From Designing Keylogging Smartphones to Nanotech and Beyond ai;ia;dnarobotics

[ImplicitDemands]

It's all based on the photo electric effect Einstein wrote. 

The layout of the touchscreen uses photoelectronics. 

The process Microsoft uses to interface is say light reflected through the glass off the fingertip, reflected again off of a mirror based on trigonometric functions into particular photovoltaic particles through fiber-optics. The current let off through electron excitation travels through conductive wires into LEDs which let out frequencies at alternating intervals (01s) into photo-ionics of opposing charge into a series of em motors which can change the outputs of leds which ones are on or off.

The process of installing an app that uses that interface has to do with lasers sending certain intervals of light frequencies into remote servers, usually with the satellite being the proxy, which then returns a set that makes that interface behave in a new way. You know, anything from flash-drives to neural interfaces in nanotechnologies use these.

Beyond that I have designed a stationary nanorobotic arm with two axes of rotation and now I do know how to control and automate its motion with a digital interface like an iphone. The actual operational specs require trigonometric functions as well maths in order to direct light reflected off the fingertips into the right fiber optic cables for ported to those particular induction motors which open and close the contacts for the LEDs whilst charging a microlaser (keylogging). 

It is important for any interested parties to know that if you want to manufacture any type of relevant technology in this day and age it all uses this technology. 

Edited April 20 by ImplicitDemands

[Ghideon]

The opening post does not make much sense; what do you wish to discuss?

[ImplicitDemands]

20 hours ago, Ghideon said:

The opening post does not make much sense; what do you wish to discuss?

I thought it was clear. What are you unable to understand? 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, ImplicitDemands said:

I thought it was clear. What are you unable to understand? 

I thought it was clear. "What do you wish to discuss?" is pretty clear.

Are you trying to sell your robotic arm to us, or are you interested in the processes you've encountered, or do you want to talk about new behaviors in interfaces? Your OP was anything but clear about what you wish to discuss.

[ImplicitDemands]

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I thought it was clear. "What do you wish to discuss?" is pretty clear.

Are you trying to sell your robotic arm to us, or are you interested in the processes you've encountered, or do you want to talk about new behaviors in interfaces? Your OP was anything but clear about what you wish to discuss.

How to build a smart phone, and program every single task that it performs. 

You can do more than that, you can control lasers, which can help you make smaller parts. 

Edited April 23 by ImplicitDemands

[Ghideon]

On 4/20/2024 at 8:07 PM, ImplicitDemands said:

It's all based on the photo electric effect Einstein wrote. 

No.

On 4/20/2024 at 8:07 PM, ImplicitDemands said:

The layout of the touchscreen uses photoelectronics. 

As far as I know modern touchscreens typically work either via resistive technology or capacitive technology. 

[ImplicitDemands]

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

No.

As far as I know modern touchscreens typically work either via resistive technology or capacitive technology. 

Like the mouse on a laptop. Yes well, there are other ways that are easier to interface, more specifically controlling the EM motor rotations of PLFs and fiberoptics that can photoionize these motors. 

[Ghideon]

6 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Like the mouse on a laptop. Yes well, there are other ways that are easier to interface, more specifically controlling the EM motor rotations of PLFs and fiberoptics that can photoionize these motors. 

Are you by any chance using translation software? If so it is not very good; I think "technobabble" is the correct definition for the above.

[ImplicitDemands]

8 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Are you by any chance using translation software? If so it is not very good; I think "technobabble" is the correct definition for the above.

Where there's ionization, there's a change in charge, i.e. magnetism. The LEDs in a touchscreen are also examples of the photoelectric effect.

If you were to ionize a neutrally charged material via the photoelectric effect, say porting a fiber optic cable to it and applying a ray of the right frequency to that cable would cause it to become positively charged and any other neutrally charged material adjacent to it, connected via a conductor, would acquire capacitance momentarily before the two neutralized. 

Edited April 23 by ImplicitDemands

[Ghideon]

8 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

The LEDs in a touchscreen are also examples of the photoelectric effect.

You are probably referring to  electroluminescence, not photoelectric effect.

[ImplicitDemands]

25 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You are probably referring to  electroluminescence, not photoelectric effect.

Photoelectric effect - As an electron returns to its normal state upon one photon entering and exiting a system, two photons are released.

Electroluminescence - Electricity takes grazes through in an atomic orbital, and light is released continually

Photovoltaics - A photon passes through an atomic medium and electrons are released

Fiber optic cable - Is the photoelectric effects applied to the atoms along the cable

Photoionization - A photon enters into a system and an electron is released from the atomic orbital and the atom is now a positive ion

Magnetism - The electrons have opposite spin causing the bodies to be magnetized

Notice I use the term "grazing through an atomic orbital continually" for electroluminescence now photoionization can also cause this to happen at one positive interval followed by a negative interval. Hence induction motor. 

