Talk:Optical computer

Moore Law
The Moore Law calculation should be log2(400,000)*18/12=28 years, and not 16 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.70.219.233 (talk • contribs)

Confusing Text
The last three list items are confusing, and should be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.192.68 (talk • contribs)

Classified computers?
Declassified sounds like there is good reason to belive there are classified optical computers. If so is the case, wouldn't it be prudent to link to such information or to at least mention why somthing like this is probable. If not it just sounds like conspiracy theory and have no place in an encyclopedia at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.170.11 (talk • contribs)

I know a person who used to work on this sort of thing for the goverment. There are indeed classified optical computers. (Obviously, s/he didn't give details about them - apart from the fact that they are physically large because their components haven't been miniaturized yet.) That said, an unverifiable personal experiance hardly qualifies as an encyclopedic source. 66.81.212.122 01:03, 15 March 2006

Commercial Optical Digital Signal Processors
Apparently, there are commercially available digital signal processors. Check out the following URL: http://www.lenslet.com/products.asp.

Perhaps they deserve a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.7.41.82 (talk • contribs)
 * Also quoted in Dataweek, Febuary 27, available here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.255.194 (talk • contribs)

Interference photonic
This article restrict photonic computing to non-linear optics. There are researchs(and patents) on the field dealing with interference and holograms, wich should be mentioned. --vininim 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Exceptionally Unclear and Specialized
I don't even know how to edit this article. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. It was with difficulty I managed to understand the first sentence. Much of the rest of the article is beyond me. This is not an introduction to the subject. It needs to be simplified. A lot. --Pigman (talk &bull; contribs) 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Still, it does appear to make some degree of sense. While it seems to be from a personal viewpoint it does go about explaining aspects of the topic quite well. It may sound specialized but then there are many high class articles that do the same. It's the degree with which the sophistication can be adequately explained that matters. I think it's clear enough but then my background may have something to do with it. Zuracech lordum 08:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bullets?
why are there bullets of information? theres nothing in particular they are bulleting about.

Work
This is more of a self-reminder. I'll work on this during the weekend to see if I can clean it up a bit. Maybe not add new info, but sort what we have into categories. Ghostalker


 * Well, that looks a bit better. I added some sections, and wrote up a proper intro to the topic. The material that was on there was either written by someone who works in the research field, or it was copied from another source. I lay fiber optic lines for a living and I barely understood half the stuff that was in the article. I DID NOT delete the original work however, I saved it in a hidden note on the page so someone else can look it over. It seems way too advanced for the common user to understand, but I don't want to delete comprehensive information on here. My sources have been included at the bottom of the page, and I gave credit to the Dr's speech towards the top. This is an important article, so I'm glad I gave it a kick-start towards one day being a featured article. I'll work on it more when I get the time. Ghostalker 19:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate someone doing more work on the subject, I'd really like to know why so much of the work I put in was deleted without an explanation Dtneilson. I belive my sources are en par with wikipedia standards and no information provided was contraversal or unsubstantiated. I'd appreciate a reply as soon as you read this. If not I'll continue the work on this page when I get the time, reverting it back to the quoted/cited article and continuing from there. I think Research labs, NASA and University experiments in the feild (and the results they come up with) are more the sufficent for inclusion into the article for example. Ghostalker 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a lot of detailed info for you newbees, but now the page is useless to anyone truly interested... A real sad loss of useful information due to your lack of knowledge... These pages are to inform, you seem to be worried about your understanding rather than the value to others as, I have designed an optical computer that is not classified, doesn't fill a room, and this article now states otherwise... that all are classified and that is untrue at best. Why delete useful information due, to simple minds..... I will not publish in Wikipedia again due to small minds, Thanks. I have published elswhere and will continue to avoid the generic and small as, those are the minds it attracts. It could have been a useful tool instead, for those who yearn to learn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goplayer (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be more helpful to make specific suggestions and comments about what specific changes you think should, or should not be made to the article, rather than to generalize about Wikipedians (see WP:NPA). I hope you will continue to contribute to make this article better. Clement Cherlin 09:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

glaring inaccuracies
just a horrible article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.5.249 (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC).