What are the disadvantages of photonics when compared to electronics?

[The little lost angel]

Laser # 1 emits a beam of light that -- when concentrated into a
narrower beam -- is intense enough to cause thermonuclear fusion of the
of the deuterium and tritium in laser #2. The deuterium-tritium fusion
in "pumps" the rare-crystal medium in laser #2 causing #2 to give out
light of its own.

Hmm so how do you energize Laser Beam #1 in the first place?

 

[Radium]

Hmm so how do you energize Laser Beam #1 in the first place?

Laser #1 would be energized by a deuterum-tritium fusion also. However,
the fusion in laser #1 is initiated by another laser, laser-A. Laser-A
is pumped by whatever the most practical source is. After the
concentrated light from laser-A ignites the deuterium-tritium fusion in
laser #1, laser-A is then switched-off totally and then dissassembled
as it is no longer needed. After this, laser #2 is built and has its
deuterium-tritium fusion initiated by the concentrated beam emitted
from laser #1. A laser #3 is then built. Laser #3 can have its own
deuterium-tritium fusion initated by the beams from laser #1 and/or
laser #2. A laser #4 is then built and then, well you probably get the
point...

 

[The little lost angel]

Laser #1 would be energized by a deuterum-tritium fusion also. However,
the fusion in laser #1 is initiated by another laser, laser-A. Laser-A
is pumped by whatever the most practical source is.

and that most practical source would be ?

 

[Radium]

and that most practical source would be ?
Electricity??

 

[Rich Grise]

and that most practical source would be ?

Apparently, Divine Afflatus. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Mark L. Fergerson]

The little lost angel wrote:

Electricity??

By George, I think you're getting it.

You apparently didn't consider "efficient" to be a strong component
of "practical", but most engineers do. I mention that because
electronics _is_ the technology of manipulating electrons, which you'll
recall is how lasers work. All other ways to power lasers involve
conversion steps to get those electrons pumped, and each conversion step
loses you some energy.

Unless you intend to have each and every future photonic device to
have an onboard D-T reactor, why not take advantage of the
power-distribution grid which already provides the fundamental force
required to manipulate electrons? I suppose we might envision a future
optical-fiber power-distribution grid powered by D-T reactors but that
strikes me as a Really Bad Idea; unlike electrical outlets, optical
outlets would need complex, COMPLETELY idiot-proof baffles to keep the
"power" from leaking out every time you unplugged anything. Now imagine
a kid sticking a piece of unterminated optical fiber into an outlet...


Mark L. "Do Not Look Into Outlet With Remaining Eye" Fergerson

 

[Radium]

By George, I think you're getting it.

You apparently didn't consider "efficient" to be a strong component
of "practical", but most engineers do. I mention that because
electronics _is_ the technology of manipulating electrons, which you'll
recall is how lasers work. All other ways to power lasers involve
conversion steps to get those electrons pumped, and each conversion step
loses you some energy.

Unless you intend to have each and every future photonic device to
have an onboard D-T reactor,

I do intend for this.

why not take advantage of the
power-distribution grid which already provides the fundamental force
required to manipulate electrons?

Electricity is boring.

I suppose we might envision a future
optical-fiber power-distribution grid powered by D-T reactors but that
strikes me as a Really Bad Idea; unlike electrical outlets, optical
outlets would need complex, COMPLETELY idiot-proof baffles to keep the
"power" from leaking out every time you unplugged anything.

I still prefer this to electricity. While this D-T pumped,
purely-"laseronic" entity makes life more complicated, I feel it also
makes life more interesting.

In addition, lets abandon the LEDs and use lasers only. Also, the
lasers should be 400nm only.

400nm = black light

Now imagine
a kid sticking a piece of unterminated optical fiber into an outlet...

Lol. Then we should educate the kids, shouldn't we.

 

[The little lost angel]

Electricity??

And therefore let's skip all that impractical setup trying to sidestep
using electronics in optronics and just use the very practical
approach of using electrical/electronics to power the photonics! pP

 

[Radium]

And therefore let's skip all that impractical setup trying to sidestep
using electronics in optronics and just use the very practical
approach of using electrical/electronics to power the photonics! pP

But fusion is the most interesting!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

But fusion is the most interesting!

Not when you suffer from con-fusion! ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Rich Grise]

Not when you suffer from con-fusion! ;-)

I suppose there will now be a pro-fusion of misunderstanding. ;-D

Fusion will never replace fission as a power source, because the plant
operator can't take the day off and put up a sign: "Gone Fusion". ;-P

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Fields]

But fusion is the most interesting!

---
To Radium:

So what?

You're just throwing out shit

You have no idea what you're talking about, all you're trying to do
is gather responses.

Go away.

 

[John Fields]

I suppose there will now be a pro-fusion of misunderstanding. ;-D

Fusion will never replace fission as a power source, because the plant
operator can't take the day off and put up a sign: "Gone Fusion". ;-P

 

[Mark L. Fergerson]

But fusion is the most interesting!

It's also the most _impractical_, being as we don't know how to do it
yet.


Mark L. Fergerson

 

[The little lost angel]

But fusion is the most interesting!

ya know, just cos something is interesting doesn't necessarily mean
it's the BEST way to do things

 

[Radium]

It's also the most _impractical_, being as we don't know how to do it
yet.

D-T fusion has been done in labs.

 

[Mark L. Fergerson]

I should have challenged you on this earlier; what makes it so damn
"interesting"?

D-T fusion has been done in labs.

Some day I'll learn to be more specific for the difficult.

We know how to do matter-antimatter annihilation too, but have you
noticed anyone replacing coal-fired powerplants with M/AM reactors? No?
Ever stop to wonder why not? Because demonstrating the _possibility_ of
doing something is not the same as demonstrating its _practicality_.

Think about what the word "practical" means. It means, in this
context, surpassing "breakeven" which means getting more _usable_ power
out of the process than went into it. All commercial power systems
_have_ to operate far above breakeven, or they disqualify as
"commercial". Can you cite a tested D-T reactor design anywhere that
doesn't have to be fed orders of magnitude more power to run than comes
out? No, you can't; we don't know how to do it at, much less above,
breakeven. This is hardly "practical".

Right now (and for the foreseeable future) large arrays of solar
cells powering banks of 60 Hz inverters (or, for your purposes, laser
diodes) is enormously more "practical" than any D-T reactor. You'll also
notice nobody seriously proposing trying to run the National grid off
such a system.


Mark L. Fergerson