[ExI] Sick of Cyberspace?

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Sat Dec 19 12:24:46 UTC 2009


On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:54:56PM -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote:

> OLED are now available in consumer HD TVs.  That's a considerable step to

It's mostly AMOLED, which still use Si (poly-Si or a-Si) in TFT
backplanes. I like the AMOLED displays a lot, since they actually
make reading off screen feasible. TFT LCD, including nicer kinds
(LED)-backlit (S-PVA, e-IPS) can't quite make the cut. Probably 
never will, though reflective liquid crystals are not nearly
done yet.

> putting organics to use in a domain that had previously only been done with
> LCD (chemistry?) and Plasma/CRT (physics?).

The particular substrate is not important, yet. The underlying technology
is much more interesting. The choice of substrate happens for many, more
or less mundane reasons, and also changes over time. (I can expand, if needed,
but I doubt many would find it interesting talking about oxide layers,
monocrystals, III-V semiconductors and wilder blends, band gaps, stoichiometry, 
thermal dependency, immersion litho and similar).

Larger changes in technology are more rare, and several technologies can
be used in the same substrate (or substrates, since every computer today
uses some 50 elements intricately patterned on top of silicon, and the
palette is further expanding rapidly). We're still mostly using electronics
(CMOS (mostly MOSFET)), though we're increasingly seeing photonics sitting
along with spintronics, especially single-electron quantum-effect devices which
are technically still electronics, but not as we know it, Jim.
And we have to use them, or Moore will run into a wall, and even quite
soon.

When we start approaching the limits of computational physics, and
degree of utilization of matter in the local system, then the choices
will be a lot less limited. The details of that remote (though not
necessarily in terms of wall clock) epoch we do not know of course.
What is the energy/matter tradeoff in transmutation -- should you
do some energetically expensive alchemy in order to obtain better
EROEI or ops/J on the long run or just use whatever stellar excreta
throw your way? We can't quite tell, yet.
 
> I would also like to see more articles on DNA origami:
> http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001864.html
> 
> A Sierpinski gasket made of DNA?  "That's Crazy!"  (crazy awesome)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_nanotechnology

It is always a good idea to utilize the only kind of molecular technology
we know and can control (life) in the bootstrap. Proteins and DNA are
great for self-assembly, as long as you can't do your own self-assembly
from scratch, or use machine-phase which allows you to maximize functionality
concentration/volume down to the theoretical limit. This means we'll
lose biological components along the way, first as sacrificial
scaffolding, and then completely. No harsh feelings, really.

So in general don't latch onto the organic/inorganic thing. 

The reality is more complicated in practice anyway.

The distinction is artificial in practice, and if we're, say, using
graphene/diamond spintronics as a optimal substrate it isn't for 
some magic reasons. It's just carbon is special in that it makes nicely
stable chains and cages which no other element can as well. From
that property stem other remarkable thermal and electronic properties.
Of course it won't be pure carbon, whether it's nitrogen vacances,
SiC islets or transition metal groups in active machine-phase
or synthetic enzyme centers.


-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list