But of course, isn't it correct that the energy of cosmic rays and other travellers from interstellar space far exceed our particle accelerators on earth? And no destruction of the earth has resulted. So we are safe for you to continue your experiments.
Jumping into the discussion here - yes, that's correct, and that's why I for one don't worry about the Large Hadron Collider accidentally creating a black hole that consumes us all. The standard explanation as to why that's not a danger is "We trust in Hawking", in other words the theory that tiny black holes are doomed to vaporize almost immediately due to Hawking radiation. It seems likely that the theory is correct, but we still miss definite proof.. I wouldn't trust the world's safety on that. However, cosmic rays demonstrably create atmospheric collisions of far higher energies than the LHC, and we're still here.. and that I trust in.
What do you do with the checksums coming back from that minimalistic startup program? Only accept the checksum from one slave and assume all the others are going to respond the same so ignore their checksums?
I'l let humanoido answer this question..............................
I can answer this question, but I will only do so in a PM, I no longer answer any questions publicly, Nor am I releasing any more information publicly when it comes to my progress on any of my projects. I don't like getting plagiarized, and not getting credit for my own hard work.
MIT license, and Open hardware licenses, only work when people make the effort to give credit where its due, instead of taking all credit where no proof exists... most of us really don't even care, but when people persist in claiming that they are the original, they were the first etc... it gets a bit annoying as it KEEPS happening again and again, I am greatly saddened by this because it takes all the fun out of discovery, if you can't even get credit for your discoveries and coding efforts.
Actually Dr_Acula, I can help you with many of your questions on parallel processors, but we will have to engage in a private conversation, sorry to everyone else.. Forums are supposed to work in a fairly harmonious way, but instead we are supposed to just let anyone copy our stuff, claim ownership, and not call anyone out on it, or stand up for our selves because that will violate the forum rules. So, give your stuff away for free, and be happy when others claim ownership of it. Have a nice day.
Once a message/reply forces action to be taken on the post I feel compelled to remind those involved to please re-read the Forum Guidelines and keep things more family friendly.
Chris: I must have missed something that has been fixed.
I have been following this thread with interest. The Prop makes multiple chip gadgetry a lot more interesting than multiple xxx chips. With virtual peripherals and multiple cores, this is the stuff that gives this a much better interest.
When I found the prop, about 5 years ago now, my first pcb was a 6 prop pcb - I never built it - because I immediately realised some variations, and hence the TriBlade was born. I built these on panels of 10 pcbs which were v-grooved, so in fact I could have had 60 props on a board some 14"x16". Problem was these pcbs were sooo expensive because of their size.
I have always advocated multiple props for projects. Why use another micro with a prop, unless the design is price conscious or space limited, where a simple attiny will surfice.
Anyway, I have met Drac a few times at his home. Loved "chewing the fat" as they say in Australia (at least). I am to far away to go to him as a patient (about 1300km too far).
One of my designs was to put a prop and the simple bits such as bypass, xtal in a socket, 3v3 regulator, transistor reset, all on a 1" sq pcb with 36 pins. This made for a simple module for all sorts of designs, including "stacks" of props.
So I guess you could say I am a "boffin" too! BTW I also use 3 props in a commercial design.
BTW Why don't you take a look at the work I did to KyeDos to put it back into separate programs for each command, with a resident section. I think this would be an excellent base to extend a Prop OS. It is made for generic prop boards with SD.
Yes, it did and it did.....move along, there's nothing to see here....
Back to the glory of multiple Propellers!!
I'm going to redo my QuickStart Propeller Slave prototype (see attached) and try to make the pin selection flexible so they can be stacked up to 4 deep on a Quickstart. I haven't done a Diptrace board yet, so this might be my first once I get things worked out.
I plan on bringing a right angle 40 pin header out on the side opposite the QS 40 pin header to expose the slave pins. The USB power can drive 5 Propellers with no load but I think once I start loading up pins, it will need external power, so there will have to be some power connections brought to the party or else add one of Jeff's Servo and More boards to the stack.
I do kindly ask you not open this black hole until I have finished my multiple propeller project! But of course, isn't it correct that the energy of cosmic rays and other travellers from interstellar space far exceed our particle accelerators on earth? And no destruction of the earth has resulted. So we are safe for you to continue your experiments.
