top | item 29646912

(no title)

Phillipharryt | 4 years ago

Very interested to watch the second part to this video, off the top of my head I can't come up with a situation in which analogue computation or signals are better than digital ones. Digital's versatility means we are making 2 signals represent an infinite number of other possible values, so there is certainly an inefficiency there, but the analogue signal's propensity to degradation and uncertainty is another hurdle I would find hard to overcome and produce a better computer with.

discuss

order

bajsejohannes|4 years ago

Pure speculation ahead.

It doesn't have to be better in an absolute sense, but being good enough for a cheaper price, lower power usage, smaller footprint, etc.

I think a lot of floating point calculations could fall into this. For example in neural nets, maybe there are analog versions to calculate the weights, sigmoid function and so on.

And for graphics, you don't really need the exact color value of each pixel. Maybe those could be estimated in analog functions too.

Phillipharryt|4 years ago

I certainly agree with the idea of not being better in an absolute sense, not sure I agree with both use cases. Graphics are built around digital representations of colours and shapes, Vectors are incredibly easy ways to represent 2d graphics, and are very easy to manipulate for digital computers. Polygons were quickly discovered as a memory efficient way of doing the same things in the 3d space. Analogue graphics representation or manipulation became outdated very quickly. For example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wxc3mKqKTk&ab_channel=VICET... shows how much old analogue machinery is required to replicate what could currently be done by most phones. I don't know enough about your other possible use case to comment on it.

gswdh|4 years ago

[deleted]

foldr|4 years ago

High frequency signal processing is an obvious example of a case where an analogue computer can be superior under certain conditions. Say you want to detect when a signal has risen above a certain average magnitude over a particular time window. You can quite easily do that using a few op amps and passive components, even up to GHz frequency signals. To do the same thing digitally would require high end ADCs and either a very fast CPU or an FPGA. If your budget is tight then even frequencies of 1MHz might prove challenging to process digitally.

This is probably one of the reasons why analogue fly by wire flight control systems existed quite a way into the digital age. The original Su-27 had an analogue fly by wire flight control system, for example.

nyoomboom|4 years ago

https://youtu.be/vHlbC74RJGU

I watched this talk, which describes the current von Neumann computer architecture as "analog communication with digital computing". This consumes more energy than digital communication with analog computing. Projects like Neurogrid, Intel's Loihi chip and pretty much any system that can efficiently run spiking neural networks.

Neuromorphic computing is where this is going.

Gravityloss|4 years ago

Analog washing machines had one nice practical thing since you could force the "program" counter forward or backwards. This was especially practical if you were with a tight schedule and the program contained unneeded parts. You could skip them manually. Of course you had to know what you were doing, like not open the door with water in the machine.

jonsen|4 years ago

Open source! In the old days when taking off the lid or back plate you would find a full schematic of the analogue computer inside inside.

codeflo|4 years ago

It’s been a while, but didn’t the program knob in those machines turn in discrete steps? If so, then that system was — to be pedantic — a mechanical digital computer, not an analog one.

ithkuil|4 years ago

There is nothing that prevents a digital machine from exposing such UX to the user.

xyzzy21|4 years ago

The "leading edge" of most corner technologies are usually better in analog. For example, SDRs in radio are only effective up to a certain data rate and frequency bandwidth. At some point analog signal processing (in this case classic "analog radio") is more effective and often the only possible implementation.

Thankfully I work on the leading edge of several technologies and I'm trained in analog so I see this stuff all the time.

analog31|4 years ago

Indeed, something like converting the frequency of a laser to a usable clock signal has to be done in the analog domain, and not necessarily even in the electronic domain. Also, (as Horowitz and Hill pointed out) getting higher performance digital electronics to work requires understanding analog techniques.

I do some analog work too, but today's mantra is: Get it into the digital domain as soon as possible.

tmcb|4 years ago

I have no experience with analog computers at all, but I think those could be less of a problem as of today. You could plug a bunch of digital sensors/controllers/actuators to the analog computing unit to monitor for those, which was simply not possible in the 60s. Also, you can check their accuracy against their digital equivalents or simulations, which are less efficient but yield better results.

Phillipharryt|4 years ago

Doesn't the inclusion of the digital accuracy checkers then decrease the efficiency, and mean you might as well use a completely digital computer? Just supposing here, but interfacing digital with analogue probably is a poor middle ground between the versatility and ubiquity of purely digital computers (countless existing systems exist to do whatever you want, with optimised algorithms and chips to work with) and purely analogue (presumably gain efficiency advantage by not having to cater to versatile use-cases).