Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Comments
krisi
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
krisi   3/7/2013 8:46:56 PM
NO RATINGS
Why do people refer to those observations as laws? They are trends which last for a while until they stops working. The Ohmic law etc is probably applicable for eternity...Kris

v1kran7
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
v1kran7   3/7/2013 8:56:57 PM
NO RATINGS
the ohmic law has already lost to the laws of Quantum Mechanics and super conductivity etc

v1kran7
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
v1kran7   3/7/2013 8:59:06 PM
NO RATINGS
Just joking @iniewski, you're absolutely right though.

v1kran7
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
v1kran7   3/7/2013 8:59:35 PM
NO RATINGS
Just joking @iniewski, you're absolutely right though.

Chuck Chung
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Chuck Chung   3/9/2013 4:47:22 AM
NO RATINGS
But aren't all "Laws" observational? Example: Newton's Laws are observations about mass, force, and motion.

Sparky_Watt
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Sparky_Watt   3/12/2013 5:40:48 PM
NO RATINGS
No, there are actually four types of physical laws: Definitions (e.g. F=ma, which defines the concept of force), Empirical (which is strictly observational), and Theoretical (which embodies an understanding), and derived (which can be mathematically produced from other laws, e.g. torque). Derived laws stand and fall with the laws they are derived from. Theoretical laws apply wherever the understanding they are based on applies. Definitions are true no matter what; the question with definitions is not "are they true" but "are they relevant".

MI6
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
MI6   3/7/2013 9:35:06 PM
NO RATINGS
I agree always left that the word “laws” was way to overused especially when this “law” actually describes a Goal to the drive market demand by pushing technology

Larry M
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Larry M   3/8/2013 4:11:45 PM
NO RATINGS
Fermat's Last Theorem really should have been named Fermat's Last Conjecture.

pmartel
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
pmartel   3/8/2013 9:25:47 PM
NO RATINGS
but he had a proof... It was just too large to fit in the margin...

Steven.Herrrick
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Steven.Herrrick   3/14/2013 6:28:51 AM
NO RATINGS
so he claimed.

Sparky_Watt
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Sparky_Watt   3/12/2013 5:43:06 PM
NO RATINGS
Moore's "Law" describes what is feasible. Its weakness is that there are physical limits to how far it can go.

R_Colin_Johnson
User Rank
Blogger
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
R_Colin_Johnson   3/7/2013 10:02:24 PM
NO RATINGS
I think people use "laws" out of optimism--they really want to improve our predictive powers and "wish" that they could come up with a black-or-white "law" to help out. Of course, as you say, the world is shades of grey :)

daleste
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
daleste   3/8/2013 1:05:23 AM
NO RATINGS
Oh, don't bring up the shades of grey. Can't get my wife away from those books...

Jack.L
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Jack.L   3/8/2013 1:38:45 AM
NO RATINGS
Guys, stop just thinking like engineers. Being able to predict possible change means being able to plan for it. That can have significant impacts on cost predictions, market growth, and investment.

Sparky_Watt
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Sparky_Watt   3/12/2013 5:44:58 PM
NO RATINGS
Since when is being able to predict the market not thinking like an Engineer? Making decisions by throwing darts is not thinking like and Engineer.

Comfortable
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Comfortable   3/8/2013 2:19:05 AM
NO RATINGS
The Higgs Boson was confirmed based upon a statistical observation and now most particle physicists believe the standard model to be accurate. I don't see a problem with claiming something is a law if the statistical analysis supports the claim. Even our own existence is based upon statistical interactions with photons. If you don't believe that, turn off all the light in your bedroom tonight and tell us tomorrow if you could still see yourself in the mirror.

kenny.g
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
kenny.g   3/8/2013 2:19:54 AM
NO RATINGS
Moore's law is not a law,people don't give a shit about it! it is a trend for the company to follow to make money which in this case flawed due to major miscalculation of not taking into account of the whole semiconductor eco-system.

nastaynas
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
nastaynas   3/8/2013 4:30:17 AM
NO RATINGS
At least Mr. Moore has enjoyed his fame for a while

AntoineB
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
AntoineB   3/8/2013 9:03:49 AM
NO RATINGS
Moore's law might have been based on observation at first, but it has changed. It is now nothing more than an implicite objective followed by semiconductor companies. They adapt their efforts in order to reach this objective. If Moore's law has been "correct" for so long it is only because SC companies made it correct. I don't think it is of any statistical relevance nowadays.

CharlieCL
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
CharlieCL   3/8/2013 2:16:11 PM
NO RATINGS
@AntoineB Agree. Moore's Law is not a Law. It is a theory for SC companies to spend money.

Comfortable
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Comfortable   3/8/2013 3:01:59 PM
NO RATINGS
A physical law,according to the Oxford English dictionary, is "a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present." John Nash received a Nobel Prize on game theory with lots of mathematical equations describing how humans interact. As engineers, let's not always look at things so black and white.

