Slashdot Mirror
Cascading Molecules Drive IBM's Smallest Computer
Benoit Fries writes "EE Times reports that IBM researchers have created a simple computation engine that's more than 250,000 times smaller than the most advanced silicon circuitry. Called the world's smallest computer, the system relies on a 'molecular cascade' that pushes a handful of carbon monoxide molecules across a copper surface to perform digital logic functions. 'Even if CMOS density follows Moore's Law for 40 more years, molecular cascades are still going to be smaller,' they said."
'Even if CMOS density follows Moore's Law for 40 more years, molecular cascades are still going to be smaller'
Pfft - if I had a nickel for every time I heard that...
Counter Strike for mice.
*LoC == Standard metric unit of information (Library of Congress). Size of unit varies from year to year.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
"The slow operation of the gates -- some required seconds to settle -- underscores the fact that the work was part of a research project."
You pretty much have your choice of one chip that does something 250,000 times in a second, or 250,000 chips that do one thing each a second... Until they can speed these things up, they're more of a curiosity than a useful technology.
Nooo!!! You're stepping on them!!!
And exactly how will you achieve massive parallelism without packing more logic per area? Making computers as big as houses again is not the answer.
All those people worrying about asphyxiating on carbon monoxide...
CO binds very tightly to metallic ligands such as copper. The Carbon atom has an unbound lone pair of electrons, that are donated to the metal's d-electron shell. Additionally the CO molecule creates a pi-back-bonding system with the metal center, making the complex even more stable.
Upshot: the CO is not going to spontaneously leak off the chip into your atmosphere. In any case, I doubt that such logic circuits would contain sufficient carbon monoxide to pose a health threat.
(Interesting side note: CO asphyxiates you by binding very tightly to the iron in hemoglobin in your blood, much more tightly than oxygen can. IIRC, however, CO will preferentially bind to copper over Fe.)
My other sig is also a
250,000 times smaller than the most advanced silicon circuitry. Of course, it's also 250,000,000 times slower. I'm guessing there won't be molecular cascade chips in my PC anytime soon, unless I have a lot of free time...
Because it is not radioactive.
LOS ANGELES 6:39PM PST - The American Assocation of Midgets issued a press release stating "finally a computer company is aligned with our cause. We, the worlds smallest people have been waiting for decades for the worlds smallest computer."
Somebody correct me if I am getting this whole thing wrong, but AFAIK, when you go down to molecular levels, due to the uncertainty principle, sometimes the dominos will not fall as you predict, becauese either
1) they were already fallen you just didn't know, or
2) statistically speaking there is a much higher chance for "spontaneous reverse-thermodynamics" on a molecular level.
what i mean is that while macroscopically speaking, the universe is headed toward higher entropy, molecularly speaking, it's not necessarily so; The example commonly given is that you can drop and shatter an egg, or an shattered egg can come together, absorbing the sound waves etc and rise back into your hand. the latter will not (or, has completely ignorable probability of) happening, but as you and the egg gets smaller, the chance of this ignorable probability becomes less so.
hence, a molecular computer has the probability of operating "faultily" because of the laws of thermodynamics is not followed 100%. this is currently overcome by the thousands / millions of electrons we send over gates, probabilistically speaking they still behave on a macro level, but a molecular computer has no such luxury.
i mean, even there was only a minute chance that one molecule will go backwards as what we intended -- counting up the billions of calculations per second we expect from each chip, and the number of chips out there, and then the number of seconds / days / monthes / years they are expected to operate, the chance of error is almost inevitable. some serious redundancy / self-healing hardware / software might need to be invented.
i am just blabbing, though. like i said: i am no molecular physicist, so if there are some here, please comment.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
What if we're all part of some gigantic computer and the molecules we put to work computing were already computing something ?
Is God going to sue us for stealing processing power ?
graspee
...it still wouldn't be large enough to connect a network cable.
Yes but it would make me feel important. God how I loved room fulls of racks with lights and tapes and switches. I could stroll through my domain and feel like a king.
Now I have a tiny cube with a PC connected by ethernet to a tiny server no bigger than a chopping cart. AND we still don't get any more done than we did back in the day.
My first thought was, the structure once toppled, IS toppled, and with a stationary background, it would not be possible to reset it. I found it is indeed true. In the IBM page, it states
...It takes several hours to set up the most complicated cascades. Since there is no reset mechanism, these molecule cascades can only perform a calculation once....
My idea is, have a non-stationary background of copper plane, which through some mechanism (which causes repulsion of the CO molecules) places the molecules in the reset position, ready to be "toppled" again!
"Do something man. Right now."
You have to learn entirely different programming methods to program algorithms to run in parallel. Managing memory and cache access between multiple processors is a pain in the ass on the hardware side. That's what makes mobos for multiple processors more expensive. Plus, some tasks are just not well-suited to scaling across multiple processors at all.
In short, I'd rather have a one processor machine over a two or more processor machine if the one processor machine gives sufficient speed for a reasonable price.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
actually smaller and slower is fine. i read a great article by richard feynman (i believe it's in the 'feynman lectures on computing' series). where he was talking about the theromodynamics of computation. if we slow down the computers and use much less voltage then we can get away with using a lot less power. with the added savings in power we can use more processors in parallel. it turns out that the way everything scales, you get more speed out of parallel processors and use less power. i don't remember all the arguements, it's been a couple of years since i read it, but if you find the book it's definately worth reading.
If a cascading molecule NOT gate is hard then thier cascading domino metaphor must not be accurate... It's easy to build a domino NOT gate. Here's how:
:
TtttttttttttttR
i
i
I
It's 2 runs in an L shape. Simultaneously gate a True signal at T and the input signal at I, read the result at R. Note: True = Falls, False = Stands.
Here's how it works
If I = True then the shorter I run knocks down the last t. When the longer T run reaches R, the last t will already have fallen so R will not fall. so we have:
I = True --> R = False
If I = False then the T run will knock down R. So we have:
I = False --> R = True
That's a NOT gate!
Combine that with a V shaped OR gate and you have a NOR gate. It's well known that any logic function can be constructed from NOR gates.
Jonathan Weesner
Kind of like when Alexander Fleming wrote up a journal paper back in 1928(?) about how mould killed bacteria, and Walter Florey found it in a literature search a decade later and set his research team to isolate the responsible compound and figure out how to produce it in bulk.
I've had this experience myself. I needed to find an efficient algorithm for a relatively obscure problem. The usual textbooks didn't help, but I finally located a survey paper which finally revealed a 1981 journal article which described exactly the algorithm I was looking for.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)