Hacker News Reader

Comment by pgboswell | Hacker News Reader

This is very interesting. Why would they be faster?

Sorry that HN's software rate limited your account! New accounts are subject to a few extra restrictions, and it always makes me sad when a project creator shows up and gets hit by those (I'm a mod here). That's not at all a case that we're trying to restrict!

I've marked your account legit so this will not happen to you again, and I've approved your comments that got throttled, so they're up now. Welcome to HN and congratulations on this exceedingly cool work.

Thanks a lot, dang! That's ok - it's been super interesting to read what other people have to say without being a part of the conversation.

seeing that nynx hinted at reversible computing, they would just be smaller and more energy efficient. The idea being that you can cram more of these in a given volume.

Reversible computing tries not to destroy information, allowing to go under Laundauer's limit [1].

When you discard the previous value held by your flip-flop, you clear the output bit, returning electrons (or a chain displacement) to the power supply. If you can instead repurpose that energy, you'll have to supply a lot less energy since you'll dissipate less. That would be reversible or adiabatic computing [2]. I have to note that processors these days are mostly power-limited, trying not to melt themselves as the energy flux inside a chip approaches that of a nuclear reactor. Just look at modern sockets and count the pins dedicated to power supply![3]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing#Reversibi...

[3]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/11/5d-electronic-blood-...

Building at the molecular scale you can achieve extremely low friction coefficients in the moving parts. Inertia also gets extremely low, and material strengths tend toward their theoretical values.

Of course electronics aren't standing still, but resistance tends to get harder to deal with as feature sizes decrease.

What I've always wondered is that wouldn't very tiny molecular mechanisms get problems with "accidental welding" since a part could be permanently destroyed by a few molecular bonds forming or breaking and (IMHO - this is my guess/assumption) such events would be likely at e.g. room temperature.

Unless designed well, yes. Parts that move relative to each other need to be designed so that unwanted bonds are unlikely to form. This generally means designing them so that unwanted bonds are less energetically favorable than the bonds they start out with. Of course, as temperature rises, the chance of breaking existing bonds rises, as does the chance of forming new unwanted bonds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com