Thanks.
Given the elemental steps which need to be developed to open a black hole, you may have your multiple propeller project completed long before. Now I started "worrying" about other things like regional infinitesimal temporal anomalies surrounding the black hole (what if tiny things start disappearing in relativistic gravitational time travel), and causing all the lights to go out in the city (particle accelerator draining the city power station). It reminds me of the first contemplatives in the 1950s regarding the exploration of the Moon - thinking they might sink down and disappear in a quicksand of lunar dust.
Comments
-Tor
I'l let humanoido answer this question..............................
I can answer this question, but I will only do so in a PM, I no longer answer any questions publicly, Nor am I releasing any more information publicly when it comes to my progress on any of my projects. I don't like getting plagiarized, and not getting credit for my own hard work.
MIT license, and Open hardware licenses, only work when people make the effort to give credit where its due, instead of taking all credit where no proof exists... most of us really don't even care, but when people persist in claiming that they are the original, they were the first etc... it gets a bit annoying as it KEEPS happening again and again, I am greatly saddened by this because it takes all the fun out of discovery, if you can't even get credit for your discoveries and coding efforts.
Actually Dr_Acula, I can help you with many of your questions on parallel processors, but we will have to engage in a private conversation, sorry to everyone else.. Forums are supposed to work in a fairly harmonious way, but instead we are supposed to just let anyone copy our stuff, claim ownership, and not call anyone out on it, or stand up for our selves because that will violate the forum rules. So, give your stuff away for free, and be happy when others claim ownership of it.
Check out my own work on parallel processor programming.
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php/127983-55-Parallax-Propeller-s-Parallells-Processing-of-Permanent-Perturbations.
I have been following this thread with interest. The Prop makes multiple chip gadgetry a lot more interesting than multiple xxx chips. With virtual peripherals and multiple cores, this is the stuff that gives this a much better interest.
When I found the prop, about 5 years ago now, my first pcb was a 6 prop pcb - I never built it - because I immediately realised some variations, and hence the TriBlade was born. I built these on panels of 10 pcbs which were v-grooved, so in fact I could have had 60 props on a board some 14"x16". Problem was these pcbs were sooo expensive because of their size.
I have always advocated multiple props for projects. Why use another micro with a prop, unless the design is price conscious or space limited, where a simple attiny will surfice.
Anyway, I have met Drac a few times at his home. Loved "chewing the fat" as they say in Australia (at least). I am to far away to go to him as a patient (about 1300km too far).
One of my designs was to put a prop and the simple bits such as bypass, xtal in a socket, 3v3 regulator, transistor reset, all on a 1" sq pcb with 36 pins. This made for a simple module for all sorts of designs, including "stacks" of props.
So I guess you could say I am a "boffin" too! BTW I also use 3 props in a commercial design.
BTW Why don't you take a look at the work I did to KyeDos to put it back into separate programs for each command, with a resident section. I think this would be an excellent base to extend a Prop OS. It is made for generic prop boards with SD.
Back to the glory of multiple Propellers!!
I'm going to redo my QuickStart Propeller Slave prototype (see attached) and try to make the pin selection flexible so they can be stacked up to 4 deep on a Quickstart. I haven't done a Diptrace board yet, so this might be my first once I get things worked out.
I plan on bringing a right angle 40 pin header out on the side opposite the QS 40 pin header to expose the slave pins. The USB power can drive 5 Propellers with no load but I think once I start loading up pins, it will need external power, so there will have to be some power connections brought to the party or else add one of Jeff's Servo and More boards to the stack.
Just some more fuel to add to the project pile.
Thanks.
Given the elemental steps which need to be developed to open a black hole, you may have your multiple propeller project completed long before. Now I started "worrying" about other things like regional infinitesimal temporal anomalies surrounding the black hole (what if tiny things start disappearing in relativistic gravitational time travel), and causing all the lights to go out in the city (particle accelerator draining the city power station). It reminds me of the first contemplatives in the 1950s regarding the exploration of the Moon - thinking they might sink down and disappear in a quicksand of lunar dust.