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Photoelectric effect - As an electron returns to its normal state upon one photon entering and exiting a system, two photons are released.

Photoelectric effect is basically the same as photoionization of an atom, for a single photon. Photon in, electron out.

edit: an LED is not doing this

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, ImplicitDemands said:

 

Magnetism - The electrons have opposite spin causing the bodies to be magnetized

 

Every electron has its own magnetic moment. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment#:~:text=In atomic physics%2C the electron,24 J⋅T−1.

Edited April 23 by Mordred

[ImplicitDemands]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Photoelectric effect is basically the same as photoionization of an atom, for a single photon. Photon in, electron out.

edit: an LED is not doing this

An LED is basically the reverse of photovoltaics, i.e. electroluminescence. 

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Every electron has its own magnetic moment. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment#:~:text=In atomic physics%2C the electron,24 J⋅T−1.

As for it's own magnetic moment, whatever the culprit is that doesn't change the fact that magnetization is the point where the two opposing orbitals cross paths as those sides of the atom are adjacent. When I said spin I meant orbital magnetization. As in the port where the fiber optic cable connects to battery a, photoionization occurs and the conductor connecting battery a to battery b adopts one atomic orbital which attracts one end of the cylinder which has a magnet, then the orbitals reverse throughout the conductor as the positive ionized battery a takes back the additional electrons from the negatively ionized batter b, attracting the other end of the cylinder which has an anti-magnet. Your retina are like little photovoltaic batteries, their cells can experience photoinization which is not unlike the process of photosynthesis or why ionized gas in hydrothermal vents are the culprit for the creation of chemical bonds leading to the carbon based dna in our cells. If you have LEDs that are small enough, I'd wage the easiest was to program them to light up in just the right combination to produce a picture through our retina I'd wager the easiest way to program a touch screen interface is what I described here but I can use math to figure out exactly how that interface needs to be set up.

Edited April 24 by ImplicitDemands

[exchemist]

6 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

An LED is basically the reverse of photovoltaics, i.e. electroluminescence. 

As for it's own magnetic moment, whatever the culprit is that doesn't change the fact that magnetization is the point where the two opposing orbitals cross paths as those sides of the atom are adjacent. When I said spin I meant orbital magnetization. As in the port where the fiber optic cable connects to battery a, photoionization occurs and the conductor connecting battery a to battery b adopts one atomic orbital which attracts one end of the cylinder which has a magnet, then the orbitals reverse throughout the conductor as the positive ionized battery a takes back the additional electrons from the negatively ionized batter b, attracting the other end of the cylinder which has an anti-magnet. Your retina are like little photovoltaic batteries, their cells can experience photoinization which is not unlike the process of photosynthesis or why ionized gas in hydrothermal vents are the culprit for the creation of chemical bonds leading to the carbon based dna in our cells. If you have LEDs that are small enough, I'd wage the easiest was to program them to light up in just the right combination to produce a picture through our retina I'd wager the easiest way to program a touch screen interface is what I described here but I can use math to figure out exactly how that interface needs to be set up.

Hard to know where to start with this gibberish. Almost everything you say is wrong, almost as if intentionally so.

Just to take one point, there is no photoionisation in the retina of the eye. Photons are absorbed by proteins called opsins, which thereby enter an excited state and change from one isomer to another (cis ->trans). The isomerised version then undergoes a chemical reaction with other molecules to start a cascade of biochemistry, resulting in a nerve signal. This is not photoionisation.   

Edited April 24 by exchemist

[swansont]

7 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

An LED is basically the reverse of photovoltaics, i.e. electroluminescence. 

Which is not the photoelectric effect. In an LED you excite electrons to a higher band in a semiconductor, and when they drop back down you get a photon. 

[ImplicitDemands]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Which is not the photoelectric effect. In an LED you excite electrons to a higher band in a semiconductor, and when they drop back down you get a photon. 

Thank you for repeating that. 

 

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

Hard to know where to start with this gibberish. Almost everything you say is wrong, almost as if intentionally so.

Just to take one point, there is no photoionisation in the retina of the eye. Photons are absorbed by proteins called opsins, which thereby enter an excited state and change from one isomer to another (cis ->trans). The isomerised version then undergoes a chemical reaction with other molecules to start a cascade of biochemistry, resulting in a nerve signal. This is not photoionisation.   

Proteins are made out atoms which have electrons. So at the very most basic level what is happening is literally ionization from light in the dna composing the retina. Yes when you get to the cellular level things like photosynthesis seem more complex but it's all just light and electricity interacting with each other just like the computer. 

Edited April 24 by ImplicitDemands

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Thank you for repeating that. 

