First Hot-Ice Computer Created 120
KentuckyFC writes "Sodium acetate is the stuff inside chemical handwarmers that emits heat when it crystalizes after you press that little metal widget. That's why it is known as hot ice. Now a computer scientist in the UK has created a computer made entirely out of hot ice. The device processes information by exploiting the movement and interaction of wavefronts of crystallisation as they move through the material. The data input is in the form of metal wires that trigger crystal nucleation. The output works by reading off the direction of the moving wavefronts and the edges of the resulting crystals. The researcher has created AND and OR gates and solved a few problems such as finding the shortest path through mazes. There are even a few videos of the computer in action. The resulting computer is far from perfect, however. The data readout sometimes gives no solution and at other times gives circular results, the hot ice equivalent of a BSOD."
Re: (Score:2)
I would have gotten a better pun as the first post, but my computer froze.
Re: (Score:1)
I would have gotten a better pun as the first post, but my computer froze.
So you didn't get a good first post because your computer operated as intended?
Yes but.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. The keyboard would have to be made of those little metal discs you have to 'pop'. Once per keystroke.
Count me out.
Crytalline Entity (Score:1)
Did this remind anyone else of the star trek Crystalline entity?
So the computer is... (Score:5, Funny)
Vaporware?
Full of hot air?
Heating things up?
Hot stuff?
(I'm just throwing all the obvious puns, I'm done.
Re:So the computer is... (Score:5, Funny)
You took all the puns? Man, that's just ice cold.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Pretty cool, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pretty cool, but... (Score:5, Funny)
And Crysis? (Score:2)
Can it play Crysis too? :)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's your problem. (Score:3, Funny)
Err, not a BSOD (Score:5, Interesting)
The data readout sometimes gives no solution and at other times gives circular results, the hot ice equivalent of a BSOD.
No, it's the hot ice equivalent of an infinite loop [wikipedia.org].
Yeesh, get off my lawn.
Re:Err, not a BSOD (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the analogy of a crash rather than an infinite loop is more appropriate.
In an infinite loop, the same instructions are executed over and over.
In the hot-ice computer, "execution" occurs when the stuff crystallizes. Once the hot-ice crystallizes at a given spot in the matrix, it cannot crystallize again until you reset the system. (by boiling it and melting all of the crystals)
So, when the crystals form into a circular path in the system execution stops because there's no place for the reaction to spread before it stops.
Re: (Score:2)
The car has flipped upside down in a crash but the wheels keep spinning in anycase not moving the car further forwards.
Re: (Score:2)
I can fix this for them. With a blow-torch.
already being slashdotted, USE THE CACHE, LUKE (Score:5, Informative)
(Patience, it may take a bit for Coral to get the videos cached.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/user/Fixarum [youtube.com]
Stooges?! (Score:1)
"the hot ice equivalent of a BSOD"
I always knew those programmers over at Microsoft were Stooges [wikipedia.org] but did you have to be so blunt?!
Oh... that's not what you were trying to imply??
Obligatory (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be called a Hot Glacier!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Ice. Beowulf. I believe what you're referring to has been done, and given a name. Scandinavia.
No solution... (Score:4, Funny)
By "no solution", you mean that the readout is completely crystallized? Ba-dump-bump!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
By "no solution", you mean that the readout is completely crystallized? Ba-dump-bump!
Stop being an acetate. Ba-dump-bump!
Re:No solution... (Score:4, Funny)
You're just trying to precipitate a fight.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're just trying to precipitate a fight.
Well you're being a catalyst!
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you synthesize a solution to the problem instead of adding to the concentration of the issue?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
By "no solution", you mean that the readout is completely crystallized? Ba-dump-bump!
Stop being an acetate. Ba-dump-bump!
Pathetic... It's really a basic solution.
Re: (Score:2)
to quote Steven Wright (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:New information processing methods (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, there's the implied "as we know it".
For all we know, life could exist in a vaccuum, inside stars, as electricity, &etc. However, there's no evidence one way or another.
What we do know is that of the forms of life we have found on our planet, they all require water. This will help us narrow down the places we want to look for life. We have a better chance at finding life if we focus on life forms that we'd have a remote chance of recognizing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Life = living = movement
Solid things can't really move...
still too narrow for my tastes...
trees don't 'move' (and lichens definitely don't) yet they're definitely alive
and before you say 'but they're unlikely to be intelligent' I suggest you read the original article ;) The ability to do 'intelligent' stuff is demonstrated in the videos to not require cells/neurons/gates/etc
All plant and animal life on this planet evolved from a single cell. We all share a common ancestor that out-reproduced every other form of life on the planet (except some other single-cell or
Re: (Score:2)
Trees are mostly water -- it's just the outside that's dry. The entire nutrient transport system is totally dependent on water, not to mention the photosynthesis thing.
And lichen does very, very dormant when it's dry, undergoing a fairly significant transformation when it gets wet again; left dry for sufficiently long it will also die, as the algae component again needs liquid water for photosynthesis.
That's not to say you necessary can't have life without liquids, but on Earth there are not a lot of exampl
Re:New information processing methods (Score:5, Insightful)
And your qualificatione for shaking your head are what?
Too many hours spent watching Star Trek and/or having an overactive imagination don't count.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:New information processing methods (Score:5, Funny)
Uhh... having a head, and being able to shake it?
It's called critical thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
And your qualificatione for shaking your head are what?
Presumably, having a mind capable of critical thought. Something you would be advised to learn. You are engaging in both the classic logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority" (described here [nizkor.org]) and a tired ad homonem attack (you imply the grandparent poster watches star trek, which you implicitly indicate makes any thought they have on the subject meaningless. Both assumptions are themselves meaningless and irreleveant in the context of this discussion, but serve for you to classify the grandparent poster as a member of a group you view inherently as inferior to your rather arrogant self, which you then use as grounds to denigrate and dismiss their argument out of hand, without a shred of supporting logic to justify your stance).
The fact of the matter is that no one, inside of NASA or out, is an "authority" on extra-terrestrial life. No one has ever, as far as we know, detected, much less observed extra-terrestrial life. Everything we know, or think we know, is based purely on supposition and guesswork. In the case of NASA (and the view your post suggests you hold), the supposition that life elsewhere in the universe must (or is even likely to) mimic life on Earth.
Assuming extra-terrestrial life will be like Earth-based life is no more defensible, rational, or likely to be correct than assuming extra-terrestrial life will be nothing like Earth-based life. Assuming water must be intrinsic to life everywhere because we've observed it on one tiny, insignificant planet orbiting an unremarkable star in the outskirts of an equally unremarkable galaxy amounts to drawing statistical conclusions from a sample base with N=1, which is no better, or more intellectually rigorous, than just making random shit up.
The grandparent is right to shake his or her head. Any critically-thinking person would be inclined to do the same when confronted with such broad assumptions about something no one knows anything about, built upon such flimsy evidence.
All life in the universe may require water. Or not. Flip a coin. Based on the data we currently have, you are as likely to be right as any self-appointed "expert" in exobiology.
(Hell, water-based life might be the exception, not the rule. Just because it's us doesn't make it average or representative of the rest of the cosmos. Until we actually find some extra-terrestrial life, we can't even begin to guess the truth on this one way or another).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Being capable of critical thought is meaningless if one lacks the required basic knowledge of the field in question.
See, this is exactly what I mean about having the required basic knowledge - because it's plain that you don't.
Life isn't magic.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you'll find it difficult to locate a scientist who'd be willing to state that he has ruled out any possibility of self-reproducing patterns forming in the absence of water.
You fault him for using 'maybe' and 'likely' when those are exactly the words we should be using. What kind of moron speaks in absolutes about things uncertain? Do you have an alien buddy you're not telling us about feeding you facts? Protip: scientists ARE just guessing. Always. ESPECIALLY about anything outside our solar system.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem awfully sure about that ;)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You'd have a point if things were that uncertain. Since they aren't, you're just another clueless fucking moron.
Since the laws of physics, chemistry, etc... are invariant, regardless of location, you're just another fucking clueless moron.
Re: (Score:1)
Way to completely fucking miss the point.
You're a special kind of stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
...You are engaging in both the classic logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority" and... ad homonem attack
...
Any critically-thinking person would be inclined to do the same when confronted with such broad assumptions
No *true* [wikipedia.org] Scotsman would point out so many logical fallacies and then accidentally use one, would they?
(Not that I disagree with anything you've said... that bit just gave me a chuckle.)
Re: (Score:2)
They're not assuming that *life* is earth-like, they're assuming that *chemistry* works in other places like it does in the bits of the universe we've observed so far -- water is fairly common as non-elemental substances goes, and liquid water very conducive to chemistry, even if that chemistry doesn't involve carbon-based lifeforms. As my chemistry prof used to say anytime someone asked for help -- "draw a beaker and put some water in it" -- because the reaction you're trying to model probably happens in l
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. They are not going to find life, even if it eats them alive! ;)
"Oh, look, that sand cave entry ceiling, that never ever can be life, just... i guess... fell down from gravity. Oh, look at that sea of liquid there! Perhaps we will find water the..." *pssshhhhhhh* (scientist astronauts dissolve in digestive fluid, causing gas for the poor alien sand gulper.)
It's as closed-minded as the stuff that they call "aliens" in movies. I bet out there in the real world, you'd be lucky to find something with
Re: (Score:2)
They sure do need water though. At least for metabolic processes. Some can survive without it, but only in a sort of crystallized form that just sits there inert until it's put back into water.
Re: (Score:2)
Flashback of the Icy Hot Stuntaz anyone?! (Score:1)
You need a NAND or a NOR gate to make a computer (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to be able to make NAND or NOR gates to make a computer, so until they also produce a NOT gate, this won't be a full computer.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, but that design does have a XOR gate which can be easily turned into a NOT gate...
I have to admit that an one-instruction set computer implemented in cellular automation is just too awesome to be comprehensible to me.
