Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Japan preps super supercomputer 10 quadrillion instructions each
second outdated http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quantum_AI/

The world's fastest transistor has been developed with a speed of
604 GHz thats 604 billion operations every second by a pair of US
researchers, possibly paving the way for a new generation of super-
charged electronic chips combined with "Magnetic logic" within
individual layers, developed is devolping particular type of
component known as a bipolar junction transistor, which consists of
three material layers, laid on top of one another.

The current is controlled by the way it passes through three layers -
the base, emitter and collector layers. Varying the current which
passes through the base to the emitter can control the flow of the
current between the emitter and collector. This can amplify the
current at that terminal or be used to switch the current on or off.

To make their transistor layers, the researchers carefully blended
together two different crystalline semiconducting materials: indium
phosphide and indium gallium arsenide. Critically, they controlled
the blend found in the "collector" layer to affect its crystalline
structure in a way which made it easier for electrons to pass
through - this was a crucial step in making the transistor so
efficient.


Journal reference: Applied Physics Letters (vol 86, 152101)

---------------------------------------------------------------------






Morphware
Magnetic logic may usher in an era in which computing devices can
change instantly from one type of hardware to another
By Reinhold Koch

deka deci
hecto centi
kilo milli
mega micro
giga nano
tera pico
peta femto
exa atto
zetta zepto
yotta yocto






Flexibility or performance? That choice is a constant trade-off for
microprocessor designers. General-purpose processors in personal
computers execute a broad set of software commands that can cope
with any task from graphics to complex calculations. But their
flexibility comes at the expense of speed. In contrast, application-
specific integrated circuits (ASICs), optimized for a given task,
such as the computing required in graphics or sound cards, are very
fast but lack adaptability.
Some processors fit a niche between these two types of hardware.
Called morphware, they can be reconfigured and optimized for any
task. One example--the commercially available field-programmable
gate array (FPGA)--consists of large blocks of transistors that
perform logic operations and that can be "rewired" by the software.
Customization enables FPGAs to accelerate data encryption, automatic
military target recognition or data compression by a factor of 10 to
100--enabling, for instance, dramatically enhanced security or
faster target acquisition times as compared with a general-purpose
CPU (central processing unit)....continued at Scientific American
Digital


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?
chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0002CE79-C967-12DB-882283414B7F0000


deka deci
hecto centi
kilo milli
mega micro
giga nano
tera pico
peta femto
exa atto
zetta zepto
yotta yocto



http://www.npl.washington.edu/


Supercomputer and encryption and compression @ rate of 96%

Take a document then or a 3D matrix document change it two random or
binary code or just a program for 0's and 1's and fold it over and
over like a piece of paper then having the 1 and 0 add each other or
the 0,1's canceling each other out 1+0=0 and 0+1=1 1+1=1 0+0=0 if
you gave the folds addresses like on a spread sheet there would be
no math. First A 1-24 would fold to k 1-24 down.(See Example A )
Then at F1-24 down two k 1-24 ( See example B ) If you written a
very long letter and then change it two binary code it would look
like this.
123456789.............24
a.01010101010101010101010
b.10010101010101010101010
c.01010101001010101010010
e.00010101000101010101010
f.10010101010100101010101 First A 24 would fold to k 24 down
g.01010101010100001100101 See Example A
h.01001010101010101010111
I.11110111001101010101010
j.01010101010101010101010
k.10101010101010101010101


See Example A
123456789.............24
f.10010101010100101010101
g.01010101010100001100101
h.01001010101010101010111 Then at F1-24 down two k 1-24
I.11110111001101010101010
j.01010101010101010101010
k.10101010101010101010101


See example B
123456789.............24
I.11110111001101010101010
j.01010101010101010101010 Then from I 1-24 to K 1-24
k.10101010101010101010101

