From TFA this is the worlds biggest windfarm but will generate 1% of the UKs electricty needs. If you want a viable answer to the worlds energy needs I think we need to think outside this particular box.
Your right and I agree completely. If you look at the shape this is only this is not complex in the least. Many materials do this. Is so common I wondered at first why it was news. Then I saw the scale.
There are a lot more degrees of freedom in this system than in a hexagon with only 1 molecul per side. What would happen if we added 1% of another molecule? Could you engeneer it to only fit in certain locations and modify say, ever third? The starting of a gate-drain-source arranegment?
OK there's a lot of what ifs there but the potentional pay off is huge. These structres are built at the same time all over the surface. If it could be manufactored it would scale amazingly.
I researched in this field and now I work in it. This stuff is 20+ years out but its a simple modifable molecule like anthraquinone that's going to kick start true nanotech.
Whats new here is the size of the structures. From the diagram in the article I make out 4-5 molecules per side of the hexigon. That makes a huge area inside with no molecules. The question posed is what combination of surface forces is casuing this. Organisation over that kind of scale has been seen before but never I don't remember ever seeing it in a 2D pattern.
The significance is we have a new toy molecule. We know from past systems that very minor changes in the electron structure, the HOMO-LUMO levels in particular, can vastly change the shape and complexity of the pattern.
Your right about the outside source but I bet its a 50-50 interaction rather than just the copper causing this. In pervious systems I've seen I've imagined that the relatively local electrons in separate molecules were talking to each other through the unlocalised metalical electrons of the substrate. In my books that's cool!
If nano technology is ever to bootstrap its self its going to be from building blocks like these. Simple systems with simeple rules developing complicated results.
Modern chip production is defect limited not process limited. This means we lose far more die to dust on the wafer than we do to a production problem. If you fit more die on to the same size wafer with the same number of defects you will have more die yielding and therefore reduce your costs.
A halving of critial dimensions = roughly a quatering of die size = roughly 4 time increase in yild. Roughly:)
All the games are alive and well and available here
I loved those games so much. I remeber when I was a kid with the first elite, docking your ship was a near impossible task to begin with. I don't think I ever worked so hard at a game as I did with elite.
We all remember the Flannery episiode, right. She was awarded the first prize at the Irish Young Scientist compition in 2000 for work on speeding up the processing time of the RSA algorithm. I remember slashdot covering this (although I can't find the story) but I also remember reading that it made breaking the encryption almost trival.
Still the IYS award is a compition thats been running for 30-40 years now and is a credit to our small corner of the world.
>Thus, even though escape velocity is the speed of light at the event horizon, that is not relevant for powered vehicles.
I'm afraid it's very relevant for powered vehicles in a black hole.
What you say is very true in all but the most extream of circumstances. In a BH it matters not how much power you have available in your craft as you would need infinite energy to continue to accelerate your craft in the face of an infinite deceleration due to gravity.
Just balancing the force due to gravity will require this infinite energy, you'll need inifite+1 energy to start moving away from the hole.
As long as you remain outside the event horizon you can always turn around and come back. Once you cross it your only way back out is via Hawking radiation, which is not quite the holiday of a life time it sounds like.
I hope I've made myself clear but the arguments I've used are very hand wavey. Sorry, I really don't feel like being more creative it's far too late in the day.
I was not saying that the particle was emmited from inside the BH, Hawking clearly states that this is not the case.
I simple said that the properties of the emmited particles are taken from the black hole, so the information contained in the BH (in the case in point a/. poster) is transmitted away by the particle.
From a distance this looks exactaly the same as if the particle had come from inside the BH rather than just on the outside. More importantly it has the same net effect.
"The event horizon is nothing more than the distance at which escape velocity is the speed of light"
Since escape velocity is the speed of light and because relativity prevents you from accelerating to the speed of light, if you fall inside the event horizon then according to relativity you can't get back outside.
