http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/04/15/sciipod115.xml

Now all we need is a 256-bit 3THz processor and we can start producing
real time tracings at the same time as hunting for dark matter :-)

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> Now all we need is a 256-bit 3THz processor and we can start producing
> real time tracings at the same time as hunting for dark matter :-)

Now, is my math wrong, or would it take about 200 years to fill this up 
at normal SATA disk speeds?

-- 
   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

Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/04/15/sciipod115.xml

  This is certainly not the first time I read news about some new
revolutionary technology which "will increase memory capacity/hard disk
sizes/CPU speeds/whatever a million-fold", yet nothing happened even after
several years. I have seen at least a dozen of those types of news during
the past decade, yet none of them has realized as promised.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16 Apr 2008 11:12:45 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  This is certainly not the first time I read news about some new
>revolutionary technology which "will increase memory capacity/hard disk
>sizes/CPU speeds/whatever a million-fold", yet nothing happened even after
>several years. I have seen at least a dozen of those types of news during
>the past decade, yet none of them has realized as promised.

Bubble memory for one.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Bubble memory for one.

Bubble memory actually did work, and was available as a plug-in card for 
an Apple ][.  Unfortunately, increasing storage a thousand-fold back 
when you could buy bubble memory meant you could actually store as much 
as a 3.5" floppy does! :-)

-- 
   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

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:40:03 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Bubble memory for one.
>
>Bubble memory actually did work, and was available as a plug-in card for 
>an Apple ][.  Unfortunately, increasing storage a thousand-fold back 
>when you could buy bubble memory meant you could actually store as much 
>as a 3.5" floppy does! :-)

Yes it just wasn't commercially viable.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/04/15/sciipod115.xml
> 
>   This is certainly not the first time I read news about some new
> revolutionary technology which "will increase memory capacity/hard disk
> sizes/CPU speeds/whatever a million-fold", yet nothing happened even after
> several years. I have seen at least a dozen of those types of news during
> the past decade, yet none of them has realized as promised.
> 
So, how close are we sticking to Moore's Law atm?
(I can't be bothered to do the maths)

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> Bubble memory for one.

Or that guy who developed genetically engineered algae that responded to 
electricity. The idea was that you could just "grow" your memory as 
large as you wanted. Near-zero manufacture cost.

He never did quite get the prototype to work - but he came closer than 
you might think...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:53:31 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> Bubble memory for one.
>
>Or that guy who developed genetically engineered algae that responded to 
>electricity. The idea was that you could just "grow" your memory as 
>large as you wanted. Near-zero manufacture cost.
>
>He never did quite get the prototype to work - but he came closer than 
>you might think...

I did not hear about that
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Or that guy who developed genetically engineered algae that responded to 
>> electricity. The idea was that you could just "grow" your memory as 
>> large as you wanted. Near-zero manufacture cost.
>>
>> He never did quite get the prototype to work - but he came closer than 
>> you might think...
> 
> I did not hear about that

Yeah, apparently this guy discovered some algae that weakly respond to 
electric currents. He grew them in the lab and engineered them such that 
you could use a small laser to set or reset them, and a small electric 
current to determine which state a given alga cell is currently in. 
Obviously, a single living cell is pretty damn small, and they're 
densely packed in 3D space, so - assuming you can get the laser to them 
and wire them all up - *massive* storage capacity ensues.

I saw it on Tomorrow's World. (Remember that program? WHERE'S MY FLYING 
CAR, BITCH!?!) Apparently nothing ever came of it.

OTOH, many people claimed that "electricity is just a fad" and "it will 
never come to anything of signifigance". Sure, using green slime to 
store computer data might *sound* crazy - but 10 years ago, a 750 GB 
harddrive sounded pretty crazy...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:41:04 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:

>
>I saw it on Tomorrow's World. (Remember that program? WHERE'S MY FLYING 
>CAR, BITCH!?!) Apparently nothing ever came of it.

LOL
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:48066457$1@news.povray.org...

> I saw it on Tomorrow's World. (Remember that program? WHERE'S MY FLYING 
> CAR, BITCH!?!) Apparently nothing ever came of it.

    Heh, well I don't remember the flying car, but have you seen the guy 
putting the electric drill in a fish tank full of water and he didn't 
electrocute himself due to some kind of 'anti-electric' spray from a can? I 
think I was about 12 years old then, and it s*it the life out of me!!

