[extropy-chat] Drextech computer memory: mechanical vs electronic

[Dan Clemmensen]

I am a proponent of nanomechanical computing, on theoretical grounds.

It seem to me that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle imposes an upper 
bound on
the density of electronic circuitry (or equivalently, a lower bound on 
the inter-element
spacing.) For example, an attempt to use functionalized
nanotubes as wires is constrained by the uncertainty in electron 
location: if two
nanotube wires are too close to each other, an electron that is supposed 
to be in one of
them has a non-trivial probability of showing up in the other one. the 
only way to avoid
this problem is to keep the "wires" far enough apart, but if this 
spacing is achievable by
lithography, then nanoelectronics has nothing to offer.

By contrast, nanomechanical elements are each based on at least one 
proton, and most
nanomechanical elements are multiple protons. A proton is 1836 times 
heavier than an
electron, so to a first approximation, nanomechanical elements can be 
packed at least 1836
times more closely than nanoelectronic elements IF Hiesenburg imposes 
the upper bound.

In practice, the Heisenburg bound is controlling for electronic 
circuits, I think,. The physical
size of a structure is the important constraint for nanomechanical 
structures, because once you
introduce a proton, The Heisenbburg uncertainty in location is smaller 
than the size of the atom
the proton is embedded in, even if it is a simple hydrogen atom.

If my (qualitative) analysis is correct, we can basically ignore 
Hiesenburg for nanomechaics, but
Heisenberg (quantum tunneling) is dominant for nanoelectronics.

Jeff Davis wrote:

>Fast, robust, and a blast from the past, mechanical
>memory switch outstrips chip technology
>
>Nanomechanical memory cell could catapult efforts to
>improve data storage
>
>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/bu-fra093004.php
>
>  
>