Larry M
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Larry M   3/8/2013 4:15:24 PM
NO RATINGS
To be more precise, John Nash won the Nobel Prize for Economics, not exactly a deterministic or exact science, and only provable by statistical measures. (There is no Nobel Prize for Mathematics.)

Comfortable
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Comfortable   3/8/2013 11:14:09 PM
NO RATINGS
What do you mean by exact science? Exact like in Newton's equation for gravity or Einstein's later revised one? Nothing in life is exact science. Not even ohm's law. But it works well enough today to be a useful tool for getting work done. Moore's law does the same thing and for whatever observable reason it may be.

Duane Benson
User Rank
Blogger
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Duane Benson   3/8/2013 4:20:19 PM
NO RATINGS
There's also Duane's law, which is corollary to the two-car garage syndrome. Even if not by name, many people are likely familiar with. It states that no matter how large your garage is, the amount of stuff you accumulate will fill it such that there is never more than just less then enough room required to put one car in. That, by inference leads to Duane's law which postulates that no matter what the performance of your computer system, the operating system will lug it down to the point at which it performs at a level just slightly less than the first computer you ever owned. Unfortunately, Duane's law has a tendency negate the effects of Moore's law and presumably the others.

WHP
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
WHP   3/8/2013 4:46:01 PM
NO RATINGS
Duane, I think everyone has observed that phenomenon but I think you may be the first to actually give it a name. So as far as I'm concerned, Duane's Law it is.

DWilde10
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
DWilde10   3/8/2013 4:43:36 PM
NO RATINGS
Which is why even Intel finally loves Linux on x86, finally, Duane [my opinion, not my employer Intel's]. AFA Moore's law, whether it was ever "true" or not, it sure drove a revolution we've all benefited from. I'm not sure whether Wright's correlation really means a whole lot, it's one of those "yeah, so?"s. Gordon Moore caught the imagination of a generation of engineers, and the rest is history.

georgegrimes
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
georgegrimes   3/8/2013 5:15:59 PM
NO RATINGS
This discussion would not be complete without someone point out that Moore never claimed that it was a "law". Everything that I've read from him called it his "observation". That was his preference.

georgegrimes
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
georgegrimes   3/8/2013 5:17:25 PM
NO RATINGS
Sigh, I can't type today. That should be "pointing out", not "point out". Is it Saturday yet? I need a weekend!

dbsavant
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
dbsavant   3/8/2013 5:56:00 PM
NO RATINGS
Some marketing guy with an eye towards a political run applied the term "law" to these "observations". Let's hope he doesn't get elected!

KRS03
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
KRS03   3/8/2013 7:04:10 PM
NO RATINGS
OK, all agreed I see... So it's "Wright's predictor of long-term economic growth". WPLTEG. Say that ten times.

Duane Benson
User Rank
Blogger
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Duane Benson   3/8/2013 7:49:54 PM
NO RATINGS
And I won't say "Duane's Law", but rather "Duane's observation of the completely obvious." :-)

TarraTarra!
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
TarraTarra!   3/8/2013 8:39:31 PM
NO RATINGS
Talking about laws - Murphy's law trumps any other law. I can personally attest to observing Murphy's law at work.

mhrackin
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
mhrackin   3/8/2013 9:09:42 PM
NO RATINGS
I've been watching this thread, wondering how long it would take for someone to bring up Mr. Murphy's immutable law!

mhrackin
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
mhrackin   3/8/2013 9:11:06 PM
NO RATINGS
and, of course, once you mention "observing .... at work..." that brings to mind Parkinson's Law!

Some Guy
User Rank
Manager
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Some Guy   3/8/2013 9:56:52 PM
NO RATINGS
Two criticisms: 1) Wright's law is worthless as a prediction; it is parametric in units. You need the prediction in time. So I have to have an Oracle predictor of units over time, and if I have that, who needs Wright? Not surprised it came out best in "hindcasting". 2) With Moore's Law, don't confuse cause and effect. Moore's Law is not an immutable cause. It was the target to which the semiconductor industry managed itself to, thus, get the doubling effect.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
resistion   3/9/2013 3:37:52 AM
NO RATINGS
Just noticed the y axis. So the laws all suck, essentially.

MClayton0
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
MClayton0   3/9/2013 5:21:24 AM
NO RATINGS
Fuzzy stuff of course. "Predictions are hard, especially about the future."

FBMcGalliard
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
FBMcGalliard   3/9/2013 4:56:57 PM
NO RATINGS
Moor's law is based on a short term and totally unustainable condition that market demand drives technological advances. We are begining to hit the limits of they physics, but have not yet even come close to the limits of the marketed hardware. The hard question is whether there can be any breakthroughs the equivalent of phase shift masks and the like. Crystaline like quantum logic structures appear to be a long long ways off.

jg_
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
jg_   3/10/2013 1:50:35 AM
NO RATINGS
We need another 'Law', that tracks the media's obsession with the 'sound-bite', and desire to appear educated, to try to disguise the vacuous fluff they write about. Thus there is an increasing divergence of the claims from reality. My Physics teacher, always pointed out that extrapolation was dangerous.

seaEE
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
seaEE   3/10/2013 4:10:02 AM
NO RATINGS
It's possible that Moore's law may even be applicable into the future, aided of course by Necessity is the Mother of Invention Law. How many nanometer interations are left in silicon, and what will happen after that?

