From:	"Brian W. Allison" <bwa550s@***.SMSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Computers and MP
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 1994 21:02:38 -0500

On Wed, 13 Apr 1994, J Gavigan wrote:

> > Yeah, makes sense -- but, we've gotta remember three things.
> > (1) It might not be binary digital storage like we're used to.
>
> Hmmm.. Having looked at the theory put forward by Robert, about
> the three colors... Today, we got 1 (yes) or 0 (no), which has to
> do with, say a photocell either receiving a burst of light, or not
> receiving a burst of light.
> When you have 3 colors, you have FOUR possibilities:
>
> 1) Nothing.
> 2) Green.
> 3) Red.
> 4) Blue.
>

If you're sending light pulses, why restrict them to 3 colors? Why not do
the frequency division multiplexing (as opposed to time division
multiplexing) and use a 5 nanometer gap between 'slots' 5 nanometers
wide? That would be 10 nm's for each slot and the overhead room.

How many nm's in the visible light range?

Of course I'm assuming that we'll have more than 3-phase multiphase
lasing materials in 2050... Since we already have multi-frequency lasers now.

Then each pulse could have (nm's in visible range)/10 different possible
values. If there were say... 10,240 (*grin*) nanometers in visible light
then we'd have a kilobit per pulse. But fourier compression would allow
for some gain, if done with optics instead of binary (or k-nary) logic
circuits. Optics doesn't have the rounding problems that binary has
either... to my knowledge.

Any physics people out there?

------------------------------------------
Brian (bwa550s@***.smsu.edu)
Michael Crawford = sing.god
(GEEK CODE) GCS d@ -p+ c++++!!!!! l u+(++) e+(++) m@(+/++/---) s@/@
!n--- h*(+) f+(?) !g(20/12) w+ t+ r+(++) y?