This does not mean that you will die as you pass the event horizon but it does mean that as far as the outside world is concerned the only measures that you ever existed are the changes in the mass, angular momentium, and charge of the hole which you caused.
Hawkings, using quantum theory, showed that you will eventualy make it out of the hole via the emmision of one part of a particle/anti-particle pair(Hawking radiation). But the only information about you that will be conserved will be again be your mass, angular momentium and charge, so your not coming out the way you went in.
But besides all that those of us who find ourselves trapped inside a massive event horizon can still live happy and productive lives, we just can't post on/. about it.
"Clearly existence alone is pretty tricky within the event horizon..."
Actualy if the black hole is big enough then getting inside the event horizon is easy.
If I remember the calculations right, if we ignore the heat and radiation from the disk around the black hole and if the hole is as big as those assumed to be at the center of a galaxy then you can to right past the event horizon with out the tidal forces becoming very large at all (I think tidal forces fall off with an inverse r^3 law but don't quote me on it)
What about linux. Is OSX so advantanced that KDE and Gnome etc.. cannot catch up? If they do the bottom just fell out of your OS market. Apple have said time and again their a hardware company. OSX is just an other way to sell their hardware, it's not a separate market.
Without getting in to a flame can I say that flops mean as little as Hz. I'm a computational physicist and what hardware do I do my calculations on? Intel. Why? Because if I need to I have all the support in the world to add extra functionality to the pc be it extra processors or a new fpu. Try doing that with apple.
I think it's a simple question as far as Apple is concerned. Which generates more revinue
1) Sell the OS for $100 or so and never sell an other machine or
2) Sell a machine worth $1000 and the OS for $100.
Why do people buy an Apple machine if not for the OS?
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA this is the worlds biggest windfarm but will generate 1% of the UKs electricty needs. If you want a viable answer to the worlds energy needs I think we need to think outside this particular box.
Your right and I agree completely. If you look at the shape this is only this is not complex in the least. Many materials do this. Is so common I wondered at first why it was news. Then I saw the scale.
There are a lot more degrees of freedom in this system than in a hexagon with only 1 molecul per side. What would happen if we added 1% of another molecule? Could you engeneer it to only fit in certain locations and modify say, ever third? The starting of a gate-drain-source arranegment?
OK there's a lot of what ifs there but the potentional pay off is huge. These structres are built at the same time all over the surface. If it could be manufactored it would scale amazingly.
I researched in this field and now I work in it. This stuff is 20+ years out but its a simple modifable molecule like anthraquinone that's going to kick start true nanotech.
Whats new here is the size of the structures. From the diagram in the article I make out 4-5 molecules per side of the hexigon. That makes a huge area inside with no molecules. The question posed is what combination of surface forces is casuing this. Organisation over that kind of scale has been seen before but never I don't remember ever seeing it in a 2D pattern.
The significance is we have a new toy molecule. We know from past systems that very minor changes in the electron structure, the HOMO-LUMO levels in particular, can vastly change the shape and complexity of the pattern.
Your right about the outside source but I bet its a 50-50 interaction rather than just the copper causing this. In pervious systems I've seen I've imagined that the relatively local electrons in separate molecules were talking to each other through the unlocalised metalical electrons of the substrate. In my books that's cool!
If nano technology is ever to bootstrap its self its going to be from building blocks like these. Simple systems with simeple rules developing complicated results.
Modern chip production is defect limited not process limited. This means we lose far more die to dust on the wafer than we do to a production problem. If you fit more die on to the same size wafer with the same number of defects you will have more die yielding and therefore reduce your costs.
:)
A halving of critial dimensions = roughly a quatering of die size = roughly 4 time increase in yild. Roughly
All the games are alive and well and available here I loved those games so much. I remeber when I was a kid with the first elite, docking your ship was a near impossible task to begin with. I don't think I ever worked so hard at a game as I did with elite.
