Slashdot Mirror


The Nanomechanical Computer

eldavojohn writes "The BBC is reporting on a newly proposed type of nanomechanical computer that mimics J. H. Müller & Charles Babbage's work on mechanical computational devices — just on a much smaller scale. The paper is published today in the New Journal of Physics and cites three reasons to build a computer with nanomechanical transistors over bipolar-junction or field-effect transistors: '(i) mechanical elements are more robust to electromagnetic shocks than current dynamic random access memory based purely on complimentary metal oxide semiconductor technology, (ii) the power dissipated can be orders of magnitude below CMOS, and (iii) the operating temperature of such an NMC can be an order of magnitude above that of conventional CMOS.'"

11 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. No "Diamond Age" in the tagging? by warrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Neal Stephenson wrote a book about this kind of tech back in 1995 or so, entitled "The Diamond Age" (or "A Young Girl's Primer or something like that). He envisions some pretty incredible stuff made out of this tech. Great book, lots of nerdy CS-type stuff in it. Go to the library and pick it up, very fun stuff. I think this one of his works is very underrated. If we can actually engineer stuff like this it would be impressive, indeed.

    --
    Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
  2. Prior art... by kebes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This present design is a cool idea. I don't want to take anything away from the presented concept, but I thought it would be important to point out previous work on nanomechanical computers. First of all, Eric Drexler (the guy who popularized the term "nanotechnology" and who basically invented the field now known as molecular nanotechnology) has been advocating the concept of nanomechanical computers for many years now (they are described in his book Engines of Creation (1986) and detailed feasibility calculations, and rough schematics, are presented in his book Nanosystems (1992)). Drexler has been trying to get people on-board with his very foreward-looking ideas for nanotechnology: where nano-sized mechanical systems would be performing computation, and controlling chemical reactions with a precision that currently only biological systems can achieve. (It should be noted that current work in "nanotechnology" is hilariously primitive compared to what Drexler intended the term to describe.) Drexler's vision of nano-mechanical systems has been challenged by many people, most notably by Richard Smalley (the guy who discovered buckyballs).

    Beyond Drexler's theoretical work, carbon nanotubes were demonstrated as nano-mechanical transistors in 2000. Basically, the nanotube was positioned over various electric pads. A current could be applied to mechanically deform the nanotube. The deformation was stable, and could be read-out by measuring current across the tube. Since the deformation was stable and reversible, the tubes could be used as persistent storage or as switching/logic elements. In fact, switching speeds of gigahertz were demonstrated. The vision was to have long nanotubes in a huge cross-bar architecture, leading to high-density persistent storage. As is often the case, scale-up was difficult.

    This present work appears to pattern a nano-sized post between conducting pads (out of a gold/silicon layered system) , and to use that post as a single-electron transistor. The 'mechanical' part comes from mechanically coupling multiple pillars to use as a gain mechanism for a transistor. This is basically much closer to conventional micro-lithography, and as such, it should fit in with current lithographic infrastructure much more easily than the nanotube concept did.

    1. Re:Prior art... by erichill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Folks in the nanotech crowd have been talking about clockwork computing from the get-go. Gears and rods and the like have a lot of advantages over electronics at molecular scales: atoms much smaller wavelengths than electrons thereby easier to localize. Also, to a first (and second) approximation, covalent bonds don't wear: undesired reactions are the issue, and not much of one in the mechanical phase of matter(*) envisioned by Drexler and company.
      Having skimmed the article, I'm a bit unimpressed by the comparison to Babbage. While this looks like neat technology, it's NOT clockwork--it's electronic transistors with mechanical gates, as noted in the parent.

      (*) Parts only touching where desired, vacuum elsewhere--remember, we're talking atomic scale here.

      --
      Credo sim. - I think I am.
  3. Re:You don't need our permission by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dude, this kind of speculative crap is published every 6 months. Going from theory to practice is the science and until they do any they're just masturbating in public.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  4. Also See the works of Neil Stephenson... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Informative

    Specifically, The Diamond Age, where such specifically mechanical nanomachines, along with artificial diamond, define the era the book takes place in. I'd say it's a charming if hyper-technical story if you haven't read it - though, things get rather unsafe for some young children in terms of strong sexuality for one prominent subplot.

