Talk:Rainbow storage

This article was nominated for deletion on November 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Untitled

Hi, my name is Suhail Rehman and i am a student of the college in which the technology was developed. I have edited the page to include details of the reason why the news reports were blown out of proportion. Also i will search the newspaper archives for citations asap. Please do not delete this page as it is an actual technology in development even if its claims were blown out of proportion.- Suhail Rehman, [email protected], 11/30/2006

Funny... I created this page over six months ago, but it was apparently deleted :( --Erik Garrison 19:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it is a scam [1]? Rcog 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article isn't a scam just the claims of what the technology can do. I'd like to see if Arjan can actually provide a mathematical proof instead of just saying that (s)he has created one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.17.80 (talk • contribs)

I'm Arjan, and want to say i only said color haves a higher data density than binary code. For example to create the number 3 in binary language you already need 2 dots (11), if you have a 10 color system you would only need one dot. This in combination with X predefined figures it should be possible to store binary code like 10111111111111011100001 just as a number. Just create a multi-binary system on paper.... Plus a really great encoder/with predefined patterns. Arjan

Oh yes. And how will you be able to reliably distinguish between a green dot and a pale-green dot, meaning completely different things? Didn't you think that, if electrical engineers don't use 256 voltage levels to represent a byte per symbol, but prefer to use 2 voltage levels to represent just one bit per symbol, maybe there is a good reason?

Please go studying some basic information theory before opening your mouth.

If you study "basic information theory" it wont take you anywhere, these are advanced studies to open your mouth to say WOW... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.188.65 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is not a scam check out <www.science.qj.net> and search for Sainul Abideen. he is the one that did it. Nramsrud 19:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A single dot can store lots of Bytes. If have a bright white beam an focus it to a small point, the reflected light is a mixture of spectral colors. Use a prisma and you get Spectral_lines. If you are able to print 64 chemical elements (colors) the paper a single dot can store 4kBit. Our eye is not able to see spectral colors - but a scanner is.80.109.11.235 00:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of a printer that can print 64 colors? I haven't! Ink jet, laser printers, and even big print shops use CMYK - four ink colors. Halftone patterns are used to generate the perception of more color, but any particular ink is always either present or absent at a particular location - there is no halfway. This process limits the amount of data to four bits per dot (six for some fancy printers).

You can mix custom ink colors and do what's called spot coloring to get a pure color, but spot coloring is very expensive and no print shop would ever try to make 64 spot color runs on any single piece of paper: the paper will inevitably be at a slightly different position in some run, causing the color to be offset, which would corrupt any data stored in this manner. Ridiculous fish 01:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Till now it makes no sense to produce printers that are able to print more than six colors. The human eye is for example not able to see the differnce between a mixture of red/green (that's yellow for us) and a real sepctral yellow. Printers also don't print ultra violet or infra red colors.

But if a company can make lots of money with a printer that is able to print 64 color, this printer will be available. 80.109.11.235 02:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing 2 completely different technologies using 2 completely different mediums, who have 2 completely different purposes. You're analogy is ludicrous and your arrogance in telling him to study just makes you look like an even bigger fool. Using that logic, compression would also be a hoax, since engineers don't use for passing data within circuits.

Computers use binary math. Using different voltage levels to transfer data would be pointless, because you would at least need additional circuitry to convert it back to binary. Not to mention the other problems that could arise, which you'd also need additional circuitry to correct. In the end, it would just be a lot more work, a lot bigger, and a lot slower. However, none of that has anything to do with the storage technology in question. This is not intended to be a quicker way to transfer data. It's a way to store more data on cheaper media.

The statements made in the text about the demonstrations of the technology are not sourced. Can the author, or someone, please add references? Otherwise, these should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umdenken (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]