
Water Computing 309
Andrew_Cronin writes "This is a nice project that some one did at MIT on building some logic computation systems without using electrons.. So why not use water..."
Pascal is not a high-level language. -- Steven Feiner
Why not water? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why not water? (Score:3, Funny)
so what were you saying?
Re:Why not water? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why not water? (Score:3, Funny)
If it had been a writing class you would have been marked down a half grade
Re:Why not water? (Score:3, Funny)
You're right. Only Aqua and Macs mix.
Oh wait....
Keynes (Score:3, Interesting)
Konrad Zues' Z1 and Z2 machines were built somewhat later but used many of the same ideas, only in a much more compact space.
Of course now we will have a bunch of idiot libertarians blasting Keynes. However Keynes and his computer are the reason why Britain pulled out of the depression before the war while in the US depression turned to slump. The problem came when Keynsianism became an idelology after his death, the solution to every problem was deficit spending, just like today some idiots think that the solution to every problem (including a deficit) is tax cuts.
Re:Why not water? (Score:2, Funny)
Water AND computers don't mix? I guess then its "You can either make fun of water-cooling XOR make computers out of water"
MIT students?... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MIT students?... (Score:2, Funny)
"how long until we see a computer constructed using bong water?"
Maybe you should ask Ellen Feiss [apple.com]... rumor has it she's been using one.(Apologies to my Mac friends.)
Re:MIT students?... (Score:2)
Re:MIT students?... (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
I can't resist... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can't resist... (Score:2)
The Advanced Dynamic Hydraulically-Operated Computer, complete with AD HOC software.
I got to see the pics before they get /.ed (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I got to see the pics before they get /.ed (Score:4, Funny)
Instant computer... just add water!
Re:I got to see the pics before they get /.ed (Score:2)
Re:I got to see the pics before they get /.ed (Score:2)
Scary factoid: Half a dozen high-end nukes detonated in LEO at various points over North America would, without directly killing anyone, put out enough of an EMP to send the whole continent back into the stone age.
So... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
How are we going to cool the thing off? (Score:5, Funny)
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPpp
YOUCH!!!!!
DAMN ME!!!!! THAT !*!@# HURTS.
Scratch that idea.
Re:How are we going to cool the thing off? (Score:2, Funny)
Without electronics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Without electronics... (Score:2)
Re:Without electronics... (Score:2)
Re:Without electronics... (Score:2)
Re:Without electronics... (Score:3, Interesting)
We could go as far as high school chemistry and decide that there are 2 core 1s electrons definitely associated with the oxygen, plus four more electrons that are part of lone pairs on the oxygen (probably also mostly belonging to the oxygen atom). Then there's four electrons involved in the two sigma bonds joining the oxygen to the hydrogen. Simplest story is that it shares two with each hydrogen.
If we break out the molecular orbital theory, then it starts to get kind of messy. At the lowest level, we have a really ugly n-body problem. We can't solve the Schrodinger equation analytically for this case, so we're limited to approximate numeric solutions. (Technically, we should really account for relativistic effects and use the Dirac equation, but that's overkill for lightweight atoms like these.)
Even then, solving for the wavefunctions by whatever method only gives us a probability that electrons will be located nearest a given atom. In principle, occasionally all 10 electrons could actually be closest to one of the protons, but you would have to wait a loooooong time for it to happen.
Oh, yes--if I wanted to be picky, I could also mention that pure water will still undergo spontanous autoionization to form H+ (H3O+, actually) and OH- ions, containing the same number of electrons, but now the wrong number of protons...
One more, then I'm done. Liquid water actually tends to get kind of clumpy. In the so-called 'flickering cluster' model, water molecules in the liquid phase form short-lived hydrogen bonded clumps containing several (or even several tens of) water molecules. These clumps have an electron count that depends (of course) on their size.
Water is actually an incredibly interesting beast, chemically speaking. We take it for granted because it is ubiquitous, but there is a tremendous amount of very interesting stuff that it can do.
Re:Without electronics... (Score:2)
Re:Without electronics... (Score:2)
GEEEZ /. users are morons! (Score:5, Informative)
Oxygen is element 8. It has 8 electrons. 6 of them are valence elecrons (in the 2s and 2p orbitals) and 2 of them are "core" electrons in the 1s orbital. Only the valence electrons get drawn in those dot diagrams, that's why you can only see six on some sites.
Hydrogen is element 1. It has 1 electron. This electron is in the 1s orbital.
Water is H2O, where the 2 is subscript. It has 2 hydrogens and one oxygen, with polar-covalent bonds between them, so there are 2*1+1*8=10 electrons. Two of them are in oxygen's 1s orbital, four of them are in two of oxygen's four sp3 hybrid orbitals, and four of them are shared between hydrogen's 1s orbital and the other two of oxygen's sp3 hybrids (one orbital and two electrons for each hydrogen).
Don't even get me started on sp3* anti-bonding pairs.
