I don't think so. Following the little I know about the last science state, and theories of information, life seems to appear each time water is in its liquid state, and subject to movements in presence of amino acids.
It seems amino acids are very common in the Universe, in planets and even in comets.
Life appears even when conditions are very different, not always based, as us, on the carbon chemistry. Cyanogenic bacteria exists, even in areas where life is difficult to imagine, if we consider the chemical and physical conditions.
To resume, cosmos looks like a big machine, programmed to produce life (and diamonds for our Ladies). A machine with a very low efficiency and not programmed to produce a specific form, but to try everything that is chemically and physically possible. Like suns are machines programmed to produce both energy and all the chemical elements that Mendeleïev imagined.
We know, too, that, with time, and when life exists in its most primitive forms, life tends to evolve in more complex forms, and create inevitably *intelligence*.
As well as, on our planet, in very specific conditions and evolution of those conditions, life had produced so many different species, and that no human is the same than an other, we can expect very various forms of life and intelligence in the universe.
The only question is about time and distances, witch make the probability for intelligent species living in two different planets to can met together, very low.
[EDIT] Oh, Richard, there is no fluke in the Universe, only random. Laws of physics are very universal for what we know about. May-be it is what some calls "God" ?
Last edited:
Only John is. I measured zero at 60 Hz (2mA DC through a red LED), Dmitri measured better than -100dB at higher frequencies (5mA though a green LED).
I suspect that John's experiment was imaginary.
I've just connected a small red clearwater packaged LED across across a 12 volt SLA battery together with a 10k limiter. Holding a cheap LED torch that has a rapid 'blink' feature (it might be cheap but its darned bright with a Cree 5 watt LED) close to the red LED and at just the right angle and its possible to see a clear squarewave corresponding to the LED blink rate reflected as a voltage change across the 10k. No amplification needed, my scope is sensitive enough to show it. I would estimate as much 1.5 to 2mv change across the 10k.
So if we say 1ma LED current then the change equals 0.2uA superimposed across the 1ma steady state... 74db. My quick test is unrealistic though, in that you could never approach that light intensity in normal use.
My conclusion from trying this is that this is a non issue in practice.
So if we say 1ma LED current then the change equals 0.2uA superimposed across the 1ma steady state... 74db. My quick test is unrealistic though, in that you could never approach that light intensity in normal use.
My conclusion from trying this is that this is a non issue in practice.
What you have there is radiative pickup. Try using a fiber optic bundle to isolate it.
Why ? We all know, now, that it is a hard work to transform any LED into a decent photosensitive diode.
To get an infinitesimal signal, we need to connect them in front of each other.
Imagine what can remain if they are paralleled at some distance, illuminating the internal black painting of a box both with a pretty constant current.
The only measure that could interest-me should be to measure, in normal conditions, and inside a shiny aluminium box, the difference in distortion and noise of the same stage, powered by two CSS, using LEDS painted in black or not.
That i would not even do, life is too short to ask ourselves questions when we yet have the answer. ;-)
John: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6d8eKvegLI
Last edited:
OK, so you're at -77dB or so with high illumination and low (1mA) forward current. Worse than Dmitri and I got, but given the intensity (inverse square, how does that work?), still nothing significant in real world use, even if it is on a front panel. John's Urban Legend seems to have been abducted by aliens and anally probed.
Why ! I just wanted to try it for myself.
When you see how bright the led torch is you realise that the 'problem' must be miniscule when considering any normal light falling on the led junction.
Its good to prove it for yourself though.
Makes one wonder whether the auger effect isn't a 2-way street.
Shame Mr. John has an occupied sign on his door.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veLC6gpNsSQ
(Oh No, NESsies and BEDwisers on my doorstep to abduct and probe me)
Of course. I always said to my young assistants: Never believe, try everything by yourself.
My answer to you was just a wink of sympathy. Just I knew it was a non issue.
I noticed your test with the white paper (I believe we could frost the transparent plastic with sand paper). A way to keep the light visible for maintenance purpose, and kill any fear.
George, it is very amusing for me to think that humans, that always tried to build their tools and products with the highest possible accuracy and the best efficiency, are getting more and more close to this 'random' process of the nature with the progress of their industry and technology.
If I'm not mistaken, nobody is able, today, to produce *a* transistor with given precise characteristics. Jut to produce thousands of them, and chose inside them the one closer to their will.
John, "the ignorant slut here" '-) begs to differ with SY, and thinks that he "protests too much" when the actual measurable evidence, and even articles, are written on LED sensitivity to external light. It is not the most efficient part for the job, but given its placement in the front end of a phono stage, and the approximately 80 dB gain following it, just might make covering the LED, under some conditions advisable. That is my only concern here.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.