| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Radium" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2006 08:58:53 PM |
| Object: |
Mechanical vs. Electronic vs. Photonic |
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote
If the nanobots are purely photonic instead of electronic,
does this decrease the amounts of errors that occur? I guess so.
What the hell is a "photonic" bot?
A photonic bot uses light, an electronic bot uses electricity.
Once again, you display your near-complete ignorance of the subject
you are blathering about. Nanobots will use molecular conformation changes
(e.g., Drexler's "mechanical" computation) or electronic energy-level transitions
to process internal information.
Which has more advantages, mechanical computation or electronic
energy-level transitions?
By contrast, since the fine-structure constant
that controls the probability of emission and absorbtion of photons is only
~1/137, which is much less than unity, the probability of a photon being
re-absorbed by the same molecule-sized nanobot that emitted it is very
small; hence, trying to use photons to pass information around within a
molecule-sized computer is just plain _silly_.
Photons will be useful for transmitting information _between_ nanobots,
as long as one is willing to send a whole bunch of photons per bit to ensure
a sufficiently high probability that at least one photon will get received.
In this case, which has more advantages, electronics or photonics?
However, trying to use photons _within_ a nanobot is simply a recipe for
losing more than 99% of the energy sent per bit --- whereas mechanical
or electronic transmission will have near-100% reliability and efficiency.
Look --- May I make a suggestion? Go to your nearest library,
find a copy of Drexler's "Engines of Creation," and _READ IT_.
If you are too lazy to go to a libray, it's even on the web at
<http://www.e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Table_of_Contents.html>.
But either way, _GO READ THE BOOK_ --- because the level of ignorance
you are currently displaying is so high that you are a pitifully bad joke.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mechanical vs. Electronic vs. Photonic |
25 Aug 2006 08:56:20 AM |
|
|
Photonics requires straightline (i.e line of sight )communication
requirements which is not a requirement for electronics. You also need
electronics to process photonics and as a result of it you end up with
bulky electronics structures. In other words, electronics has distinct
advantages over all other modes of communications as well as
information processing in the forseable future.
Radium wrote:
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote
If the nanobots are purely photonic instead of electronic,
does this decrease the amounts of errors that occur? I guess so.
What the hell is a "photonic" bot?
A photonic bot uses light, an electronic bot uses electricity.
Once again, you display your near-complete ignorance of the subject
you are blathering about. Nanobots will use molecular conformation changes
(e.g., Drexler's "mechanical" computation) or electronic energy-level transitions
to process internal information.
Which has more advantages, mechanical computation or electronic
energy-level transitions?
By contrast, since the fine-structure constant
that controls the probability of emission and absorbtion of photons is only
~1/137, which is much less than unity, the probability of a photon being
re-absorbed by the same molecule-sized nanobot that emitted it is very
small; hence, trying to use photons to pass information around within a
molecule-sized computer is just plain _silly_.
Photons will be useful for transmitting information _between_ nanobots,
as long as one is willing to send a whole bunch of photons per bit to ensure
a sufficiently high probability that at least one photon will get received.
In this case, which has more advantages, electronics or photonics?
However, trying to use photons _within_ a nanobot is simply a recipe for
losing more than 99% of the energy sent per bit --- whereas mechanical
or electronic transmission will have near-100% reliability and efficiency.
Look --- May I make a suggestion? Go to your nearest library,
find a copy of Drexler's "Engines of Creation," and _READ IT_.
If you are too lazy to go to a libray, it's even on the web at
<http://www.e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Table_of_Contents.html>.
But either way, _GO READ THE BOOK_ --- because the level of ignorance
you are currently displaying is so high that you are a pitifully bad joke.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mechanical vs. Electronic vs. Photonic |
25 Aug 2006 09:04:23 AM |
|
|
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156514180.886513.153750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Photonics requires straightline (i.e line of sight )communication
| requirements which is not a requirement for electronics. You also need
| electronics to process photonics and as a result of it you end up with
| bulky electronics structures. In other words, electronics has distinct
| advantages over all other modes of communications as well as
| information processing in the forseable future.
Yawn.... electronics has those bulky vacuum tubes. You lack foresight.
