976. It made such an impression that I can still visualise it in my mind's eye. I also saw the total solar eclipse in Cornwall; the clouds opened up (mostly) for the necessary 10 minutes Despite it being a big media event, there were no TV cameras /there/ to record it. Whenever I feel I am being unduly pessimistic, I remind myself that somethings do go /right/ at the last minute.
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 22:09:43 -0700, John Larkin wrote:> Einstein was right even when he thought he was wrong.Be interesting to know what E. would have made of the more recent discovery regarding the increasing rate of expansion. I'm guessing that would have clusterfucked even *his* brain. -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:33:44 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:>On 12/04/2019 15:46, John Larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:36:41 -0400, Phil Hobbs >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >>> On 4/12/19 12:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On 11 Apr 2019 18:03:37 -0700, Winfield Hill >>>> <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> John Larkin wrote... >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019, George Herold wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> My son shared this video by Vertasium on the black hole pic, >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUyH3XhpLTo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_GVbuddri8 >>>>>> >>>>>> It's always hard to tell real pictures from animations >>>>>> and "artists conceptions." There should be a convention >>>>>> to identify unreal images. >>>>> >>>>> These images have been called pictures, i.e., photographs, >>>>> and I think that's a fair name. They're created from a >>>>> 200GHz, "telescope" with a diameter of the whole earth. >>>>> Made from data from multiple simultaneous radio telescope >>>>> images, in perfect phase synchronization. The more you >>>>> read about it, the more you'll agree this is a real image. >>>> >>>> I meant the other animations of the black hole that are mixed up with >>>> the actual, very fuzzy radio telescope image. But more generally, the >>>> silly artists' conceptions that are not always identified. >>>> >>>> I've seen versions of that actual image that are zoomed or otherwise >>>> manipulated to look like movies. >>>> >>>> It sure was a ton of extended hype over that one fuzzy image. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> It's a pretty cool achievement, though. I remember seeing Gerd Binnig's >>> first pictures of atoms taken with his STM thirty-odd years ago. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Phil Hobbs >> >> It was impressive, but over-hyped, and as noted the image was heavily >> processed and false colorized. Is the raw image data available >> anywhere? > >They are almost always false coloured to allow you to see the necessary >dynamic range on print media. My only objection to the media >presentation is that it makes little sense to supply 5k pixel artwork >for an image that has at most 1000 independent individual pixels in it.If I understood correctly, the image extends to 120 x 120 uarcsec and the VLBI resolution is 20 uarcsec so the image is created from 6 x 6 or 36 pixels, which is then upconverted to give a pleasing image.
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On 13/04/2019 14:51, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:33:44 +0100, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 12/04/2019 15:46, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:36:41 -0400, Phil Hobbs >>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/12/19 12:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On 11 Apr 2019 18:03:37 -0700, Winfield Hill >>>>> <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> John Larkin wrote... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019, George Herold wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My son shared this video by Vertasium on the black hole pic, >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUyH3XhpLTo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_GVbuddri8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's always hard to tell real pictures from animations >>>>>>> and "artists conceptions." There should be a convention >>>>>>> to identify unreal images. >>>>>> >>>>>> These images have been called pictures, i.e., photographs, >>>>>> and I think that's a fair name. They're created from a >>>>>> 200GHz, "telescope" with a diameter of the whole earth. >>>>>> Made from data from multiple simultaneous radio telescope >>>>>> images, in perfect phase synchronization. The more you >>>>>> read about it, the more you'll agree this is a real image. >>>>> >>>>> I meant the other animations of the black hole that are mixed up with >>>>> the actual, very fuzzy radio telescope image. But more generally, the >>>>> silly artists' conceptions that are not always identified. >>>>> >>>>> I've seen versions of that actual image that are zoomed or otherwise >>>>> manipulated to look like movies. >>>>> >>>>> It sure was a ton of extended hype over that one fuzzy image. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's a pretty cool achievement, though. I remember seeing Gerd Binnig's >>>> first pictures of atoms taken with his STM thirty-odd years ago. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Phil Hobbs >>> >>> It was impressive, but over-hyped, and as noted the image was heavily >>> processed and false colorized. Is the raw image data available >>> anywhere? >> >> They are almost always false coloured to allow you to see the necessary >> dynamic range on print media. My only objection to the media >> presentation is that it makes little sense to supply 5k pixel artwork >> for an image that has at most 1000 independent individual pixels in it. > > If I understood correctly, the image extends to 120 x 120 uarcsec and > the VLBI resolution is 20 uarcsec so the image is created from 6 x 6 > or 36 pixels, which is then upconverted to give a pleasing image.In practice you always oversample the image by at least 1.5x and for something so hard like this probably a more conservative 2-2.5x. They imply that they are using super resolution by imposing the positivity constraint so a rule of thumb says that they can probably infer fine details out to about 3x the classical Rayleigh definition. Signal to noise and computing time permitting that is. Light detail on a dark background is much easier (so we are lucky that empty sky is dark). -- Regards, Martin Brown
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On 13/04/2019 10:09, Tom Gardner wrote:> On 13/04/19 09:36, Martin Brown wrote: >> On 12/04/2019 18:06, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 21:28:14 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> It sure was a ton of extended hype over that one fuzzy image. >>> >>> I expected as much. Every now and again there's a lunar eclipse which is >>> a bit closer than normal and it's really no big deal at all. But you >>> should hear the way it's hyped up by the MSM. I think the last one we >>> had >>> they really excelled themselves: "super wolf blood moon" FFS! I didn't >>> even bother going outside to see it. I don't reckon I missed anything. >> >> A lunar eclipse can be very impressive and would have been terrifying >> to the ancients if they didn't know what was going on. You can get >> anything from pale orange to blood red colour in total lunar eclipse. > > Yes indeed. > > I saw my first blood moon eclipse by accident on a very > clear winter's night in 1976. > > It made such an impression that I can still visualise it > in my mind's eye.I remember that one. I tried to film it with a stop motion Chinon 8mm cine camera modified to have its trigger automatically pressed by a modified relay solenoid. It didn't work all that well.> > I also saw the total solar eclipse in Cornwall; the clouds > opened up (mostly) for the necessary 10 minutes Despite it > being a big media event, there were no TV cameras /there/ > to record it.It was pot luck on the day. I know my friends with the BBC were clouded out and they had to use live footage from an aircraft above the clouds. Luckily I was in France for that having driven rather further than I had intended from my intended location after looking at the meteosat images. I knew that UK total eclipse was coming from when I was at school but never imagined that I would actually be overseas when it happened.> > Whenever I feel I am being unduly pessimistic, I remind > myself that somethings do go /right/ at the last minute.Luck always plays a part with astronomical observations. -- Regards, Martin Brown
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:42:34 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 22:09:43 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > > > Einstein was right even when he thought he was wrong. > > Be interesting to know what E. would have made of the more recent > discovery regarding the increasing rate of expansion. I'm guessing that > would have clusterfucked even *his* brain.Unlikely. The extra information that has become available since Einstein died (in 1955) could have been sufficient to lead him to a more satisfactory synthesis than anybody has come up with. The four papers he wrote in 1904 were all spectacular steps forward in four rather different areas. General relativity took him a bit longer, but it still predated the observational data that showed that the universe was expanding, which was known from the mid-1920s, though it wasn't really sorted out until the 1950s. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:42:25 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote:>On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 22:09:43 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > >> Einstein was right even when he thought he was wrong. > >Be interesting to know what E. would have made of the more recent >discovery regarding the increasing rate of expansion. I'm guessing that >would have clusterfucked even *his* brain.He derived the concepts of black holes and stimulated emission, then wrongly assumed that bh's would not actually exist and that lasers were thermodynamically forbidden [1]. He probably got the cosmological constant idea wrong+right. [1] as did most eminent scientists. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:51:45 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:>On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:33:44 +0100, Martin Brown ><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>On 12/04/2019 15:46, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:36:41 -0400, Phil Hobbs >>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/12/19 12:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On 11 Apr 2019 18:03:37 -0700, Winfield Hill >>>>> <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> John Larkin wrote... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019, George Herold wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My son shared this video by Vertasium on the black hole pic, >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUyH3XhpLTo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_GVbuddri8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's always hard to tell real pictures from animations >>>>>>> and "artists conceptions." There should be a convention >>>>>>> to identify unreal images. >>>>>> >>>>>> These images have been called pictures, i.e., photographs, >>>>>> and I think that's a fair name. They're created from a >>>>>> 200GHz, "telescope" with a diameter of the whole earth. >>>>>> Made from data from multiple simultaneous radio telescope >>>>>> images, in perfect phase synchronization. The more you >>>>>> read about it, the more you'll agree this is a real image. >>>>> >>>>> I meant the other animations of the black hole that are mixed up with >>>>> the actual, very fuzzy radio telescope image. But more generally, the >>>>> silly artists' conceptions that are not always identified. >>>>> >>>>> I've seen versions of that actual image that are zoomed or otherwise >>>>> manipulated to look like movies. >>>>> >>>>> It sure was a ton of extended hype over that one fuzzy image. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's a pretty cool achievement, though. I remember seeing Gerd Binnig's >>>> first pictures of atoms taken with his STM thirty-odd years ago. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Phil Hobbs >>> >>> It was impressive, but over-hyped, and as noted the image was heavily >>> processed and false colorized. Is the raw image data available >>> anywhere? >> >>They are almost always false coloured to allow you to see the necessary >>dynamic range on print media. My only objection to the media >>presentation is that it makes little sense to supply 5k pixel artwork >>for an image that has at most 1000 independent individual pixels in it. > >If I understood correctly, the image extends to 120 x 120 uarcsec and >the VLBI resolution is 20 uarcsec so the image is created from 6 x 6 >or 36 pixels, which is then upconverted to give a pleasing image.Yikes. The public image involves some serious artistic license. I wonder what the 36 pix image looks like. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 04:39:03 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:>On 4/12/19 10:18 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote: >> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in >> news:PsadnaT9IIUypSzBnZ2dnUU7-KGdnZ2d@supernews.com: >> >>> On 4/12/19 4:08 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org >>> wrote: >>>> Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in >>>> news:q8qgla$i3p$3@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:36:41 -0400, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's a pretty cool achievement, though. I remember seeing Gerd >>>>>> Binnig's first pictures of atoms taken with his STM thirty-odd >>>>>> years ago. >>>>> >>>>> Now *THAT* was worth waiting for! >>>>> >>>> Not long after in epitaxy, IBM started "writing" with atoms on >>>> their >>>> chips. >>>> >>>> Which they then used these types of microscopy to examine. >>>> >>> >>> BITD making an IBM logo in some novel fashion was a good way to >>> get a nice bonus. Making chips that way is ridiculously >>> uneconomic, from that day to this. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Phil Hobbs >>> >> >> It was a mere one off to show the capacity of the technology at >> the time. >> >> A bigger advance was liquid photolithography, which is what has us >> now below 22nm feature sizes. We are now at 14nm and 7nm even. Wow! >> >> We do some pretty fancy pulling pushing and shoving of electrons >> around on little pieces of finely structured earth. >> > >Immersion litho is certainly a help, but the main thing that allows 193 >nm light to print smaller patterns is the high contrast of photoresist. > >Modern litho (i.e. in the last 10 years or so) forces chip patterns to >consist mostly of parallel lines with additional steps to cut them. The >high density comes from multiple patterning, i.e. you print one set of >narrow lines, bake, develop, spin more resist, bake, print another set >offset from the previous one, lather rinse repeat. > >Initially it was double patterning, but at 10 nm they're doing it at >least 4 times per level. Ex Pen $ive. > >Cheers > >Phil HobbsEven EUV is going to multiple patterning, which kind of undercuts its economics. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