Re: (Score:2)
They also have "AND-NOT" which is also trivially turned into NOT.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
All you need is ether an NAND gate or an NOR to make all the other gates and do any sort of computing
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm fully aware of that. This poster [slashdot.org] was slightly confused on that point. What NekoYasha and I were pointing out was that the building blocks they had in Wireland could be used to build NAND or NOR. If you have AND and NOT, you can build NAND, and therefore you can build all the rest. Both the XOR and AND-NOT gates could trivially provide "NOT", and so now you have a path to NAND.
The basic idea is that the question "Is this set of gates strong enough to compute all boolean functions?" can be answered de
Re: (Score:2)
I got that impression also. AND and OR are both "monotonic", and the example videos all demonstrated pretty much the same monotonic algorithm—they are different forms of "breadth first search."
About the only way I can see getting to non-monotonic behavior would be to have an external mechanism that can sense when the crystal wavefront hits a given point, and transfers that energy to trigger crystalization at a different point (perhaps even in a different dish). With such an external mechanism, you
Re: (Score:2)
You can make memory out of NAND gates, since there is always a finited delay.
I got my computer 9 years ago. (Score:2)
The data readout sometimes gives no solution and at other times gives circular results, the hot ice equivalent of a BSOD.
What is a BSOD?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Bachelor of Science Optometric Doctor.
Now turn in your "geek card".
Re: (Score:2)
Plasmodium mould (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Plasmodium mould (Score:4, Insightful)
Not much more expensive - it might even be cheaper. All you're seeing is a supersaturated liquid crystallize. If you are counting medium and research time, it's probably cheaper than preparing a nutrient bed and watching mold grow. Keep in mind biocontainment and disposal. For this one, add some water and some energy, and you can just repeat this again and again.
Hell, it's probably easier to make a supersaturated solution than a proper mixture of mold spores and nutrients! For the solution, all you need is a starter crystal. The environment doesn't really matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Sodium acetate is VERY cheap.
And you can do it yourself !
Go to the supermarket and by some washing soda (Na2CO3) and some acetic acid (vinegar).
Mix it up in the right stocheometric amounts, cook it until dry, and hey presto there you are - Sodium acetate.
The reaction is so simple you will get a nearly 100% yield.
Then you bring some water to the boil, and add about the same weight of your sodium acetate to it.
Let it cool down - that's you supersaturated solution.
Now either put in a crystal of sodiumacetate a
quite brave of them (Score:5, Funny)
to host 25 and 50mb movies on an "ac.uk" server that's about to get turned into paste...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it bad that I read "quite brave" as Burma shave?
More Puns (Score:2)
Hot Ice.... already discovered in 1993 (Score:2)
Since it hasn't been mentioned already (Score:1)
Imagine how hot (Score:4, Funny)
a beowulf cluster of these would be. I bet you could cook hot grits on it.
Ice Ice (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to see a water ice computer. Pipes (!) and containers of water, frozen into ice. Doped to carry current efficiently. Areas of interface doped differentially to create N and P equivalent materials for semiconductor creation. It's very doable. So why bother for any reason other than a neat hack? Because it wouldn't be an electronic computer. It would be protonic, because when a voltage is applied to water ice, it's protons, not electrons, that flow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Protons moving? Do you have a citation for this? I don't see any reason for protons to move more freely in ice than anything else.
Yes, as a matter of fact I do have a citation. Somewhat.
Harold J. Morowitz
Bio with some pubs: http://cajal.unizar.es/eng/part/Morowitz.html [unizar.es]
It was in the intro paragraph to one of his essays. That essay appeared in one of his collections books, I believe either "Pizza" or "Mayonaisse". Sorry to be so vague; my Morowitz collection and I are a thousand miles apart, or I'd not only look it up, I'd quote it. Some of his short works include references themselves, but I don't recall whether this one did. It was on
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately I don't have access to the journal in question - my university proxy doesn't even work
I wonder if this means doping ice with extra protons for conductance or similar? It seems like it'd take a lot of energy to rip a proton off a H2O molecule stuck in the crystal matrix.
Re: (Score:2)
Just add some acid, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, it seems that this article might be somewhat relevant: <a href="http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/235/3/R99">Proton semiconductors and energy transduction in biological systems</a>
Unfortunately I don't have access to the journal in question - my university proxy doesn't even work :/
I wonder if this means doping ice with extra protons for conductance or similar? It seems like it'd take a lot of energy to rip a proton off a H2O molecule stuck in the crystal matrix.
That be the dude, d00d. As far as the technical particulars, that's why it should be done. Once done, the details of operation can put examined to find out if and in what circumstances protonics might be superior to electronics. BTW, I'd assumed the doping thing, not having see the reference you found. Also an assumption is the possibility that electrons are bound stronger with each bond and have more of them affecting them, making the protons relatively easier to kick loose.
I don't have access to the journ
Chinese military-grade... (Score:1)
For some reason, that just doesn't have the same effect. :P
Yeah... (Score:2)
This computer will be available on Tuesday (Score:1)