123456789.............24
j.01010101010101010101010 Then from j-24 to j-1

123456789...
j.010101010101 Then from j-12 to j-1

123456
j.010101 Then from j-6 to j1

123
j.010 Then from j-3 to j1

12
j.01 Then from j-2 to j1


j.0 Then you would have
1 bit to transfer over the
Internet
The bit sent would be 0 and the key code would be F1-24,k 1-24,
I 1-24,K 1-24,j24,j1,j12,j1,j6,j1,j3,j1,j2,j1 and would unzip or be
new encryption you could encrypt or compress 100 terabits down to 1
bit of information. Now if you take this idea from my web site you
could make this allot more complex and unbreakable. Data encryption
360 degrees rotation document 90 degrees and encrypt on every angel
then 45 degrees change it two binary code do it again and again and
fold it over like a piece of paper then having the one's and zero
cancel each other out. In theory you could send a 100 terabit
program to someone's computer and have it unzip and run and install
or make
A computer processor like the new 64 bit AMD have the bit unzip into
a large ram drive and buffer use one half of the 64 bit processor
decode the message and the main 64 bit run the numbers. Another way
of doing this is to have a parallel computers with using one of the
processes run the compressed 1 bit of information give the
uncompressed a address on the ram drive to change and not even go
threw the processor and then with different information on each
machine compare and run statistics on information on a 45 tflops
supercomputer and turn that 45 tflops computer into a 1 bit =
100,000 terabits to infinite as long as you have the ram for
storage! with my calculations 45 tflops wouldn't matter any more it
would be how much data you have on a 32bit operating system changing
that to a 1 bit system it would be 32 * 45tflops would = 1440
tflops Matter moves so fast that it intergreats and deintergreats
faster then any speed we can see it like water from a hose at real
close speed it moves in -------- lines.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

xexe@charter.net wrote:

> The world's fastest transistor has been developed with a speed of
> 604 GHz thats 604 billion operations every second...

Goody! Do we have an estimate as to when the first laptops with these
transistors will be available?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <1122643756.526713.284340@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, from
the wonderful person bxf <bill@topman.net> said
>xexe@charter.net wrote:
>
>> The world's fastest transistor has been developed with a speed of
>> 604 GHz thats 604 billion operations every second...
>
>Goody! Do we have an estimate as to when the first laptops with these
>transistors will be available?

As soon as they figure out how to make more than one of them
(transistors that is)? And what's the cooling requirement, in terms of
Niagara's??

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 29 Jul 2005 06:29:16 -0700, "bxf" <bill@topman.net> wrote:

>xexe@charter.net wrote:
>
>> The world's fastest transistor has been developed with a speed of
>> 604 GHz thats 604 billion operations every second...
>
>Goody! Do we have an estimate as to when the first laptops with these
>transistors will be available?

Roughly never. Or perhaps about 20 years after GaAs transistors
become the standard (these transistors seem to extend on the idea of
GaAs transistors). I believe our own Keith was once quoted as saying
something like "GaAs transistors are the technology for 10 years in
the future; always have been and always will be". (or maybe it wasn't
Keith, but it sure sounds like something he'd say :> ).

This is just one of the many nonsense press releases that about a
discovery with some interesting academic implications but VERY limited
practical ones. They might find a VERY small niche in the same sorts
of products that GaAs transistors currently occupy, but probably not
much else.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:49:46 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

> On 29 Jul 2005 06:29:16 -0700, "bxf" <bill@topman.net> wrote:
>
>>xexe@charter.net wrote:
>>
>>> The world's fastest transistor has been developed with a speed of
>>> 604 GHz thats 604 billion operations every second...
>>
>>Goody! Do we have an estimate as to when the first laptops with these
>>transistors will be available?
>
> Roughly never. Or perhaps about 20 years after GaAs transistors
> become the standard (these transistors seem to extend on the idea of
> GaAs transistors). I believe our own Keith was once quoted as saying
> something like "GaAs transistors are the technology for 10 years in
> the future; always have been and always will be". (or maybe it wasn't
> Keith, but it sure sounds like something he'd say :> ).

