Am 17.02.2016 um 09:46 schrieb Le_Forgeron:

> If you could harvest the momentum between moon and earth (moon is
> getting further away from earth as time goes on, meaning "moon is
> acquiring more orbital speed"... hence energy), you could have some
> energy for your nanobots and make the moon stays longer with the earth.
> 
> We all need a bigger moon... with more influence on the sea levels.

Actually, harvesting that "energy" would mean to only speed up that process.

You can never harvest energy /per se/ -- all you can harvest is
/differences/ in energy potentials.

One of those friggin' laws of thermodynamics.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 2/17/2016 8:46 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> > Le 17/02/2016 09:24, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> I am also considering taking it underground and using some form of
> >>> geothermal
> >>> energy. Obviously it would need to use a lot of energy for cooling as
> >>> well.
> >>
> >> Not much geothermal (selenothermal might be a more appropriate term)
> >> energy present I am afraid. Contrary to Earth, the Moon does not have a
> >> hot mantle and only a small core, partly molten.
> >
> > If you could harvest the momentum between moon and earth (moon is
> > getting further away from earth as time goes on, meaning "moon is
> > acquiring more orbital speed"... hence energy), you could have some
> > energy for your nanobots and make the moon stays longer with the earth.
> >
>
> There is a big temperature difference between the day and night sides of
> the Moon. So maybe a thermopile solution could be found.
>
>
I was just thinking the same thing.  Large numbers of thin rods of different
metals extending through the core from dark side to light side, and you have a
thermocouple.

On the other hand, if you want to get really wild, make it a photonic computer
and use the light of the sun directly.

It would be immune to gamma rays and Electromagnetic interference, and if you
used volumetric data storage, you would probably never run out of space.

Regards,
A.D.B

Post a reply to this message

On 2/17/2016 3:46 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> We all need a bigger moon... with more influence on the sea levels.

yeah!  I live 30 feet above sea level a half mile inland (um, 10m and 
1km).  I figure in 200-300 years my heirs will have beachfront on an 
island [1].  A bigger moon would certainly help speed up that process.

[1] or, more likely, the house gets sold the minute I'm dead.

Post a reply to this message

On 17-2-2016 18:40, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> On 2016/02/17 10:24 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 17-2-2016 5:21, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>>
>>>> Le 16/02/2016 19:12, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>>>> On 16/02/2016 06:01 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>>>>> Would it be possible in the future to turn the Moon into a
>>>>>> supercomputer? I am thinking along the lines on sending self
>>>>>> replicating nanobots to the Moon that start replication when on
>>>>>> the moon and combining to form a supercomputer. Apparently there
>>>>>> is a lot of iron and silicon in the Moon's composition. Maybe a
>>>>>> theme for a science fiction novel...
>>>>>
>>>>> You're going to need a power source for that.
>>>>>
>>>> what is a 24/7 sun ? (excepted for a few eclipse once every few
>>>> months; only the ones due to the earth hiding the sun)
>>>>
>>>> no atmosphere to diffuse the light, every spot get light along the 28
>>>> days.
>>>
>>>
>>> Someone is not used to the idea of a sun ;->
>>
>> There is some controversy about it in another thread ;-)
>>
>>>
>>> I am also considering taking it underground and using some form of
>>> geothermal
>>> energy. Obviously it would need to use a lot of energy for cooling as
>>> well.
>>
>> Not much geothermal (selenothermal might be a more appropriate term)
>> energy present I am afraid. Contrary to Earth, the Moon does not have a
>> hot mantle and only a small core, partly molten.
>
> So if the nanobots were to convert as much of the mantle as possible
> into a computer, it should get close enough to the core for
> "selenothermal" energy?
>

I wonder. You would make the Moon shrink, wouldn't you ? And a smaller 
Moon....

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 2/18/2016 12:18 AM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 2/17/2016 8:46 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> Le 17/02/2016 09:24, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> I am also considering taking it underground and using some form of
>>>>> geothermal
>>>>> energy. Obviously it would need to use a lot of energy for cooling as
>>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> Not much geothermal (selenothermal might be a more appropriate term)
>>>> energy present I am afraid. Contrary to Earth, the Moon does not have a
>>>> hot mantle and only a small core, partly molten.
>>>
>>> If you could harvest the momentum between moon and earth (moon is
>>> getting further away from earth as time goes on, meaning "moon is
>>> acquiring more orbital speed"... hence energy), you could have some
>>> energy for your nanobots and make the moon stays longer with the earth.
>>>
>>
>> There is a big temperature difference between the day and night sides of
>> the Moon. So maybe a thermopile solution could be found.
>>
>>
> I was just thinking the same thing.  Large numbers of thin rods of different
> metals extending through the core from dark side to light side, and you have a
> thermocouple.
>

I would have thought that a series of Thermopile Arrays on the surface 
would be a better engineering solution. You would not need to worry 
about hitting the core. But if you were going to drill to the core. 
Taking the heat directly would be a better solution.

> On the other hand, if you want to get really wild, make it a photonic computer
> and use the light of the sun directly.
>

An even better solution.

> It would be immune to gamma rays and Electromagnetic interference, and if you
> used volumetric data storage, you would probably never run out of space.
>

That is true. "640K ought to be enough for anybody." ;-)



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 2/18/2016 12:18 AM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
> > Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> >> On 2/17/2016 8:46 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> >>> Le 17/02/2016 09:24, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am also considering taking it underground and using some form of
> >>>>> geothermal
> >>>>> energy. Obviously it would need to use a lot of energy for cooling as
> >>>>> well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not much geothermal (selenothermal might be a more appropriate term)
> >>>> energy present I am afraid. Contrary to Earth, the Moon does not have a
> >>>> hot mantle and only a small core, partly molten.
> >>>
> >>> If you could harvest the momentum between moon and earth (moon is
> >>> getting further away from earth as time goes on, meaning "moon is
> >>> acquiring more orbital speed"... hence energy), you could have some
> >>> energy for your nanobots and make the moon stays longer with the earth.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There is a big temperature difference between the day and night sides of
> >> the Moon. So maybe a thermopile solution could be found.
> >>
> >>
> > I was just thinking the same thing.  Large numbers of thin rods of different
> > metals extending through the core from dark side to light side, and you have a
> > thermocouple.
> >
>
> I would have thought that a series of Thermopile Arrays on the surface
> would be a better engineering solution. You would not need to worry
> about hitting the core. But if you were going to drill to the core.
> Taking the heat directly would be a better solution.
>
> > On the other hand, if you want to get really wild, make it a photonic computer
> > and use the light of the sun directly.
> >
>
> An even better solution.
>
> > It would be immune to gamma rays and Electromagnetic interference, and if you
> > used volumetric data storage, you would probably never run out of space.
> >
>
> That is true. "640K ought to be enough for anybody." ;-)
>

I get the reference, and understand the concept.  However, considering that the
theoretical limit for volumetric data storage is something like one bit per
cubic wavelength; given a laser with a wavelength of .15nm -assuming my math is
correct- you could fit 2.962963e29 bits into a cubic meter.

That's something like 3*10^16, or three Quintillion ( a little more, really ),
terabytes. Per cubic meter of storage.

Three Thousand Billion Terrabytes, plus a few million.

At current rates, that's enough to store the entire world's data output for
three thousand years, in one cubic meter of crystal, just with current
technology.

Of course, these numbers reflect no growth in total output volume of data, and
use a volume of aproximately 1B TB/Y.

Feel free to check my math, I make no claims to infallibility.

Regards,
A.D.B

Post a reply to this message

On 2/18/2016 4:21 PM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
> I get the reference, and understand the concept.  However, considering that the
> theoretical limit for volumetric data storage is something like one bit per
> cubic wavelength; given a laser with a wavelength of .15nm -assuming my math is
> correct- you could fit 2.962963e29 bits into a cubic meter.
>
> That's something like 3*10^16, or three Quintillion ( a little more, really ),
> terabytes. Per cubic meter of storage.
>
> Three Thousand Billion Terrabytes, plus a few million.

How many neurons in the human brain?

I'm thinking big, then come the singularity. :-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.02.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 2/18/2016 12:18 AM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> It would be immune to gamma rays and Electromagnetic interference, and if you
>>> used volumetric data storage, you would probably never run out of space.
>>>
>>
>> That is true. "640K ought to be enough for anybody." ;-)
>>
> 
> I get the reference, and understand the concept.  However, considering that the
> theoretical limit for volumetric data storage is something like one bit per
> cubic wavelength; given a laser with a wavelength of .15nm -assuming my math is
> correct- you could fit 2.962963e29 bits into a cubic meter.
> 
> That's something like 3*10^16, or three Quintillion ( a little more, really ),
> terabytes. Per cubic meter of storage.
> 
> Three Thousand Billion Terrabytes, plus a few million.

Careful: As storage space (in the literal sense) increases, area becomes
more and more of a limiting factor rather than volume, for two reasons:

(1) Obviously, nothing can get in or out of a volume of storage space
without passing through the surface.

(2) I concede I might be wrong here, but I'm deeply convinced that at a
fundamental level information transfer through a region of space is
impossible without /temporary storage/ of the information in said space;
in other words, information transfer puts a "load" on the storage medium
that reduces the effective capacity. And while the "load" for even a
single bit of information can be distributed across multiple pathways
(thanks to wave/particle duality), this distribution is across an area,
not a volume (this should be easy to see if you picture the information
transfer as a wavefront traveling through the medium).
This sharing of capacity between storage and transfer is demonstrably
true for conventional electronic memory, which needs data transfer
pathways between memory which reduce the space available for storage
cells, but as I said, I'm convinced it is true for /any/ type of data
storage.

Note that this matches the holographic principle postulated by modern
physics, which states that the maximum information capacity of any
spacetime region is fundamentally limited by its surface area rather
than its volume.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 18.02.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> > Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> >> On 2/18/2016 12:18 AM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> It would be immune to gamma rays and Electromagnetic interference, and if you
> >>> used volumetric data storage, you would probably never run out of space.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That is true. "640K ought to be enough for anybody." ;-)
> >>
> >
> > I get the reference, and understand the concept.  However, considering that the
> > theoretical limit for volumetric data storage is something like one bit per
> > cubic wavelength; given a laser with a wavelength of .15nm -assuming my math is
> > correct- you could fit 2.962963e29 bits into a cubic meter.
> >
> > That's something like 3*10^16, or three Quintillion ( a little more, really ),
> > terabytes. Per cubic meter of storage.
> >
> > Three Thousand Billion Terrabytes, plus a few million.
>
> Careful: As storage space (in the literal sense) increases, area becomes
> more and more of a limiting factor rather than volume, for two reasons:
>
> (1) Obviously, nothing can get in or out of a volume of storage space
> without passing through the surface.
>
> (2) I concede I might be wrong here, but I'm deeply convinced that at a
> fundamental level information transfer through a region of space is
> impossible without /temporary storage/ of the information in said space;
> in other words, information transfer puts a "load" on the storage medium
> that reduces the effective capacity. And while the "load" for even a
> single bit of information can be distributed across multiple pathways
> (thanks to wave/particle duality), this distribution is across an area,
> not a volume (this should be easy to see if you picture the information
> transfer as a wavefront traveling through the medium).
> This sharing of capacity between storage and transfer is demonstrably
> true for conventional electronic memory, which needs data transfer
> pathways between memory which reduce the space available for storage
> cells, but as I said, I'm convinced it is true for /any/ type of data
> storage.
>
> Note that this matches the holographic principle postulated by modern
> physics, which states that the maximum information capacity of any
> spacetime region is fundamentally limited by its surface area rather
> than its volume.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.25.5321&rep=rep1&type=pdf

I'm not going to pretend that I understand all of it.  I had reason to look it
up once.

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.02.2016 um 21:01 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:

>> Careful: As storage space (in the literal sense) increases, area becomes
>> more and more of a limiting factor rather than volume, for two reasons:
>>
>> (1) Obviously, nothing can get in or out of a volume of storage space
>> without passing through the surface.
>>
>> (2) I concede I might be wrong here, but I'm deeply convinced that at a
>> fundamental level information transfer through a region of space is
>> impossible without /temporary storage/ of the information in said space;
>> in other words, information transfer puts a "load" on the storage medium
>> that reduces the effective capacity. And while the "load" for even a
>> single bit of information can be distributed across multiple pathways
>> (thanks to wave/particle duality), this distribution is across an area,
>> not a volume (this should be easy to see if you picture the information
>> transfer as a wavefront traveling through the medium).
>> This sharing of capacity between storage and transfer is demonstrably
>> true for conventional electronic memory, which needs data transfer
>> pathways between memory which reduce the space available for storage
>> cells, but as I said, I'm convinced it is true for /any/ type of data
>> storage.
>>
>> Note that this matches the holographic principle postulated by modern
>> physics, which states that the maximum information capacity of any
>> spacetime region is fundamentally limited by its surface area rather
>> than its volume.
> 
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.25.5321&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> 
> I'm not going to pretend that I understand all of it.  I had reason to look it
> up once.

While that's all nice, this paper is just dealing with the topic of how
3D storage is better than 2D storage, and how 3D storage can be
implemented in the first place (proposing a holographic process in this
case); the technology is still far from the point where data
transmission capacity becomes a limiting factor, so the engineers
currently don't bother to even give it any consideration.

Holographic memory /looks/ elegant because there are no /obvious/
transmission pathways within the medium. But on the other hand, there
are no /obvious/ storage locations in there either, and yet the stored
data uses up capacity /somewhere/ (as a matter of fact, it uses up
capacity /everywhere/).

I really believe that there are still /intrinsic/ transmission pathways
that compete with net storage for the capacity of the storage system.

Just like the various 2D images are "spread out" across a 3D volume, and
in this way compete with each other for storage capacity at any point in
space, the data transmission itself is also "spread out" across the same
3D volume, and I'm firmly convinced that in this manner it does compete
with net storage. I expect that as transmission rates increase, it will
become more and more difficult to keep the stored data from degrading.

Post a reply to this message