   I really thought he was going to die!!  :oO

  (He lived. He did this experiment 'live' (no pun intended ;) - brave guy).

    ~Steve~



> -- 
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Obviously, a single living cell is pretty damn small

Not compared to modern RAM circuits. I think transistors are getting 
down to the dozens-of-atoms size at this point.

-- 
   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

Warp wrote:
> Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/04/15/sciipod115.xml
> 
>   This is certainly not the first time I read news about some new
> revolutionary technology which "will increase memory capacity/hard disk
> sizes/CPU speeds/whatever a million-fold", yet nothing happened even after
> several years. I have seen at least a dozen of those types of news during
> the past decade, yet none of them has realized as promised.
> 

The problem is that research guys at University aren't really interested 
in talking about what's commercially viable, but rather what might be 
physically possible assuming we can ignore several current (and 
significant) limitations.

Even one of the guys on this team said that it would be at least 10 
years before they even start to think of prototypes, whereas the IBM 
team has something in the labs to play with *right now*.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/04/15/sciipod115.xml
> 
> Now all we need is a 256-bit 3THz processor and we can start producing
> real time tracings at the same time as hunting for dark matter :-)
> 
> John
> 

No, it means we'll finally be able to store our audio files with decent 
quality settings.  No more "Vinyl sounds better," guys!

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> No, it means we'll finally be able to store our audio files with decent 
> quality settings.  No more "Vinyl sounds better," guys!

Been able to store audio files with decent quality settings for a while. 
  Ape, FLAC, et cetera.  The reason the "vinyl sounds better" guys make 
that claim is, apparently, due to the digitizing process itself that 
makes the *original* recording unacceptable to the audiophile's 
oh-so-sensitive ear.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:4806e9ea$1@news.povray.org...
> Chambers wrote:
>> No, it means we'll finally be able to store our audio files with decent 
>> quality settings.  No more "Vinyl sounds better," guys!
>
> Been able to store audio files with decent quality settings for a while. 
> Ape, FLAC, et cetera.  The reason the "vinyl sounds better" guys make that 
> claim is, apparently, due to the digitizing process itself that makes the 
> *original* recording unacceptable to the audiophile's oh-so-sensitive ear.
>
> -- 
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
>
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.12
> GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
> N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
> PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
> D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

You dont have to have an "oh-so-sensitive" ear to here all the artifacts 
that digitalising (is that a word? :) creates.  Its pretty easy to pick them 
out of the treble, its the one main reason I hate and wont use any sort of 
compressed audio, yuk!

Cheers Dre

Post a reply to this message

>> Obviously, a single living cell is pretty damn small
> 
> Not compared to modern RAM circuits. I think transistors are getting 
> down to the dozens-of-atoms size at this point.

I doubt it. At that scale, quantum effects would become significant, 
which would require a fundamentally different way of designing 
"transistors".

Also, significantly, transistors don't just grow themselves if you feed 
them a little nitrogen and AMP. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:53:31 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake, saying:

> Stephen wrote:
>
>> Bubble memory for one.
>
> Or that guy who developed genetically engineered algae that responded to  
> electricity. The idea was that you could just "grow" your memory as  
> large as you wanted. Near-zero manufacture cost.
>
> He never did quite get the prototype to work - but he came closer than  
> you might think...

Of course the trouble with any biological component is mutation and  
contamination, as we all know a monoculture can be wiped out by a single  
virus (hah) if not clamped down tight; so maintenence costs might have  
been prohibitive despite 'near-zero' manufacturing costs.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Not compared to modern RAM circuits. I think transistors are getting down 
>> to the dozens-of-atoms size at this point.
>
> I doubt it.

What do you doubt, that silicon atoms are as big as 0.25 nm across, or 
transistors are as small as 25 nm?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> Not compared to modern RAM circuits. I think transistors are getting 
>>> down to the dozens-of-atoms size at this point.
>>
>> I doubt it.
> 
> What do you doubt, that silicon atoms are as big as 0.25 nm across, or 
> transistors are as small as 25 nm?

If you made a transistor that consisted of only a few atoms, it wouldn't 
work properly.

The concept of "electricity" is a simplification of the aggregate 
behaviour of individual charged particles. Like other concepts such as 
"temparature" and "pressure", it only makes sense at "large" scales.

If you were to make a device so small that it consists of only a few 
dozen atoms, you couldn't be able to reason about it using the usual 
laws of electricity. You'd have to use quantum dynamics or something.

(Let's face it, semiconductors work by having lots of silicon atoms with 
impurities of other atoms scattered around. Well if your transistor is 
only, say, 20 atoms in size, then they'd *all* be ordinary silicon 
atoms, and it wouldn't be a semiconductor. But that terms such as 
"conductor" make sense at these scales...)

Now there may or may not be a way of making some kind of switching 
device out of a few dozen atoms, but you can't make a "transistor" (as 
in, a sandwich of N-type and P-type semiconductive matter) with that few 
atoms. It wouldn't work properly.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>>> Not compared to modern RAM circuits. I think transistors are getting 
>>>> down to the dozens-of-atoms size at this point.
>>>
>>> I doubt it.
>>
>> What do you doubt, that silicon atoms are as big as 0.25 nm across, or 
>> transistors are as small as 25 nm?
>
> If you made a transistor that consisted of only a few atoms, it wouldn't 
> work properly.

Probably not, but nobody suggested that.

Darren said that the *size* was comparable to some dozens of atoms.  A 25 nm 
transistor is only 8 dozen atoms across, but (if you assume it's a cube) it 
consists of almost a million atoms.

Clearly that's enough to still work ok, but you're right, the limit for 
traditional transistors can't be much further away.

Post a reply to this message

>>>>> Not compared to modern RAM circuits. I think transistors are 
>>>>> getting down to the dozens-of-atoms size at this point.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it.
>>>
>>> What do you doubt, that silicon atoms are as big as 0.25 nm across, 
>>> or transistors are as small as 25 nm?
>>
>> If you made a transistor that consisted of only a few atoms, it 
>> wouldn't work properly.
> 
> Probably not, but nobody suggested that.
> 
> Darren said that the *size* was comparable to some dozens of atoms.  A 
> 25 nm transistor is only 8 dozen atoms across, but (if you assume it's a 
> cube) it consists of almost a million atoms.
> 
> Clearly that's enough to still work ok, but you're right, the limit for 
> traditional transistors can't be much further away.

Right. So when you say "size", I thought you meant volume, but you 
actually meant diammeter?

Anyway, regardless, the advantage of the algae is that it's packed in 3D 
instead of mere 2D, massively increasing the amount you can fit into a 
given space.

Either way, you would *think* neuron cells would be the "obvious" choice 
for making RAM circuits. They already have the ability to wire 
themselves up for you, so...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:25:05 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Either way, you would *think* neuron cells would be the "obvious" choice 
>for making RAM circuits. They already have the ability to wire 
>themselves up for you, so...

Then you would have RRAM. The stuff of Frankenstein movies :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> No, it means we'll finally be able to store our audio files with 
>> decent quality settings.  No more "Vinyl sounds better," guys!
> 
> Been able to store audio files with decent quality settings for a while. 
>  Ape, FLAC, et cetera.  The reason the "vinyl sounds better" guys make 
> that claim is, apparently, due to the digitizing process itself that 
> makes the *original* recording unacceptable to the audiophile's 
> oh-so-sensitive ear.
> 

Oh, the vagaries of the Internet, where sarcasm is lost :(

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Either way, you would *think* neuron cells would be the "obvious" choice 
> for making RAM circuits. They already have the ability to wire 
> themselves up for you, so...

Not for storage.  They work best as pattern filters.

(Just try comparing your brain's ability to recognize pictures to its 
ability to remember minute trivia).

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Either way, you would *think* neuron cells would be the "obvious" 
>> choice for making RAM circuits. They already have the ability to wire 
>> themselves up for you, so...
> 
> Not for storage.  They work best as pattern filters.
> 
> (Just try comparing your brain's ability to recognize pictures to its 
> ability to remember minute trivia).

There are people who have successfully memorised Pi to thousands of 
decimal places, routinely memorise decks of cards, etc.

The default way the *human* brain is wired up is optimised for tasks 
such as shape recognition, which are critical to survival, and poorly 
optimised for memorising digit sequences [which, for many millions of 
years, was *not* an important task].

That doesn't mean that you couldn't wire up neurons in such a way that 
they reliably store arbitrary data.

Here's a thought: When you turn RAM off, all the data gets lost. When 
you "turn off" a biological storage system... all the cells die? Ouch! 
UPS for the win! ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> If you were to make a device so small that it consists of only a few 
> dozen atoms, you couldn't be able to reason about it using the usual 
> laws of electricity. You'd have to use quantum dynamics or something.

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.

> 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.

> a sandwich of N-type and P-type semiconductive matter) with that few 
> atoms. It wouldn't work properly.

I believe the junction between base and emitter in a CMOS transistor is 
all one type of semiconductor (all P or all N) for what it's worth. :-)

-- 
   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

Invisible wrote:
> I doubt it. At that scale, quantum effects would become significant, 

Well, yes. That indeed is the problem people are having. Quantum effects 
are knocking electrons out of the gate and into the substrate, or 
they're tunneling across the restriction zones even when it's switched 
off.  (Likely what I'm remembering is transistors where the active part 
that serves as a barrier is in the dozens-of-atoms size.)

> Also, significantly, transistors don't just grow themselves if you feed 
> them a little nitrogen and AMP. ;-)

There is that, yes.  :-)

I don't really need to have bigger drives. I just need faster drives. :-)

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:

> I don't really need to have bigger drives. I just need faster drives. :-)

Ah. Now *that* is a problem that biological devices are most unlikely to 
solve. Current hardware runs way faster than anything biological anyway...

Of course, the "other" way to do this is to have a really ****ing wide 
bus, which should be tractable for a biological system.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:55:32 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 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

>>> 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.

By that definition, Carbon would be a semiconductor. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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?
> 

Which part - my description of semiconductors, or my classification of 
Silicon as one?

I'll admit that I could be wrong about Silicon being a semiconductor; I 
just assumed it was one because it's commonly used in semiconductors.

However, the rest of the description is fairly accurate, if a bit 
simplified.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:32:31 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> By that definition, Carbon would be a semiconductor. :-P

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206905544


-- 

FE

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > 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?
> > 

> Which part - my description of semiconductors, or my classification of 
> Silicon as one?

  Your comparison of doped silicon to a superconductor.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> By that definition, Carbon would be a semiconductor. :-P
> 
> http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206905544

Right. So unusual configurations of Carbon form a semiconductor, diamond 
is a good insulator, and graphite is an excellent conductor. Looks like 
the electronic properties of a substance are *totally* determined by 
their position on the periodic table to me. Oh, wait...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Right. So unusual configurations of Carbon form a semiconductor, diamond 
> is a good insulator, and graphite is an excellent conductor. Looks like 
> the electronic properties of a substance are *totally* determined by 
> their position on the periodic table to me. Oh, wait...

  Atomic and molecular chemistry is one of the wackiest phenomena of
nature I can think of.

  Take an innocent harmless molecule, remove one atom from it, and it might
be converted into a deadly poison.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:52:23 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Right. So unusual configurations of Carbon form a semiconductor, diamond  
> is a good insulator, and graphite is an excellent conductor. Looks like  
> the electronic properties of a substance are *totally* determined by  
> their position on the periodic table to me. Oh, wait...

Nobody said that valence electrons were the *only* factor determining the  
electrochemical properties of matter, just that it is an important one.

Besides, diamonds make really good semiconductors too:
http://www.geek.com/81ghz-diamond-semiconductor-created/


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Which part - my description of semiconductors, or my classification of 
>> Silicon as one?
> 
>   Your comparison of doped silicon to a superconductor.

Isn't that the point of doping?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>>> Which part - my description of semiconductors, or my classification 
>>> of Silicon as one?
>>
>>   Your comparison of doped silicon to a superconductor.
> 
> Isn't that the point of doping?

Like, craaaaaaazy, man!

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

>>> Which part - my description of semiconductors, or my classification 
>>> of Silicon as one?
>>
>>   Your comparison of doped silicon to a superconductor.
> 
> Isn't that the point of doping?

I think you'll find that pure silicon is an *insulator* [which is why 
the substrate of a silicon chip is made of pure silicon], and it only 
becomes partially or fully conductive once you dope it...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message