Androcles
|
| Radium wrote:
| > Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
| > > "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
| > > > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
| > > >> In sci.physics, Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote
| > > >>
| > > >>> If the nanobots are purely photonic instead of electronic,
| > > >>> does this decrease the amounts of errors that occur? I guess so.
| > > >>
| > > >> What the hell is a "photonic" bot?
| > > >
| > > > A photonic bot uses light, an electronic bot uses electricity.
| > >
| > > Once again, you display your near-complete ignorance of the subject
| > > you are blathering about. Nanobots will use molecular conformation
changes
| > > (e.g., Drexler's "mechanical" computation) or electronic energy-level
transitions
| > > to process internal information.
| >
| > Which has more advantages, mechanical computation or electronic
| > energy-level transitions?
| >
| > >By contrast, since the fine-structure constant
| > > that controls the probability of emission and absorbtion of photons is
only
| > > ~1/137, which is much less than unity, the probability of a photon
being
| > > re-absorbed by the same molecule-sized nanobot that emitted it is very
| > > small; hence, trying to use photons to pass information around within
a
| > > molecule-sized computer is just plain _silly_.
| >
| > > Photons will be useful for transmitting information _between_
nanobots,
| > > as long as one is willing to send a whole bunch of photons per bit to
ensure
| > > a sufficiently high probability that at least one photon will get
received.
| >
| > In this case, which has more advantages, electronics or photonics?
| >
| > > However, trying to use photons _within_ a nanobot is simply a recipe
for
| > > losing more than 99% of the energy sent per bit --- whereas mechanical
| > > or electronic transmission will have near-100% reliability and
efficiency.
| > >
| > > Look --- May I make a suggestion? Go to your nearest library,
| > > find a copy of Drexler's "Engines of Creation," and _READ IT_.
| > > If you are too lazy to go to a libray, it's even on the web at
| > > <http://www.e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Table_of_Contents.html>.
| > > But either way, _GO READ THE BOOK_ --- because the level of ignorance
| > > you are currently displaying is so high that you are a pitifully bad
joke.
| > >
| > >
| > > -- Gordon D. Pusch
| > >
| > > perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//;
print;'
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Glover" |
|
| Title: Re: Mechanical vs. Electronic vs. Photonic |
27 Aug 2006 12:57:49 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156514180.886513.153750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Photonics requires straightline (i.e line of sight )communication
| requirements which is not a requirement for electronics. You also need
| electronics to process photonics and as a result of it you end up with
| bulky electronics structures. In other words, electronics has distinct
| advantages over all other modes of communications as well as
| information processing in the forseable future.
Yawn.... electronics has those bulky vacuum tubes. You lack foresight.
Androcles
When was the last time you saw a vacuum tube, other than a
TV/computer CRT?
--
Frank
You know what to remove to reply...
Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm
"Man who say it cannot be done, should not interrupt man doing it."
- Chinese Proverb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mechanical vs. Electronic vs. Photonic |
27 Aug 2006 01:50:11 AM |
|
|
"Frank Glover" <starr176@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xvaIg.29233$8j3.20935@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > <iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1156514180.886513.153750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > | Photonics requires straightline (i.e line of sight )communication
| > | requirements which is not a requirement for electronics. You also need
| > | electronics to process photonics and as a result of it you end up with
| > | bulky electronics structures. In other words, electronics has distinct
| > | advantages over all other modes of communications as well as
| > | information processing in the forseable future.
| >
| >
| > Yawn.... electronics has those bulky vacuum tubes. You lack foresight.
| > Androcles
|
| When was the last time you saw a vacuum tube, other than a
| TV/computer CRT?
I probably still have one out in my pal's garage somewhere, his son
believes an amplifier made with them "sounds better". Thick copper
braided wires to loudspeakers improves audio quality too, so I'm told,
and prejudice doesn't have a darned thing to do with it. It really
does sound better, he can tell. The rest of us might try a double
blind test, but Persil washes whiter, they said so on TV. What
was that beer they made that left no after taste? It had no before taste
either.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Radium" |
|
| Title: Re: Mechanical vs. Electronic vs. Photonic |
25 Aug 2006 04:45:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Photonics requires straightline (i.e line of sight )communication
requirements which is not a requirement for electronics. You also need
electronics to process photonics and as a result of it you end up with
bulky electronics structures.
In other words, electronics has distinct
advantages over all other modes of communications as well as
information processing in the forseable future.
Then why do people bother with photonics at all? Why not just use plain
old electronics?
Yes, electronics do carry a dangerously-high risk of being victimized
by annoying, disrupting, and even damaging EMI and RFI when compared to
photonics. But who cares?
A die-hard fan of electronics may ask, why not replace all optics
fibers with vacuum tube fibers.
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
Photons will be useful for transmitting information _between_ nanobots,
as long as one is willing to send a whole bunch of photons per bit to ensure
a sufficiently high probability that at least one photon will get received.
Okay. In this case, which has more advantages, electronics or
photonics?
Okay. In this case, which has more advantages, electronics or
photonics?
Okay. In this case, which has more advantages, electronics or
photonics?
Okay. In this case, which has more advantages, electronics or
photonics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mechanical vs. Electronic vs. Photonic |
25 Aug 2006 05:25:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
<snip>
A die-hard fan of electronics may ask, why not replace all optics
fibers with vacuum tube fibers.
