Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »Never accused just spoke of research and how what is read should be with a grain of salt....yes I just pulled 12 bottles of diet soda out of my a**. Using that as an example not as gospel tried and true research! It can all be twisted to benefit someone....the bottom line I say$$$
If someone wants to find something out...they need to dig.
How do you know what is flippant accusation and where does experience draw its line.
Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The internet is full of ridiculous accusation and bogus material ....believe it if you like....discard it if you like. It the right of the individual.
To recap, you're suggesting a research scientist who does this stuff for a living shouldn't get his information from the internet? Wow.
Well I am a research scientist, but just to be clear I don't investigate the safety and DMPK/ADME properties of artificial sweeteners for a living. I know you didn't say that but people might read it that way and I don't want them to think that is true and that I am more of an expert than I actually am. I work in drug development for infectious disease not in industrial production of food stuffs, I am just familiar with the type of efficacy/tox/metabolism studies that would be commonly used as well as the biochemical metabolic pathways that would be involved in the breakdown of a methylated dipeptide.9 -
Now I feel justified in ignoring all those people, all those years, who kept telling me Diet Pepsi was bad for me.
PEPSI DARLING! I'm coming home.12 -
Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.3
-
victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.8 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.2 -
rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
Every decade they say we will be out of oil in the next 20 years. I know they were saying back in my grandparents' day. My physics prof said the problem was that people don't understand the doubling effect and that every year we double the demand. I understand the doubling effect, I also understand that if you miss the doubling that changes the future demand tremendously (exponentially) and that we miss doublings all the time. In fact, we rarely double so his whole conclusion was based on a premise that was a complete lie.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
I wish there was some way to make a bet on the subject.
History is pretty clear on the subject, when we actually get within 20 years of running out, smart boys and girls will very quickly invent or discover a more efficient or equally efficient energy storage/transport mechanism.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
I wish there was some way to make a bet on the subject.
History is pretty clear on the subject, when we actually get within 20 years of running out, smart boys and girls will very quickly invent or discover a more efficient or equally efficient energy storage/transport mechanism.
So, when we are close to running out and the cost of extraction becomes too high for what remains, someone will come up with a more cost effective energy source?
Weird.
The problem (today) is that oil is still very energy dense compared to the alternatives.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
I wish there was some way to make a bet on the subject.
History is pretty clear on the subject, when we actually get within 20 years of running out, smart boys and girls will very quickly invent or discover a more efficient or equally efficient energy storage/transport mechanism.
So, when we are close to running out and the cost of extraction becomes too high for what remains, someone will come up with a more cost effective energy source?
Weird.
The problem (today) is that oil is still very energy dense compared to the alternatives.
That's the bet I'd take. at pretty much any odds.
As far as safe handling and energy density it's amazing.
For all I know, the advancement will be a nuclear power plant that cracks oil from air or water or feces.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
I wish there was some way to make a bet on the subject.
History is pretty clear on the subject, when we actually get within 20 years of running out, smart boys and girls will very quickly invent or discover a more efficient or equally efficient energy storage/transport mechanism.
So, when we are close to running out and the cost of extraction becomes too high for what remains, someone will come up with a more cost effective energy source?
Weird.
The problem (today) is that oil is still very energy dense compared to the alternatives.
That's the bet I'd take. at pretty much any odds.
As far as safe handling and energy density it's amazing.
For all I know, the advancement will be a nuclear power plant that cracks oil from air or water or feces.
*kitten* for fuel. Better than Soylent (the movie stuff, not the actual product).2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
I wish there was some way to make a bet on the subject.
History is pretty clear on the subject, when we actually get within 20 years of running out, smart boys and girls will very quickly invent or discover a more efficient or equally efficient energy storage/transport mechanism.
So, when we are close to running out and the cost of extraction becomes too high for what remains, someone will come up with a more cost effective energy source?
Weird.
The problem (today) is that oil is still very energy dense compared to the alternatives.
This is true, and it's the main reason why we haven't got off of burning hydrocarbons for energy but as the cost of those remaining hydrocarbons increases the alternatives will become more attractive. Just like we can figure out how to keep Moore's Law going for decades we can figure out how to improve the efficiency of those alternative sources. We really don't have much choice.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
I wish there was some way to make a bet on the subject.
History is pretty clear on the subject, when we actually get within 20 years of running out, smart boys and girls will very quickly invent or discover a more efficient or equally efficient energy storage/transport mechanism.
So, when we are close to running out and the cost of extraction becomes too high for what remains, someone will come up with a more cost effective energy source?