If you repeat your errors I will repeat the corrections.

38 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Proteins are made out atoms which have electrons. So at the very most basic level what is happening is literally ionization from light in the dna composing the retina. Yes when you get to the cellular level things like photosynthesis seem more complex but it's all just light and electricity interacting with each other just like the computer. 

Red light lacks the energy to ionize, so that’s not what’s going on. I’ll leave it to others to correct the biology.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Thank you for repeating that. 

 

Proteins are made out atoms which have electrons. So at the very most basic level what is happening is literally ionization from light in the dna composing the retina. Yes when you get to the cellular level things like photosynthesis seem more complex but it's all just light and electricity interacting with each other just like the computer. 

No, this is wrong. You need to understand the difference between excitation and ionisation. Photons are often absorbed without having enough energy to eject an electron. They just move it to a higher, but still bound, energy state. This creates an excited state of the atom or molecule that has absorbed the photon. The whole of spectroscopy involves processes of this kind.

[Ghideon]

20 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Photoelectric effect - As an electron returns to its normal state upon one photon entering and exiting a system, two photons are released.

Electroluminescence - Electricity takes grazes through in an atomic orbital, and light is released continually

Photovoltaics - A photon passes through an atomic medium and electrons are released

Fiber optic cable - Is the photoelectric effects applied to the atoms along the cable

Photoionization - A photon enters into a system and an electron is released from the atomic orbital and the atom is now a positive ion

Magnetism - The electrons have opposite spin causing the bodies to be magnetized

Notice I use the term "grazing through an atomic orbital continually" for electroluminescence now photoionization can also cause this to happen at one positive interval followed by a negative interval. Hence induction motor. 

Fiber optic cables operate on the principle of total internal reflection, not the photoelectric effect.

 

Edited April 24 by Ghideon
Removed a swansont quote I added by mistake

[ImplicitDemands]

On 4/24/2024 at 12:47 PM, Ghideon said:

Fiber optic cables operate on the principle of total internal reflection, not the photoelectric effect.

 

You see it is easy to confuse all of these terms, a real digitally-automated user-interface that can do any of the things in my topic title fully utilizes almost every quantum phenomenon in gestalt except maybe electrodeionization (preferring to use photoconductivity in one of the components). It can even make use of a combination of photovoltaics in unison with electroluminescence and excitons that, when combined with my own type of photoionized-electroluminescent laser receiver can multiply the energy reabsorbed back into a laser-based plasma-fusion reactor. 

For the synthesis of the materials exhibiting these quantum properties from natural places on earth I would suggest starting with crystals and metallics (with the understanding these form from various volcanic and hydrothermal activity that heats, mixes, and ultimately transmutes rock-based materials from all different places carried to one hydrothermal vent by oceanic current or some other volcanized area via plate tectonics) along with chemical reactions in the lab. Might I suggest creating deep subterranean tunnels to release pressurized volcanic flows of ionized gas and magma directly into a facility that needs both the heat, ionized gas and the material in magma flows to do the work? The Mariana's trench is the deepest place on earth and therefore the best place to start on such tunnels. Constructing the hollow earth would be the best way to initiate the next era of manufacturing mass amounts of tech and industry. 

Edited May 19 by ImplicitDemands

[CharonY]

On 4/24/2024 at 9:23 AM, ImplicitDemands said:

So at the very most basic level what is happening is literally ionization from light in the dna composing the retina.

As stated before: nope. Astonishingly, this short sentence manages to be wrong on multiple levels. Going backward, the retina is not composed of DNA, DNA is not ionized by (visible) light. At most there  is photoexcitation by UV which can lead to DNA lesions, but not ionization. Taken together, it seems that you do not understand what ionization means, especially in the context of biomolecules. 

Also during photosynthesis there is no ionization by light, either. The electron flow is driven by conformation changes within the system that ultimately allow the extraction of electrons and protons from water. The light energy powers these changes but does not ionize the photosystem. I am not sure, are you just having a bit of fun of mushing words together that you don't quite understand? 

[Ghideon]

22 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

You see it is easy to confuse all of these terms, a real digitally-automated user-interface that can do any of the things in my topic title fully utilizes almost every quantum phenomenon in gestalt except maybe electrodeionization (preferring to use photoconductivity in one of the components).

There are several issues with the first sentence. For instance electrodeionization is, as far as I know, a water treatment technology and not a quantum phenomenon.

 

(Note: If you use downvotes to my posts or other members it does not help you build arguments)

[ImplicitDemands]

On 5/20/2024 at 1:38 PM, Ghideon said:

(Note: If you use downvotes to my posts or other members it does not help you build arguments)

Whatever do you mean? I don't know what you're even talking about..digital privacy rights says you couldn't actually prove it was me. You don't know who's doing it but I must say some crazy man really is going around dishing out negative reputations like a firestorm for no reason what so ever. 