Who said he was anti-U.S? Anti corporate sure but I do not get how that translates to anti-U.S.
We all remember the Flannery episiode, right. She was awarded the first prize at the Irish Young Scientist compition in 2000 for work on speeding up the processing time of the RSA algorithm. I remember slashdot covering this (although I can't find the story) but I also remember reading that it made breaking the encryption almost trival. Still the IYS award is a compition thats been running for 30-40 years now and is a credit to our small corner of the world.
>Thus, even though escape velocity is the speed of light at the event horizon, that is not relevant for powered vehicles.
I'm afraid it's very relevant for powered vehicles in a black hole.
What you say is very true in all but the most extream of circumstances. In a BH it matters not how much power you have available in your craft as you would need infinite energy to continue to accelerate your craft in the face of an infinite deceleration due to gravity.
Just balancing the force due to gravity will require this infinite energy, you'll need inifite+1 energy to start moving away from the hole.
As long as you remain outside the event horizon you can always turn around and come back. Once you cross it your only way back out is via Hawking radiation, which is not quite the holiday of a life time it sounds like.
I hope I've made myself clear but the arguments I've used are very hand wavey. Sorry, I really don't feel like being more creative it's far too late in the day.
I was not saying that the particle was emmited from inside the BH, Hawking clearly states that this is not the case.
/. poster) is transmitted away by the particle.
I simple said that the properties of the emmited particles are taken from the black hole, so the information contained in the BH (in the case in point a
From a distance this looks exactaly the same as if the particle had come from inside the BH rather than just on the outside. More importantly it has the same net effect.
I did and I don't understand. I'm simple saying that even with powered flight you are never (according to relativity) getting out of a BH.
Sorry if I'm still missing something in your post, please explain.
"The event horizon is nothing more than the distance at which escape velocity is the speed of light"
/. about it.
Since escape velocity is the speed of light and because relativity prevents you from accelerating to the speed of light, if you fall inside the event horizon then according to relativity you can't get back outside.
This does not mean that you will die as you pass the event horizon but it does mean that as far as the outside world is concerned the only measures that you ever existed are the changes in the mass, angular momentium, and charge of the hole which you caused.
Hawkings, using quantum theory, showed that you will eventualy make it out of the hole via the emmision of one part of a particle/anti-particle pair(Hawking radiation). But the only information about you that will be conserved will be again be your mass, angular momentium and charge, so your not coming out the way you went in.
But besides all that those of us who find ourselves trapped inside a massive event horizon can still live happy and productive lives, we just can't post on
"Clearly existence alone is pretty tricky within the event horizon..."
Actualy if the black hole is big enough then getting inside the event horizon is easy.
If I remember the calculations right, if we ignore the heat and radiation from the disk around the black hole and if the hole is as big as those assumed to be at the center of a galaxy then you can to right past the event horizon with out the tidal forces becoming very large at all (I think tidal forces fall off with an inverse r^3 law but don't quote me on it)
Don't you think NY should have a new park to mark the location of the heros?
I for one think that there must be some sort of monument erected to the people who died there.
-J
Irishtimes is saying that one of the WTC towers has colapised. Anybody else conferming this?
Pity. I thought you were holding out something on us there ;-)
What about linux. Is OSX so advantanced that KDE and Gnome etc.. cannot catch up? If they do the bottom just fell out of your OS market. Apple have said time and again their a hardware company. OSX is just an other way to sell their hardware, it's not a separate market.
Without getting in to a flame can I say that flops mean as little as Hz. I'm a computational physicist and what hardware do I do my calculations on? Intel. Why? Because if I need to I have all the support in the world to add extra functionality to the pc be it extra processors or a new fpu. Try doing that with apple.
I think it's a simple question as far as Apple is concerned. Which generates more revinue 1) Sell the OS for $100 or so and never sell an other machine or 2) Sell a machine worth $1000 and the OS for $100. Why do people buy an Apple machine if not for the OS?