Originally posted by sonhouseThat's right America, cave in to the obvious superiority of the metric system. MUHAHAHA
I read this and it seems to say they KNOW how to make one but it doesn't seem to say they actually built one. Be a breakthrough for sure if they did. Here is the link:
http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2006/September/1/84283.aspx
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSame with the UK. Although we have become publicly metric in a lot of cases, we still need to with regard to road signs.
We've always used Metric in science. But you're right; the US badly needs to get over Imperial. It's an inferior system.
Here is an interesting page I have just found:
http://www.metric.org.uk/
Originally posted by AThousandYoungJust out of curiosity what does all this have to do with the article? Did you people just ignore what it had to say or what? If you are referring to the use of the term "nanometer", the semiconductor industry has been using the metric standard for at least 40 years. What in the name of Newton are you talking about?
We've always used Metric in science. But you're right; the US badly needs to get over Imperial. It's an inferior system.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseOh yes, of course. Sorry for being lead astray from what the thread was about as well. I agree that the use of nanometers is nothing new right across the scientific field. It is funny how the majority of the general public think that the imperial system is still used by everyone.
Just out of curiosity what does all this have to do with the article? Did you people just ignore what it had to say or what? If you are referring to the use of the term "nanometer", the semiconductor industry has been using the metric standard for at least 40 years. What in the name of Newton are you talking about?
Anyway, back to the article. I believed it was just a matter of time before this will happen and certainly is exciting news. It will revolutionise the electronics industry, as well as nanotechnology. As well as make computers thousands of times more powerful than they are today.
Will this make "grey goo" a real threat? Personally I don't think so, but could be wrong.
Originally posted by lauseyForewarned is forearmed as they say. The thing I was curious about, did you see anything about where they had actually built such a device? It looked to me like they just said 'we think we know how to do it, but don't hold your breath'.
Oh yes, of course. Sorry for being lead astray from what the thread was about as well. I agree that the use of nanometers is nothing new right across the scientific field. It is funny how the majority of the general public think that the imperial system is still used by everyone.
Anyway, back to the article. I believed it was just a matter of time before t ...[text shortened]...
Will this make "grey goo" a real threat? Personally I don't think so, but could be wrong.
Originally posted by sonhouseI was responding to the second poster. I read the article; sure, it's exciting, but I can't see that there's much to say about it. Yes, if this works, we will be able to make smaller and more powerful computers. Cool! I also briefly thought about the chemistry involved in attaching the leads to the benzene ring. It reminds me of organic chemistry class.
Just out of curiosity what does all this have to do with the article? Did you people just ignore what it had to say or what? If you are referring to the use of the term "nanometer", the semiconductor industry has been using the metric standard for at least 40 years. What in the name of Newton are you talking about?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAssuming this works we still won't see this technology making its way into computers that you or I have access to for at least 10 years.
I was responding to the second poster. I read the article; sure, it's exciting, but I can't see that there's much to say about it. Yes, if this works, we will be able to make smaller and more powerful computers. Cool! I also briefly thought about the chemistry involved in attaching the leads to the benzene ring. It reminds me of organic chemistry class.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOne thing I wonder about. If you have three connections to a benzene ring like that, how would you get amplification? There would have to be a way for a very small charge to affect a much larger flow through the other two rings. Not sure how much voltage/current is involved.
I was responding to the second poster. I read the article; sure, it's exciting, but I can't see that there's much to say about it. Yes, if this works, we will be able to make smaller and more powerful computers. Cool! I also briefly thought about the chemistry involved in attaching the leads to the benzene ring. It reminds me of organic chemistry class.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy would you need a small current to affect a larger one? It seems to me that the "valve" lead would need equal current to that coming in from the "input" lead in order to completely cancel it out via destructive interference. However I was never very good at quantum mechanics. I barely passed that class.
One thing I wonder about. If you have three connections to a benzene ring like that, how would you get amplification? There would have to be a way for a very small charge to affect a much larger flow through the other two rings. Not sure how much voltage/current is involved.
EDIT - The way this thing seems to be designed, the output when it's on will be twice the input from either of the other leads because they will add up via constructive interference. Therefore the valve's input will become half of the switch's output.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThats exactly why I wonder if its an actual transistor. I see it as a switch, it can still be used as logic elements but if that is true, its just a relay. An actual transistor (like a FET, Field Effect Transistor) takes a small voltage to open and close a gate where a much larger current can flow like a guy opening a spigot, small effort controlling a large flow of water. I don't see how this thing would amplify.
Why would you need a small current to affect a larger one? It seems to me that the "valve" lead would need equal current to that coming in from the "input" lead in order to completely cancel it out via destructive interference. However I was never very good at quantum mechanics. I barely passed that class.
EDIT - The way this thing seems to be desi uctive interference. Therefore the valve's input will become half of the switch's output.
If it's just a switch, how would you make a 'not' function? An inverse?
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI've never studied computer theory, so some of your terms are confusing to me. I don't know the difference between a transistor and a switch. I thought a transister was just a specific kind of switch. I don't know what a 'not' function or an inverse are with respect to transistors.
Thats exactly why I wonder if its an actual transistor. I see it as a switch, it can still be used as logic elements but if that is true, its just a relay. An actual transistor (like a FET, Field Effect Transistor) takes a small voltage to open and close a gate where a much larger current can flow like a guy opening a spigot, small effort controlling a larg hing would amplify.
If it's just a switch, how would you make a 'not' function? An inverse?
EDIT - Wikipedia seems to suggest that amplification is only used in analog circuits and not digital circuits which are the kind used in computers.