Sorry for being inconsistent as to whether numbers should be spelled out.
Someone drank it... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Someone drank it... (Score:3, Funny)
Water-based computers do not crash, they Flush.
As in: That's site's been
My 0.02 Mesta... (Score:2, Redundant)
Well, since the site is already slashdotted (only the title is showing up for me) i'll have to use all the power of my brain to guesstimate.
Why not use water? The answer is simple really. If you can use such liquids to proform logical computations then it would be adventageous to use a liquid with a VERY high boiling point to prevent all your data from boiling off into steam...
Hmmm... I can see it now "that data has to be uncompressed into steam, heat it up a bit."
At least it won't... (Score:2, Funny)
10 electrons in H20 (Score:2, Informative)
are computing without electrons.
The glass isn't half empty... (Score:3, Funny)
I couldn't resist, sorry.
As we get closer and closer to microscoptic or at least very small computers, how long until the inevitable complex systems of neural nets combined with tiny computing devices self-organizes into something with capabilities outstripping an expert system... and into something like SkyNet in the Terminator movies?
The self-organization of a complex system into a self-aware artificial intelligence is a chaos theory wet dream.
electrons vs. water (Score:2, Funny)
But what about...? (Score:2, Funny)
Naturally, this brings to mind all sorts of jokes about computers that can finally REALLY do windows. Still, one wonders: What's so original about this? Who hasn't operated a steam-driven computer while playing Myst or Riven?
Re:But what about...? (Score:5, Informative)
Simple. The author gives XOR and AND gates, formed from joining two streams together, without and without a control. (See the article for details, I haven't taken the time to look into it very deeply).
Anyways, XOR's function number is 0110. Split it in two, and you get "A(01) when B=0, NOT A(10) when B=1"--two unary gates formed a binary gate. Split AND's function, 0001, and you get "0 when B=0, A when B=1". Trust me, this is easier than it seems. The unary gates are: 00=0, 01=B, 10=NOT B, and 11=1. Now that we got that out of the way:
None of those are useful except 1^A=!A. We need NOT to complete our library of functions too. Now we can combine it with other gates like so using Boolean Algebra:
NOT(A XOR B) = A XNOR B
NOT(A AND B) = NOT(A) OR NOT(B)DeMorgan's Law
NOT(A AND NOT(B)) = NOT(A) OR NOT(NOT(B)) = NOT(A) OR B
And now, ladies and gentlement, I present to you, The OR Gate:
not(not(a) and not(b)) = not(not(a)) or not(not(b)) = a or b
This is constructed from: 1 xor ((1 xor a) and (1 xor b)), and of course the 1 is simply a constant flowing stream of high-power water. And obviously, since NAND is a universal gate, this can be done like so:
1 xor (a and b) = a nand b
NAND can make any gate, including NOT, which is then combined as we saw above to form OR, NOR, XOR, XNOR, and even inhibitation and implication if you please.
Did that answer your question?
-jc
Re:But what about...? (Score:2)
Yes, I already had a basic grasp of how to do it.
but
No, I would like to see it done in one unit.
Re:But what about...? (Score:3, Informative)
well, following on the system he started you can probably get the effect of OR or NOT by altering how the "computer" reacts to the outputs, using the existing gate.
You could make an OR gate by wiring the two outputs together. Get water in either jet, and you get a 1. Put water in both jets and you get a 1. Put no water in either jet, you get a 0.
A NOT is just as simple, except you need a constant jet feeding through the gate. No water in the other jet means a 0 converts to a 1, water in both jets dumps into waste and creates a 0.
So there you have it.. by tweaking he inputs/outputs of the single existing gate you can create pretty much any conditional you desire.
another problem (Score:3, Informative)
a not gate: an xor gate with true -- ie a constant stream -- applied to one input
an or gate: an and gate with not gates at each input and output -- or just join two streams with a simple junction
A recycling system is easily added. A more fundamental problem is that the gates are passive: there is no amplification. You can use gravity, but with feedback some lines will have to go upwards and need a complex pump for each line. Also you may need a lot of height per stage.
Fluid actuated valves would solve this problem, and would be more efficient. Only one pump would be needed -- as in electronics -- to provide the supply pressure. But in the simple case of a four-bit adder, it might be harder to make.
I just got the pictures... (Score:2)
What if lego pulls a patent suit in order to only let children use them? Just think of all the tinkerers who will have to pay royalties in order to mount prototypes on legos... It's also quite funny to see a lego device hooked up with some tubes to this huge complex computer.
Cool...but an old concept (Score:5, Informative)
For a similar concept (ie, non-silicon machine logic) that I first read about in the pages of Scientific American, check out the Apraphulians here [rustrans.co.uk]. For more info on this ancient race, Google is your friend. [rustrans.co.uk]
Re:Cool...but an old concept (Score:5, Interesting)
i always liked old school water clocks.
i seem to recall something about logic gates or some sort of logic being built out of matchboxes and beans. it played tictactoe, deciding the best move by plopping out a bean of a certain colour? i can remember neither the details nor the source.
