The future of CPU based computing, mini clusters.
|
Prev: Maximum ammount of local variables in cg shaders ?
Next: Online Exams for Certification, Free Practice Exams, Study Material, Dumps
From: Del Cecchi on 2 Nov 2009 12:06 "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan(a)gmx.de> wrote in message news:1588054.EvxWjJku6o(a)elfi.zetex.de... > Terje Mathisen wrote: >> The key point is that even if they do find the proper (easy to >> manufacture, stable, cheap etc) material today, it will still take >> a lot >> more than "2-4 years" to make it commonly available in the form of >> embedded memory. > > Well, I'm a bit more optimistic about that. "Easy to manufacture" > means > "fits into the current process flow", so it's essentially just > another > process step - memristor inserted into a via - in a standard > process. If > you ask the process guys "please grow multi-walled carbon nanotubes > of 200nm > length with embedded iron shuttles in every via hole", then you'll > get your > multi-year estimate with no guarantee to success, but if it's really > just > something you can create with a standard CVD process step (like the > titanium > oxide HP wants to use), it's not rocket science, and can be ported > to other > fabs as well. > > -- > Bernd Paysan > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" > http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/ I think the point is that the material hasn't been defined yet and until at least one suitable material has been identified the whole idea is somewhat of a fantasy. Remember Ovonics? Before solar cells they were going to make all sorts of miraculous circuitry. Don't see much of it around. del
From: Del Cecchi on 2 Nov 2009 12:07 "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan(a)gmx.de> wrote in message news:1588054.EvxWjJku6o(a)elfi.zetex.de... > Terje Mathisen wrote: >> The key point is that even if they do find the proper (easy to >> manufacture, stable, cheap etc) material today, it will still take >> a lot >> more than "2-4 years" to make it commonly available in the form of >> embedded memory. > > Well, I'm a bit more optimistic about that. "Easy to manufacture" > means > "fits into the current process flow", so it's essentially just > another > process step - memristor inserted into a via - in a standard > process. If > you ask the process guys "please grow multi-walled carbon nanotubes > of 200nm > length with embedded iron shuttles in every via hole", then you'll > get your > multi-year estimate with no guarantee to success, but if it's really > just > something you can create with a standard CVD process step (like the > titanium > oxide HP wants to use), it's not rocket science, and can be ported > to other > fabs as well. > > -- > Bernd Paysan > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" > http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/ For example... http://www.absolutemichigan.com/search/?articleid=2762
From: ChrisQ on 2 Nov 2009 12:52 Robert Myers wrote: > On Nov 2, 7:48 am, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > >> Rocket science is almost trivial; rocket engineering is hard. Quite >> a lot of things are like that. > > If X engineering is hard, it's almost because X science is missing or > incomplete. > Sorry, no. While science can show that some physical process is possible in theory, the engineering technology is not always there to build it, since the engineering usually depends on a lot of other unrelated technologies... Regards, Chris
From: dj3vande on 2 Nov 2009 13:03 In article <d82693a7-864a-4fec-a676-5a94bf453bcb(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 2, 7:48 am, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > >> Rocket science is almost trivial; rocket engineering is hard. Quite >> a lot of things are like that. > >If X engineering is hard, it's almost because X science is missing or >incomplete. > >That is, in my not so humble opinion, particularly true of rocket >science, which is anything but trivial. Throw stuff in one direction, you move in the other direction. That's rocket science. The rest is engineering. There's a nontrivial amount of other types of science behind that engineering, but 'tain't rocket science. dave -- Dave Vandervies dj3vande at eskimo dot com I wouldn't pay anyone who used realloc like THAT, except perhaps to clean the toilets. --infobahn in comp.lang.c
From: Robert Myers on 2 Nov 2009 14:09
On Nov 2, 12:52 pm, ChrisQ <m...(a)devnull.com> wrote: > Robert Myers wrote: > > On Nov 2, 7:48 am, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > > >> Rocket science is almost trivial; rocket engineering is hard. Quite > >> a lot of things are like that. > > > If X engineering is hard, it's almost because X science is missing or > > incomplete. > > Sorry, no. While science can show that some physical process is possible > in theory, the engineering technology is not always there to build it, > since the engineering usually depends on a lot of other unrelated > technologies... > Are you now, or have you ever been, a rocket scientist? Most engineering that goes wrong is because most things are under- engineered: the design was supported by inadequate analysis. Sometimes the analytical capability doesn't exist (the science isn't there) and sometimes people are just unwilling to spend the money. I'm not now nor have I ever been a solid state physicist, but the black art of device engineering seems to result from a lack of adequate science, so that much of it is inspired guesswork and cut and try. As far as I know, computational and theoretical device physics aren't in very good shape, which makes the progress that does take place even more amazing. Rocket engineering is also a lot of inspired guesswork and cut and try, sometimes with unwitting test pilots aboard the under-engineered vehicle. Rocket science could be in much better shape, but no one wants to spend the money. Robert. |