High-performance visible-light lasers that fit on a fingertip...

J

Jan Panteltje

Guest
High-performance visible-light lasers that fit on a fingertip;
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/01/230104135615.htm

\"Researchers at Columbia Engineering\'s Lipson Nanophotonics Group have created visible lasers of very pure colors from near-ultraviolet to near-infrared that fit on a fingertip.
The colors of the lasers can be precisely tuned and extremely fast -- up to 267 petahertz per second,\"
 
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> [...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.
 
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> [...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.
 
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> [...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.
 
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!

--

Jeff
 
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!

--

Jeff
 
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!

--

Jeff
 
On Friday, 6 January 2023 at 15:11:58 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.
Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!

--

Jeff
Click to expand...
daily fake by nature science
 
On Friday, 6 January 2023 at 15:11:58 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.
Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!

--

Jeff
Click to expand...
daily fake by nature science
 
On Friday, 6 January 2023 at 15:11:58 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.
Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!

--

Jeff
Click to expand...
daily fake by nature science
 
On 2023-01-06 15:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.

Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!
Click to expand...

Using multiplier prefixes in both numerator and denominator is a sin
in my eyes, but it *does* translate to a tuning speed of 267 PHz/s,
at least they got that right. Other than that, the article is pretty
much empty of substance, as usual.

Jeroen Belleman
 
On 2023-01-06 15:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.

Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!
Click to expand...

Using multiplier prefixes in both numerator and denominator is a sin
in my eyes, but it *does* translate to a tuning speed of 267 PHz/s,
at least they got that right. Other than that, the article is pretty
much empty of substance, as usual.

Jeroen Belleman
 
On 2023-01-06 15:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.

Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!
Click to expand...

Using multiplier prefixes in both numerator and denominator is a sin
in my eyes, but it *does* translate to a tuning speed of 267 PHz/s,
at least they got that right. Other than that, the article is pretty
much empty of substance, as usual.

Jeroen Belleman
 
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.

Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!

0.000267 PHz. ;)
Click to expand...

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
 
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.

Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!

0.000267 PHz. ;)
Click to expand...

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
 
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.

Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!

0.000267 PHz. ;)
Click to expand...

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
 
On 06/01/2023 16:36, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2023-01-06 15:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/01/2023 13:51, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:21 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...] petahertz per second
There goes their credibility.

Are you sure it wasn\'t accelerating? ;-)

It\'s an error from ScienceDaily. The original article at <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01120-w> states:
\"In addition, we show fine-tuning speeds of up to 267 GHz µs⁻¹ ...\"

Even then, 267 GHz would be 0.267 PHz. So two errors for the price of one!


Using multiplier prefixes in both numerator and denominator is a sin
in my eyes, but it *does* translate to a tuning speed of 267 PHz/s,
at least they got that right. Other than that, the article is pretty
much empty of substance, as usual.
Click to expand...

You\'re right, of course. Where did I put that tera when I needed it?!
But I agree about mixing multipliers.

--

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top