    Anyway, the machines aren't self-replicating, but they are fabricated in microwave-style (and larger) boxes that take an elemental 'feed' of organic compounds and data. The book has some great philosophical and social content, and breaks most of the annoying characteristics of the previous 'cyberpunk'-style writing.

    Ryan Fenton

  5. Shock and vibration by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the Nikei stock exchange uses a mechanical computer, then an earthquake in Japan will really send a shudder through the financial markets...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  6. Re:You don't need our permission by FasterthanaWatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is like half science.. Must everyone be an experimentalist?
  7. Wrong, actually by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The reason Babbage had problems completing the project was that it required precision and standardization unparalleled in any previous project. The design and concept was there, the production capabilities lagged severely behind.


    Wrong, actually. The machine that was built at the end of the 20'th century was built with the precision and tolerances of the 19'th century. Deliberately, to show that it was possible.

    The precision argument is even more obviously false, when you look at the fact that very precise watches had existed for a long time. That's how they measured longitude before GPS. I use watches as an example, because they're cog-based machines too, and they required even higher precision. By the middle of the _18'th_ century (i.e., a century earlier than Babbage) even a pocket watch would already not deviate more than a minute per day, and the second hand gradually became common. (Previously they tended to have only hours and minutes hands.)

    The first practical nautical clock, John Harrison's H4 was first used aboard the ship Deptford which set sail for Jamaica on 18 November 1761 and actually arrived there on 19 January 1762. That's two months and a day at sea. After all that time, it was only off by 5.1 seconds.

    _That_ is the kind of accuracy that was already available a century before Babbage.

    Babbage's design didn't even need that kind of accuracy, since it was essentially a digital device. All that mattered was how many teeth of the cog had moved, not also to do it within a very exact time interval. Half the sources of inaccuracy of a watch, didn't even apply there.

    So, no, Babbage had no excuse. The production capabilities were there, the precision was enough, and standardization wasn't even necessary for a prototype. He just couldn't be arsed to actually deliver what he promised. Full stop.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  8. Re:You don't need our permission by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Interesting

    what are you waiting for? Pay the $10,000


    Perhaps he's waiting for the $10,000, or perhaps he knows that theory is the important thing, and if it's viable, there will be many organisations vying for better and better implementations.

    This is like half science.. "Here's my hypothesis, someone test it for me."


    I for one don't consider science to be something that only people with money do. One has to wonder how many da Vinci's there would have been, if other people all had the resources he had. The renaissance itself shows that progress pops up everywhere, given resources. Doesn't mean the science wasn't there in the back of people's minds, waiting for them to get past the point of scraping together money for a loaf of bread, though.
  9. Reversible Computing? by martyb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know this is /. and actually reading the article is unusual, but *I* did and came upon this:

    A computing architecture made from nanomechanical transistors thus is competitive with 45 nm CMOS technology Note 2, while taking a step towards enabling reversible computing. (emphasis added)

    I would LOVE to see THAT happen!

    <dream>Whenever a program crashes, just open the debugger, run it backwards until it gets "weird". Run it forwards and backwards again to isolate where it's broken. Of course, there are some problems with asynchronous signals (disk I/O, keyboard, mouse, etc.) but I can dream, can't I?</dream>

    But seriously, could this just be something thrown in to help get more funding or is it an actual possibility?

  10. Re:You don't need our permission by eggnoglatte · · Score: 5, Informative

    Going from theory to practice is the science... Actually, that would be the engineering. As in "there is no rocket science, there is physics, and then there is rocket engineering". Meanwhile, publishing the initial idea for other people (like, uh, an actual engineer) to built on is very valuable.

    Oh, and your premise is wrong: building a MEMS chip of a non-trivial size pretty quickly runs in the hundreds of thousands of $, even with educational discounts. So pretty much you have to get the design ready, then ask for funding to build the thing, which is what they are presumably doing.