No, only a moron like you would ask such a meaningless, word salad
question.
<snip remaining drivel>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mechanical vs. Electronic vs. Photonic |
25 Aug 2006 05:38:27 PM |
|
|
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:8d94s3-1m8.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
| In sci.physics Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
|
| <snip>
Nah... you wrote <snip>
Tell us what Radium wrote.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mechanical vs. Electronic vs. Photonic |
25 Aug 2006 09:49:34 PM |
|
|
People bother with photonics because it has the potential advantage of
speed and parallel processing capability which electronics lacks. What
it means is that one can create extremely fast paralell processing
computing machines. But till present, no one has been able to create a
pure photonics computer small enough to compete even with present day
humble PC, though many breakthroughs and claims exist that it can be
done. And the reason is simple, you need electronics (semiconductor
devices) to decode and process the information transmitted and recieved
by the photonics structures. That makes the whole photonics structures
bulky and impractical. That is why electronics alway's wins over
photonics untill a true photonic's breakthrough technology is invented
independent of electronics.
Radium wrote:
iftikhargul@gmail.com wrote:
Photonics requires straightline (i.e line of sight )communication
requirements which is not a requirement for electronics. You also need
electronics to process photonics and as a result of it you end up with
bulky electronics structures.
In other words, electronics has distinct
advantages over all other modes of communications as well as
information processing in the forseable future.
Then why do people bother with photonics at all? Why not just use plain
old electronics?
Yes, electronics do carry a dangerously-high risk of being victimized
by annoying, disrupting, and even damaging EMI and RFI when compared to
photonics. But who cares?
A die-hard fan of electronics may ask, why not replace all optics
fibers with vacuum tube fibers.
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
Photons will be useful for transmitting information _between_ nanobots,
as long as one is willing to send a whole bunch of photons per bit to ensure
a sufficiently high probability that at least one photon will get received.
Okay. In this case, which has more advantages, electronics or
photonics?
Okay. In this case, which has more advantages, electronics or
photonics?
Okay. In this case, which has more advantages, electronics or
photonics?
Okay. In this case, which has more advantages, electronics or
photonics?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Radium" |
|
| Title: Re: Mechanical vs. Electronic vs. Photonic |
25 Aug 2006 04:46:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Photonics requires straightline (i.e line of sight )communication
requirements which is not a requirement for electronics. You also need
electronics to process photonics and as a result of it you end up with
bulky electronics structures. In other words, electronics has distinct
advantages over all other modes of communications as well as
information processing in the forseable future.
Radium wrote:
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote
If the nanobots are purely photonic instead of electronic,
does this decrease the amounts of errors that occur? I guess so.
What the hell is a "photonic" bot?
A photonic bot uses light, an electronic bot uses electricity.
Once again, you display your near-complete ignorance of the subject
you are blathering about. Nanobots will use molecular conformation changes
(e.g., Drexler's "mechanical" computation) or electronic energy-level transitions
to process internal information.
Which has more advantages, mechanical computation or electronic
energy-level transitions?
By contrast, since the fine-structure constant
that controls the probability of emission and absorbtion of photons is only
~1/137, which is much less than unity, the probability of a photon being
re-absorbed by the same molecule-sized nanobot that emitted it is very
small; hence, trying to use photons to pass information around within a
molecule-sized computer is just plain _silly_.
Photons will be useful for transmitting information _between_ nanobots,
as long as one is willing to send a whole bunch of photons per bit to ensure
a sufficiently high probability that at least one photon will get received.
In this case, which has more advantages, electronics or photonics?
However, trying to use photons _within_ a nanobot is simply a recipe for
losing more than 99% of the energy sent per bit --- whereas mechanical
or electronic transmission will have near-100% reliability and efficiency.
Look --- May I make a suggestion? Go to your nearest library,
find a copy of Drexler's "Engines of Creation," and _READ IT_.
If you are too lazy to go to a libray, it's even on the web at
<http://www.e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Table_of_Contents.html>.
But either way, _GO READ THE BOOK_ --- because the level of ignorance
you are currently displaying is so high that you are a pitifully bad joke.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
No offense but that does not answer my question "Which has more
advantages, mechanical computation or electronic energy-level
transitions?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Evojeesus" |
|
| Title: Re: Mechanical vs. Electronic vs. Photonic |
25 Aug 2006 11:23:55 AM |
|
|
Radium wrote:
Please don't cross-post this to sci.life-extension.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Radium" |
|
| Title: Re: Mechanical vs. Electronic vs. Photonic |
25 Aug 2006 04:47:07 PM |
|
|
Evojeesus wrote:
Radium wrote:
Please don't cross-post this to sci.life-extension.
Sorry. I just accidentaly posted two more to SLE. Once again, I
apologize profusely. It won't happen again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
