 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:55:32 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
>That doesn't mean that you couldn't wire up neurons in such a way that
>they reliably store arbitrary data.
Good point
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> There are people who have successfully memorised Pi to thousands of
> decimal places, routinely memorise decks of cards, etc.
LOOK! NEW memory technology!
- Up to 4KB of RAM weighing only 10 kg
- ULTRA FAST read speeds up to 120 bytes / minute
- ULTRA FAST write* speeds up to 120 bytes / minute
- RELIABLE, only 0.01% data lost**
- SEMI-VOLATILE, no power needed, just bread and water
* For data chunks up to 8 bytes, for bigger data chunks write speed may be
massively reduced
** For small data chunks, larger data chunks might have much more lost data,
also depends on write speed used and time between read cycles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:34:41 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>If you made a transistor that consisted of only a few atoms, it wouldn't
>work properly.
I just saw this today
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7352464.stm
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> LOOK! NEW memory technology!
>
> - Up to 4KB of RAM weighing only 10 kg
> - ULTRA FAST read speeds up to 120 bytes / minute
> - ULTRA FAST write* speeds up to 120 bytes / minute
> - RELIABLE, only 0.01% data lost**
> - SEMI-VOLATILE, no power needed, just bread and water
>
> * For data chunks up to 8 bytes, for bigger data chunks write speed may
> be massively reduced
> ** For small data chunks, larger data chunks might have much more lost
> data, also depends on write speed used and time between read cycles
Those are quite impressive specs actually... where can I buy one? :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> And you think that people building modern semiconductor wafers aren't
> using quantum dynamics to design them? I mean, you need QED to even
> make *any* semiconductor work.
Oh sure. For an idealised infinite grid of atoms. That's a nice
simplification - which stops working when you have a device made of 12
individual atoms.
>> only, say, 20 atoms in size, then they'd *all* be ordinary silicon
>> atoms, and it wouldn't be a semiconductor.
>
> Technically, it would still be a semiconductor. Just not a very useful
> one, because it would be 100% semiconductor.
Interesting. As I understand it, pure silicon is a *non*-conductor. It
only becomes a *semi*-conductor when doped with inpurities...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Oh sure. For an idealised infinite grid of atoms. That's a nice
> simplification - which stops working when you have a device made of 12
> individual atoms.
Trust me. People worry about QED. Ever heard of a tunnel diode?
> Interesting. As I understand it, pure silicon is a *non*-conductor. It
> only becomes a *semi*-conductor when doped with inpurities...
Check your periodic table of the elements.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oh sure. For an idealised infinite grid of atoms. That's a nice
>> simplification - which stops working when you have a device made of 12
>> individual atoms.
>
> Trust me. People worry about QED. Ever heard of a tunnel diode?
Don't look at me - I don't even know how an ordinary transistor works!
All I know is that it's due to the obscure properties of semiconductors
- properties that only exist at macroscopic scales.
>> Interesting. As I understand it, pure silicon is a *non*-conductor. It
>> only becomes a *semi*-conductor when doped with inpurities...
>
> Check your periodic table of the elements.
...because all the properties of the elements are determined solely by
their position in the table?
Remind me, why are the only two liquids at positions 35 and 80?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Interesting. As I understand it, pure silicon is a *non*-conductor.
>>> It only becomes a *semi*-conductor when doped with inpurities...
>>
>> Check your periodic table of the elements.
>
> ...because all the properties of the elements are determined solely by
> their position in the table?
A lot of the electrical ones are, IIRC.
Anyway, Silicon is a semiconductor, not a nonconductor. Normally, it's
a very poor conductor, but when doped becomes the equivalent of a
superconductor. Thus, a semi-conductor.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Don't look at me - I don't even know how an ordinary transistor works!
Ah. I'd explain, but it would take lots of pictures. Maybe another time.
:-)
(Thinking on it, I feel silly saying "it would take too many pictures"
in a pov-ray newsgroup. :-)
>> Check your periodic table of the elements.
>
> ....because all the properties of the elements are determined solely by
> their position in the table?
Many of em. Certainly in this case. Semiconductors have four valence
electrons in an outer shell that needs 8.
> Remind me, why are the only two liquids at positions 35 and 80?
"Probably something to do with quantum."
There's liquids all over the periodic table. Just not at *your*
temperature. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Anyway, Silicon is a semiconductor, not a nonconductor. Normally, it's
> a very poor conductor, but when doped becomes the equivalent of a
> superconductor.
Uh? Maybe you should check your physics again?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
