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