Weird.
The problem (today) is that oil is still very energy dense compared to the alternatives.
This is true, and it's the main reason why we haven't got off of burning hydrocarbons for energy but as the cost of those remaining hydrocarbons increases the alternatives will become more attractive. Just like we can figure out how to keep Moore's Law going for decades we can figure out how to improve the efficiency of those alternative sources. We really don't have much choice.
Yeah, we were supposed to run into light speed limits on Moore's Law 8 or 9 years ago.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
I wish there was some way to make a bet on the subject.
History is pretty clear on the subject, when we actually get within 20 years of running out, smart boys and girls will very quickly invent or discover a more efficient or equally efficient energy storage/transport mechanism.
So, when we are close to running out and the cost of extraction becomes too high for what remains, someone will come up with a more cost effective energy source?
Weird.
The problem (today) is that oil is still very energy dense compared to the alternatives.
This is true, and it's the main reason why we haven't got off of burning hydrocarbons for energy but as the cost of those remaining hydrocarbons increases the alternatives will become more attractive. Just like we can figure out how to keep Moore's Law going for decades we can figure out how to improve the efficiency of those alternative sources. We really don't have much choice.
Yeah, we were supposed to run into light speed limits on Moore's Law 8 or 9 years ago.
If I recall my chip engineering it wasn't speed so much as size constraints. I'm not sure how they got around the size constraints right now because it's been so long and my speciality is enterprise architecture and strategic planning and not chip engineering. Maybe one of the practising EEs can chime in.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
I wish there was some way to make a bet on the subject.
History is pretty clear on the subject, when we actually get within 20 years of running out, smart boys and girls will very quickly invent or discover a more efficient or equally efficient energy storage/transport mechanism.
So, when we are close to running out and the cost of extraction becomes too high for what remains, someone will come up with a more cost effective energy source?
Weird.
The problem (today) is that oil is still very energy dense compared to the alternatives.
This is true, and it's the main reason why we haven't got off of burning hydrocarbons for energy but as the cost of those remaining hydrocarbons increases the alternatives will become more attractive. Just like we can figure out how to keep Moore's Law going for decades we can figure out how to improve the efficiency of those alternative sources. We really don't have much choice.
Yeah, we were supposed to run into light speed limits on Moore's Law 8 or 9 years ago.
If I recall my chip engineering it wasn't speed so much as size constraints. I'm not sure how they got around the size constraints right now because it's been so long and my speciality is enterprise architecture and strategic planning and not chip engineering. Maybe one of the practising EEs can chime in.
I've also fallen out of the state of the art, but I believe that one of the things that was done as "crossbleed" increased was additional checksums and redundancies.
1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
I wish there was some way to make a bet on the subject.
History is pretty clear on the subject, when we actually get within 20 years of running out, smart boys and girls will very quickly invent or discover a more efficient or equally efficient energy storage/transport mechanism.
So, when we are close to running out and the cost of extraction becomes too high for what remains, someone will come up with a more cost effective energy source?
Weird.
The problem (today) is that oil is still very energy dense compared to the alternatives.
This is true, and it's the main reason why we haven't got off of burning hydrocarbons for energy but as the cost of those remaining hydrocarbons increases the alternatives will become more attractive. Just like we can figure out how to keep Moore's Law going for decades we can figure out how to improve the efficiency of those alternative sources. We really don't have much choice.
Yeah, we were supposed to run into light speed limits on Moore's Law 8 or 9 years ago.
If I recall my chip engineering it wasn't speed so much as size constraints. I'm not sure how they got around the size constraints right now because it's been so long and my speciality is enterprise architecture and strategic planning and not chip engineering. Maybe one of the practising EEs can chime in.
I've also fallen out of the state of the art, but I believe that one of the things that was done as "crossbleed" increased was additional checksums and redundancies.
Now I'm interested in reading up on that lol.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
I wish there was some way to make a bet on the subject.
History is pretty clear on the subject, when we actually get within 20 years of running out, smart boys and girls will very quickly invent or discover a more efficient or equally efficient energy storage/transport mechanism.
So, when we are close to running out and the cost of extraction becomes too high for what remains, someone will come up with a more cost effective energy source?
Weird.
The problem (today) is that oil is still very energy dense compared to the alternatives.
That's the bet I'd take. at pretty much any odds.
As far as safe handling and energy density it's amazing.
For all I know, the advancement will be a nuclear power plant that cracks oil from air or water or feces.
I'd rather have the backup plan ready before we need it.2 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
I wish there was some way to make a bet on the subject.
History is pretty clear on the subject, when we actually get within 20 years of running out, smart boys and girls will very quickly invent or discover a more efficient or equally efficient energy storage/transport mechanism.
So, when we are close to running out and the cost of extraction becomes too high for what remains, someone will come up with a more cost effective energy source?
Weird.
The problem (today) is that oil is still very energy dense compared to the alternatives.
This is true, and it's the main reason why we haven't got off of burning hydrocarbons for energy but as the cost of those remaining hydrocarbons increases the alternatives will become more attractive. Just like we can figure out how to keep Moore's Law going for decades we can figure out how to improve the efficiency of those alternative sources. We really don't have much choice.
Yeah, we were supposed to run into light speed limits on Moore's Law 8 or 9 years ago.
If I recall my chip engineering it wasn't speed so much as size constraints. I'm not sure how they got around the size constraints right now because it's been so long and my speciality is enterprise architecture and strategic planning and not chip engineering. Maybe one of the practising EEs can chime in.
I've been in IC layout work since 1983 and recently was at the bleedingest bleeding edge of lithography.
That was 7nm. 5nm is e-beam territory, and e-beam is not a lithographic process and cannot be done in wafer-scale mass production. The nice thing about 7nm was that the silicon end product of a rectangle was a rectangle. Nothing was smudged, filleted, or rounded. As a consequence of that, lower levels of metal prohibited turns. Any 90 degree turn would create a sharp point and a high risk of electro-migration effects.
Anyway, Moore was a wild ride while it lasted, but's over.
At least we got to a point with finfets at 7nm that leakage dropped to near 0, allowing millions of transistors on a tiny little piece of silicon to run fast and cold, making those tiny batteries in your tiny smart phones last hours and hours. You're welcome.4 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »victoriarunner3572 wrote: »Eh I don’t agree or disagree but I had a chemistry professor that PREACHED on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. She was out right bitchy about it really. I don’t drink it because I hate that after taste.
I had a physics prof that told me, without any doubt, that we would be out of oil in 20 years! That was back in the 90's. Some professors will speak as alarmists rather than scientists, and that's a huge problem for me.
I had a similar situation with a biology prof saying the same thing in the 80s, so I guess it was nothing new by the 90s.
I see we still have oil.
First reference I can find is late 60s early 70s. 50 years later... we're going to run out of oil in 20 years... FOR SURE!!
I hope you are in your 80's so I can't collect on the bet we are about to have.
I wish there was some way to make a bet on the subject.
History is pretty clear on the subject, when we actually get within 20 years of running out, smart boys and girls will very quickly invent or discover a more efficient or equally efficient energy storage/transport mechanism.
So, when we are close to running out and the cost of extraction becomes too high for what remains, someone will come up with a more cost effective energy source?
Weird.
The problem (today) is that oil is still very energy dense compared to the alternatives.
This is true, and it's the main reason why we haven't got off of burning hydrocarbons for energy but as the cost of those remaining hydrocarbons increases the alternatives will become more attractive. Just like we can figure out how to keep Moore's Law going for decades we can figure out how to improve the efficiency of those alternative sources. We really don't have much choice.
Yeah, we were supposed to run into light speed limits on Moore's Law 8 or 9 years ago.
If I recall my chip engineering it wasn't speed so much as size constraints. I'm not sure how they got around the size constraints right now because it's been so long and my speciality is enterprise architecture and strategic planning and not chip engineering. Maybe one of the practising EEs can chime in.
I've been in IC layout work since 1983 and recently was at the bleedingest bleeding edge of lithography.
That was 7nm. 5nm is e-beam territory, and e-beam is not a lithographic process and cannot be done in wafer-scale mass production. The nice thing about 7nm was that the silicon end product of a rectangle was a rectangle. Nothing was smudged, filleted, or rounded. As a consequence of that, lower levels of metal prohibited turns. Any 90 degree turn would create a sharp point and a high risk of electro-migration effects.
Anyway, Moore was a wild ride while it lasted, but's over.
At least we got to a point with finfets at 7nm that leakage dropped to near 0, allowing millions of transistors on a tiny little piece of silicon to run fast and cold, making those tiny batteries in your tiny smart phones last hours and hours. You're welcome.
Thanks, I'm not surprised that Moore's has run it's course but damn it's amazing how much IC have come since I studied them. Now I kind of wished I was involved but I preferred to carve code and then ended up in network engineering and communications engineering before landing in EA. I think IC would have been a very interesting ride indeed.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions