News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why nature prefers hexagons by mimhoff on Sunday August 06, 2017 @03:31AM (#14940212)
A spiral scan circuit would just be something like:

x = r cos (theta) y = r sin (theta)

when you vary r so it gives you a spiral instead of a circle. So it shouldn't be too hard to generate the signals required.

Or there could be a different arrangement of the beam deflectors that didn't give you independent control of X and y.

Re:Why nature prefers hexagons by nwatson on Sunday August 06, 2017 @03:59AM (#14940299)
But getting equal time on each pixel as you spiral out would be crucial to trigger the right phosphorescent equal luminance from your light-emitting material. Theta would not be linear with time.
Re:Why nature prefers hexagons by Jyaif on Sunday August 06, 2017 @07:46AM (#14940913)
The intensity of the beam could be modulated to counter this.
Re:Why nature prefers hexagons by gugagore on Sunday August 06, 2017 @09:42AM (#14941270)
There are sync pulses on every line of analog video, as well as to color burst in most analog video standards. You couldn't just sweep theta and r continuously for a whole frame.
Re:Why nature prefers hexagons by Shikadi on Monday August 07, 2017 @04:17PM (#14950899)
Why not? The sync pulses are because the scan is discontinuous, you could just have one plus color burst every spiral
Re:Why nature prefers hexagons by gugagore on Monday August 07, 2017 @06:20PM (#14951740)
I'm guessing that NTSC and PAL have a color burst on every line, vs every frame, because over an entire frame the local oscillator might not be stable enough. At least back in the day.

Same with the timing of the sweep circuits, which only need to hold sync for a single line of video.

Re:Why nature prefers hexagons by Shikadi on Tuesday August 08, 2017 @09:44PM (#14964842)
Oh cool, didn't realize color burst was used for that, I skimmed over it in the past and misunderstood its purpose. TIL