Look I'd like to talk (not argue) about the properties that allow remote automation and computer interfaces but not if multiple members are going to siderail it with massive negative reputations every time I write something to no aim or purpose. Look I have shown more than most members here in mathematics and where they got I like I got nothing. Next pointless neg I'm calling a quits on sci-forums.

I've left a lot of this to just quantum properties exhibited by the components such as the photoelectric effect because I took the PLC class and I'm not having it, so I know that it's something not apparent or obviously shown like the common circuit designs taught in your usual run of the mill associate program computer science: hardware. So yes, I am wanting to take this topic into optical computers.

I sense all computing is optical electrics, especially that what we're interfacing with in these convos is producing light from our inputs via electrical channels, and what these textbooks show here in my studies is actually a mistaken general idea about the technology, offered by people who never really had actual confirmation because there is a lot about the world that doesn't make practical sense if you really think about it:

From the germanium described in the very first transistors to the pre-satellite submarine cables. The first phone itself, how did the device mimic a unique voice? How were those sounds digitized in the first place, I looked into it and I do believe speakers use micro-changes in air density brought on after the electrical stimulation of many many electroactive polymers as their shape changes abruptly. But then again even the blinking light that are shorted in my dorm make sounds and there's no speaker there. So there's got to be more to it if you really ponder it. 

So everything I've written is non-specific and yes with complex chemical properties being circumvent immediate definitions it's easy to shoot down when I state something so if you wouldn't mind going over such circumvents to how I picture an actual component working versus how it would actually work without out dishing out a negative reputation for no reason or purpose, then you're welcome to start here:

On 4/23/2024 at 10:07 PM, ImplicitDemands said:

As for it's own magnetic moment, whatever the culprit is that doesn't change the fact that magnetization is the point where the two opposing orbitals cross paths as those sides of the atom are adjacent. When I said spin I meant orbital magnetization. As in the port where the fiber optic cable connects to battery a, photoionization occurs and the conductor connecting battery a to battery b adopts one atomic orbital which attracts one end of the bar-magnet in an induction motor, then the orbitals reverse throughout the conductor as the positive ionized battery a takes back the additional electrons from the negatively ionized batter b, attracting the other end of the bar magnet in the Induction Motor. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-018-0055-y/figures/1

"Yeah, it's more or less what happens in a conductor. A typical conductor, like a solid metal, consists of a regular arrangement of ions, along with a "sea" of electrons that are not associated with any particular ion. This is what allows those electrons to carry current efficiently, they are not bound to atoms so they can hop easily from ion to ion." 

In theory, this "ionization voltage" carried through a conductive material by a photoionized material will become capacitated. 

On 4/23/2024 at 3:43 PM, ImplicitDemands said:

say porting a fiber optic cable to it and applying a ray of the right frequency to that cable would cause it to become positively charged and any other neutrally charged material adjacent to it, connected via a conductor, would acquire capacitance momentarily before the two neutralized

As far as a photoionized port around a spindle of electroluminescent wire stimulating an exciton material between two mirrors, and I didn't intent to explain how my idea of a transmitter works (especially given I already described some of the info for my idea of its receiver); if that would work it is only because photoionization can produce some voltage.

So you see there isn't a single integrated circuit in this PC/robotic control interface. And that's the last of the totality of device's components and features that I'm giving away freely, but I've been wrong before. So just go over what is written in this post and see if you can't find any holes in my idea of engineering. If you or whoever would please refrain from pointless innitiation-negging. In which case I've already spent too much time in a place like this. 

Edited May 21 by ImplicitDemands

[Ghideon]

On 5/22/2024 at 12:49 AM, ImplicitDemands said:

what these textbooks show here in my studies is actually a mistaken general idea about the technology, offered by people who never really had actual confirmation because there is a lot about the world that doesn't make practical sense if you really think about it:

If you quote some specific book we might be able to adress misconceptions or errors.

 

On 5/22/2024 at 12:49 AM, ImplicitDemands said:

The first phone itself, how did the device mimic a unique voice? How were those sounds digitized in the first place, I looked into it and I do believe speakers use micro-changes in air density brought on after the electrical stimulation of many many electroactive polymers as their shape changes abruptly. But then again even the blinking light that are shorted in my dorm make sounds and there's no speaker there. So there's got to be more to it if you really ponder it. 

The first phones did not digitize sounds. They transmitted analog signals. If you have a specific question about vintage phones and speakers I may provide some answers and practical insights about the signal chain from the microphone to the speaker. An possibly compare it to noice produced as a byproduct in lights and other electric appliances for additional insights. Are there any specific details you are curious about?