Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 15 Apr '13 14:27 / 3 edits
    Physics / computer question - i know clock speed is key to computers and its hard engineering wise to make a very accurate one.

    Superconductors can spin with almost no resistance if cooled . has anyone tried to make a spinning clock out of one of these (drill holes round the edge and shine a light through something like that) I ask as I guess theres no limit to the speed of such a device.... possible ??
  2. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    16 Apr '13 00:18
    Originally posted by e4chris
    Physics / computer question - i know clock speed is key to computers and its hard engineering wise to make a very accurate one.

    Superconductors can spin with almost no resistance if cooled . has anyone tried to make a spinning clock out of one of these (drill holes round the edge and shine a light through something like that) I ask as I guess theres no limit to the speed of such a device.... possible ??
    15 days too late
  3. 16 Apr '13 10:43
    Originally posted by e4chris
    Physics / computer question - i know clock speed is key to computers and its hard engineering wise to make a very accurate one.
    Actually, no, computers do not require accurate clocks. Computers require co-ordination, not regularity. So long as every part goes through each cycle together, it doesn't really matter much if the cycles are faster or slower.
    In fact, almost all computer components are quite happy with significant changes in clock speed. Generally though faster clock speeds require higher voltages and produce more heat, so if you want to overclock a component beyond its design specs you need to give it more power and keep it cool, but that doesn't seem to stop enthusiasts from achieving remarkably high clock speeds.

    Superconductors can spin with almost no resistance if cooled . has anyone tried to make a spinning clock out of one of these (drill holes round the edge and shine a light through something like that) I ask as I guess theres no limit to the speed of such a device.... possible ??
    What keeps it at a constant speed, and how is the required speed set?
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    16 Apr '13 13:51
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Actually, no, computers do not require accurate clocks. Computers require co-ordination, not regularity. So long as every part goes through each cycle together, it doesn't really matter much if the cycles are faster or slower.
    In fact, almost all computer components are quite happy with significant changes in clock speed. Generally though faster clock sp ...[text shortened]... ce.... possible ??

    What keeps it at a constant speed, and how is the required speed set?[/b]
    The only thing I see is the need to keep the thing cool for extended periods of time. That means a constant input of energy for the cooling system. That goes down, so much for a timekeeper. BTW, the most accurate of the accurate is now soon to be an accuracy of one second in about 300 billion years. 1/20th of a second in the entire age of the universe!:

    http://www.gizmag.com/nuclear-clock/21835/
  5. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    16 Apr '13 19:47
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The only thing I see is the need to keep the thing cool for extended periods of time. That means a constant input of energy for the cooling system. That goes down, so much for a timekeeper. BTW, the most accurate of the accurate is now soon to be an accuracy of one second in about 300 billion years. 1/20th of a second in the entire age of the universe!:

    http://www.gizmag.com/nuclear-clock/21835/
    However, that is just an estimate. There is only one accurate Timekeeper.
  6. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    17 Apr '13 08:54
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    However, that is just an estimate. There is only one accurate Timekeeper.
    You talking god here? If so, he aint so accurate. The old bugger can't even keep the solar system absolutely regular.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 Apr '13 10:56
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    However, that is just an estimate. There is only one accurate Timekeeper.
    I don't even know how to answer your latest line of BS. Do you even realize how much our technologies depend on accurate clocks? We really don't need your implied or explicit references to religion, especially here in the science forum.
  8. 18 Apr '13 01:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I don't even know how to answer your latest line of BS. Do you even realize how much our technologies depend on accurate clocks? We really don't need your implied or explicit references to religion, especially here in the science forum.
    Jesus loves you

    I have made a spinning clock and my laptop now has the power of hal 9000
  9. 18 Apr '13 05:04
    Originally posted by e4chris
    I have made a spinning clock and my laptop now has the power of hal 9000
    Accurate clocks are not the limiting factor in computer processing.
    To make processors faster, one needs to:
    1. make the parts smaller so as to reduce overall resistance and thus produce less heat.
    2. make more parts on the chip so as to achieve both parallel processing and more processing per clock cycle.

    One can also make specialized processors that do specific tasks much faster.
  10. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    19 Apr '13 06:34
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I don't even know how to answer your latest line of BS. Do you even realize how much our technologies depend on accurate clocks? We really don't need your implied or explicit references to religion, especially here in the science forum.
    No.
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    30 Apr '13 23:45
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No.
    And I suppose, you could care less.
  12. 27 May '13 11:00
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The only thing I see is the need to keep the thing cool for extended periods of time. That means a constant input of energy for the cooling system. That goes down, so much for a timekeeper. BTW, the most accurate of the accurate is now soon to be an accuracy of one second in about 300 billion years. 1/20th of a second in the entire age of the universe!:

    http://www.gizmag.com/nuclear-clock/21835/
    was thinking about this and actually its a very bad idea - if you made a 'spinning clock' - basically an electric motor where the spinning section is a superconductor - and there was no friction - made it well - it could be dangerous? if it spins to fast? general relativity?
  13. 28 May '13 00:09 / 2 edits
    Am basically taking about a motor without one of these - a regulator
    http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7159/6739660447_b9a29e5813_z.jpg

    friction acts like one i think in a system limiting speed? but if that system has no friction?