I don't think it was me. GaAs is here and real (for analog/RF anyway),
but SiGe has stolen most of its thunder, AIUI because it's easier to
make on a Si process. Did anyone really think that GaAs was for logic?

> This is just one of the many nonsense press releases that about a
> discovery with some interesting academic implications but VERY limited
> practical ones. They might find a VERY small niche in the same sorts of
> products that GaAs transistors currently occupy, but probably not much
> else.

They already found a use (press release) for it. ;-)

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:

>Did anyone really think that GaAs was for logic?
>
Seymour Cray.

RM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:28:50 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:

> keith wrote:
>
>>Did anyone really think that GaAs was for logic?
>>
> Seymour Cray.

Only because he had the full faith and credit of the US government behind
him.

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:28:50 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
>
>
>>keith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Did anyone really think that GaAs was for logic?
>>>
>>
>>Seymour Cray.
>
>
> Only because he had the full faith and credit of the US government behind
> him.
>

Convex? Telecom companies? Some factions at IBM?

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:22:44 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:

> keith wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:28:50 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>
>>>keith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Did anyone really think that GaAs was for logic?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Seymour Cray.
>>
>>
>> Only because he had the full faith and credit of the US government behind
>> him.
>>
>
> Convex? Telecom companies? Some factions at IBM?

Where did SC's money come *from* for the GaAs boondoggle?

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:28:50 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
>
> > keith wrote:
> >
> >>Did anyone really think that GaAs was for logic?
> >>
> > Seymour Cray.
>
> Only because he had the full faith and credit of the US government behind
> him.
>
> --
> Keith

Isn't indium phosphide (InP) supposed to be an even better material
than GaAs or SiGe?

David

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:00:43 -0700, David Kanter wrote:

>
> keith wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:28:50 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>> > keith wrote:
>> >
>> >>Did anyone really think that GaAs was for logic?
>> >>
>> > Seymour Cray.
>>
>> Only because he had the full faith and credit of the US government behind
>> him.
>>
>> --
>> Keith
>
> Isn't indium phosphide (InP) supposed to be an even better material
> than GaAs or SiGe?

Define "better". SiGe is "better" because it works "better" in a standard
Si process.

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:00:10 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:49:46 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
>> Roughly never. Or perhaps about 20 years after GaAs transistors
>> become the standard (these transistors seem to extend on the idea of
>> GaAs transistors). I believe our own Keith was once quoted as saying
>> something like "GaAs transistors are the technology for 10 years in
>> the future; always have been and always will be". (or maybe it wasn't
>> Keith, but it sure sounds like something he'd say :> ).
>
>I don't think it was me. GaAs is here and real (for analog/RF anyway),
>but SiGe has stolen most of its thunder, AIUI because it's easier to
>make on a Si process. Did anyone really think that GaAs was for logic?

Hmm.. must have been someone else. The point was simply that GaAs
transistors are likely never going to be used for much other than the
sort of niche markets they're in now.

>> This is just one of the many nonsense press releases that about a
>> discovery with some interesting academic implications but VERY limited
>> practical ones. They might find a VERY small niche in the same sorts of
>> products that GaAs transistors currently occupy, but probably not much
>> else.
>
>They already found a use (press release) for it. ;-)

Yup, that's about it!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:00:43 -0700, David Kanter wrote:
>
> >
> > keith wrote:
> >> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:28:50 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> > keith wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Did anyone really think that GaAs was for logic?
> >> >>
> >> > Seymour Cray.
> >>
> >> Only because he had the full faith and credit of the US government behind
> >> him.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Keith
> >
> > Isn't indium phosphide (InP) supposed to be an even better material
> > than GaAs or SiGe?
>
> Define "better". SiGe is "better" because it works "better" in a standard
> Si process.

Higher performance. I'll agree that mass manufacturability is
definitely a certain type of 'better' : )

David