MEMS, Microsystems
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
MEMS, Microsystems   3/10/2013 4:54:29 AM
NO RATINGS
Moore (personally)with his predictive law enjoyed lot more success than the semiconductor industry......

MikeSantarini
User Rank
Manager
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
MikeSantarini   3/11/2013 4:55:38 PM
NO RATINGS
What's interesting is of course that Moore's law predicts a doubling every 22 months, not 18 months. I heard it from the man directly at a talk back in 2005 at the computer history museum. He was being interviewed by Carver Mead. Google the following "Computer History Museum Presents The 40th Anniversary of Moore's Law with Gordon Moore and Carver Mead." There is a video of the interview somewhere too. If memory serves he explained that originally he had said it would double every two years but a few years later scaled it back by two months to doubling every 22 months. A few years later, Intel's marketing started a campaign in which they were saying that processor performance would double every 18 months (likely from refinements and jumps to half-step processes). In the talk, Moore explained the two numbers got confused and thus most folks wrongly say Moore's law predicts a capacity doubling every 18 mos. It is actually every 22. That said, what does it mean for this study? You can take the reporter out of the investigation, but you can't take the investigation out of the reporter. Cheers, Mike

Greg Thorson
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Greg Thorson   3/11/2013 8:48:00 PM
NO RATINGS
The problem is not with the accuracy of Moore's law or other laws. The problem is with your misinterpretation of the word. A "law" is not a fundamental of nature. It is simply a statement or formula. It can be completely wrong and still be a law.

DrQuine
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
DrQuine   3/13/2013 1:15:15 AM
NO RATINGS
I completely agree with "iniewski". Nevertheless, I predict that when computer chips have shrunk to their physical limit and Moore's Law has clearly reached the end of the line, there will be headlines that a "law" has been violated or found invalid. In any case, the longevity of this trend has been remarkable - in part because nobody wants the trend to end on their watch so the R&D efforts are redoubled when the end of the law's reign seems to be coming. The consumers of electronic products are the winners.

peralta_mike
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
peralta_mike   3/13/2013 5:25:31 PM
NO RATINGS
Moore's Law (Trend) is amazing. I have been in the Semiconductor Industry since 1982 and every five years or so (1987, 1993, 1998, 2003, etc. etc.)I hear someone predicting that it will no longer hold -- but it does -- decade after decade.

Embedded SW Dev
User Rank
Manager
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
Embedded SW Dev   3/17/2013 1:02:19 AM
NO RATINGS
Failure to account for Moore's Law has resulted in a number of projects being prematurely cancelled. Just because a technology does not yield a cost-effective product today, does not mean that the same product won't be cost effective in 2-4 years. Maybe the product needs to be put on the back burner, but way too often I have seen the project to be killed, only to be resurrected by another company a few years later when the costs become attractive.

GLink
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore's Law trumped by Wright's Law
GLink   4/15/2013 3:29:13 PM
NO RATINGS
I'd also like to point out that once we hit the physics-based limit on feature scaling, we still have the third dimension to keep us busy for a while, as well as ever-larger chip sizes. The actual Moore's law isn't just about speed, nor feature size - it's about computing power available at the most economic price point, which means that bigger, cheaper chips, still count. Once we hit the physics-limit, the foundries that can hit that will eventually get paid off, and chip prices will decrease, giving us an increase of computing power at a given price point, and thus, giving a bit of new life to the observation for a few more years.

waynet2
User Rank
Rookie
Yet another Law
waynet2   7/9/2013 3:36:51 PM
NO RATINGS
While it may have limited applications in our industry, Cole's Law is my preference; it just tastes better. Simply stated, Cole's Law is "Cabbage In = Cabbage Out", with a little special sauce and horseradish.

R_Colin_Johnson
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Yet another Law
R_Colin_Johnson   7/9/2013 3:43:36 PM
NO RATINGS
You are a very funny guy. I didn't get it until the very last line. Good one!



Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Book Review: Deadly Odds by Allen Wyler
Max Maxfield
8 comments
Generally speaking, when it comes to settling down with a good book, I tend to gravitate towards science fiction and science fantasy. Having said this, I do spend a lot of time reading ...

Martin Rowe

No 2014 Punkin Chunkin, What Will You Do?
Martin Rowe
Post a comment
American Thanksgiving is next week, and while some people watch (American) football all day, the real competition on TV has become Punkin Chunkin. But there will be no Punkin Chunkin on TV ...

Rich Quinnell

Making the Grade in Industrial Design
Rich Quinnell
13 comments
As every developer knows, there are the paper specifications for a product design, and then there are the real requirements. The paper specs are dry, bland, and rigidly numeric, making ...

Martin Rowe

Book Review: Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design, Third Edition, by Michel Mardiguian. Contributions by Donald L. Sweeney and Roger Swanberg. List price: $89.99 (e-book), $119 (hardcover).