Team:TU-Eindhoven/LEC/Device

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 35: Line 35:
<p>However this software still has a lot of overhead (inefficient use of CPU time) as we have a square wave for each pixel while only one is in the ‘on’ state at any given time. By using the time again we cut it down to just one square wave. The advantages this brings isn’t measurable with 16 pixels, but a Full HD screen containing 2.073.600 pixels, has to calculate 2.073.599 less square waves due to this small change in the software.</p>
<p>However this software still has a lot of overhead (inefficient use of CPU time) as we have a square wave for each pixel while only one is in the ‘on’ state at any given time. By using the time again we cut it down to just one square wave. The advantages this brings isn’t measurable with 16 pixels, but a Full HD screen containing 2.073.600 pixels, has to calculate 2.073.599 less square waves due to this small change in the software.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>The device in practice</h3>
 +
 +
<p>To validate if the software indeed works, we used a voltage meter to test whether the voltage in the software corresponded with the true voltage output. Give or take a few &micro;V this corresponded perfectly. Also when the device was tested on the yeast medium, the process of hydrolysis was clearly visible. When changing certain parameters in the program to simulate an alternating current the hydrolysis disappeared as it should. However due to low concentrations of both yeast cells and GECO protein we were not able to see any light when testing the device with the yeast cells. The device was also to big to fit inside a more sensitive measurement apparatus. Therefore it can be concluded that the device and software work as they are supposed to, but it cannot be validated if the device can really be used to create a screen.</p>
{{:Team:TU-Eindhoven/Templates/footer}}
{{:Team:TU-Eindhoven/Templates/footer}}

Revision as of 11:38, 25 September 2012