It still does not sound like a useful technology, just because of having to convert from and then back to an electrical signal. That takes up both space and power, and then the losses are greater in any sort of optical medium than they are in an equal run of copper, correctly designed and built. Besides that, it certainly seems that the accuracy of alignment needed for these optial interconnects is going to be a bit tighter than for electrcal connections.
It still looks a whole lot like somebodie's neat solution searching intensely for a suitabl problem.
OF course, if it does turn out to be a useful idea, then we will see it in industry, someplace. If not, then we won't. But I am NOT going to invest in that company.
Mydesign, the whole point of using this new optical technology--which does not rely on bulky fibers--is that communication speeds are far outpacing coax in high-end computing, and will do so relatively soon, at the current speed increases, in computers used by the rest of us.
Jack, I don't mean to pry, but would you tell us what decade that was, or how many years ago? I'm curious because I first heard of this idea in the mid-late 90s. Did you encounter this idea before or after that?
"those very short distances on a backplane the optical connection woul;d be way more bother than it would be worth. For larger distances, several feet or more, it makes some sense, but for board-to-board interconnect I see it as a waste of effort and materials."
Willam, am agreeing with you. For shorter distance coaxial cables are better than optical fiber because attenuation losses are less in shorter distance. Moreover inter connectivity is difficult with fiber optics.
I think there's some confusion about the nature of optical connections being proposed. The whole point of this new technology is that, if you used optical *fibers*, you need so many at the board-to-board, chip-to-board and chip-to-chip levels that you can't physically get them into such a small space: they don't scale like transistors do. But if you implement them in waveguides--i.e., embed optical connections in thin sheets of silicone via standard semiconductor manufacturing methods for laying down circuits--you can get the size down for placing on, or integrating with, boards. The researchers specifically targeted this smaller, chip-to-board scale first, and are also proposing to extend it to board-to-board connections.
@ mydesign, my point is that for those very short distances on a backplane the optical connection woul;d be way more bother than it would be worth. For larger distances, several feet or more, it makes some sense, but for board-to-board interconnect I see it as a waste of effort and materials.
Robots that walk have come a long way from simple barebones walking machines or pairs of legs without an upper body and head. Much of the research these days focuses on making more humanoid robots. But they are not all created equal.
The IEEE Computer Society has named the top 10 trends for 2014. You can expect the convergence of cloud computing and mobile devices, advances in health care data and devices, as well as privacy issues in social media to make the headlines. And 3D printing came out of nowhere to make a big splash.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.