Re:Cool...but an old concept (Score:2, Informative)
I've seen it in a book by Martin Gardner, the game was called Hexapawn. A quick search on google should turn up more details.
Re:Cool...but an old concept (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's their explanation of the matchbox version of the game:
To keep this on topic: this game could be implemented with a water computer, too. Replace the matchboxes with different colored buckets of water. Instead of removing a bead for a loss, dump out the corresponding bucket.
For a more enjoyable game, replace the buckets of water with shots of beer. =)
Re:Cool...but an old concept (Score:3, Informative)
In the Boston Science museum (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a better image of the contraption [sigmaxi.org]
Re:Cool...but an old concept (Score:2)
I think this air logic allowed him to run a machine in hazardous material atmospheres, where any risk of electrical components causing a spark was unacceptable. It was mostly for manufacturing and control.
Re:Cool...but an old concept (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting operations... (Score:2)
In case of slashdotting (Score:2)
Very good (Score:5, Interesting)
I've considered water-based computation long ago, but hats off to this student for logic design and implementation. My idea was to have water push open another wate gate, much like a flow-controlled valve, allowing for a water-based transistor. Combine this with other transistors, and you can build virtually any gate--I take that back, any gate you want. XOR and AND are good choices, as with a XOR a you can get NOT, to make a NAND, and as we all know NAND is the Univesal Binary Gate.
Re:Very good (Score:3, Interesting)
In principle, couldn't XOR be used to construct all the other gates as well? Who needs a NAND explicitly? You can make an AND from XORs. An as stated, you can also get a NOT from XORs.
Yes, of course you can build up all the NANDs you need from XORs, and then use those composite gates to build the rest of the gates--but it's more efficient to skip the middle step of constructing the NANDs.
Re:Very good (Score:2)
That's all you can create from XOR. The unary NOT, unary buffer, and the useless unary constant functions--to my knowledge.
I vaguely remember "proving" only NOR and NAND are universal gates in my childhood, but that has long since passed. What am I missing, perhaps an equation involving an XOR with NOT on one side, or usage of the oddball binary inhibitation and implication gates?
Re:Very good (Score:2)
not(A xor {not[((not A) xor B) xor ((not B) xor A)]})
I think is equivalent to A and B. (not A is just A xor 1, so I didn't write that explicitly.) There's probably a more efficient solution, and I have to go out this morning so I'm not absolutely certain of my notation above...translating whiteboard to Slashcomment is not my forte.
Re:Very good (Score:2)
I'm wrong; don't bother trying to check my work. Sigh. Making an AND out of XOR probably *is* impossible.
Re:Very good (Score:2)
First drill a small hole through your bar stock for flow. This is a restriction of flow so that your controler can work. Now drill a larger hole through the length of your bar stock that intersects and devides the smaller hole and hone it well. Now shove a machined cylinder with a hole into the larger hole. When you move the cylinder with the hole in it to line up with your flow path, you have an open switch. When the flow path is obstructed with the larger cylinder, you have a closed switch. The degree of obstruction determines the amount that flows. You, of course, will have to use O-rings on the cylinder and weep holes in the barstock the feed to a return to make this switch pratical. A spring is used to keep our cyliner in place and two diaphams or small hydraulic rams can be set up on either side to make an exclusive nor gate. A not gate would have only a spring and one diaphram. As you say, you can build any gate like this.
Who else tried this? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know it's an off topic rant, wanna give me some points for being interesting anyway?
Re:Who else tried this? (Score:3, Informative)
a water adder capable of adding 2 8 bit values
LINK [bowdoin.edu]
How is it cooled? (Score:2, Funny)
Bad water/slashdotting joke... (Score:4, Funny)
okay, maybe it's a stupid idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, take that thing on a pub crawl and have your beer do it's own calculations of how much tip you should leave as it's on it's way down to your stomach!
Re:okay, maybe it's a stupid idea... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:okay, maybe it's a stupid idea... (Score:2)
Egg on my face.
Karma: Eggcellent (mostly affected by moderation done to your comments)
Re:okay, maybe it's a stupid idea... (Score:5, Funny)
The big problem is the head on the beer. Bubbles would probably affect the logic in unpredictable ways. In other words, if your computer got...um...sloshed, then it probably couldn't calculate a tip any better than you could.
And God help you if you tried to do any serious math. You know what they say...Don't drink and derive. It applies to you and your computer, now.
Obligatory (Score:2)
Now the guy can do basic logic, but this must be very slow. It is wonderfull seeing someone trying to educate people about computers. Most people have no idea what an XOR gate is, or a transistor for that matter. Well I wish him good luck.
Please ignore above troll
so many youngsters (Score:2, Interesting)
Log gate implementation (Score:3, Interesting)
Only digital water logic, why not analog too (Score:5, Interesting)
Inductance is the same as momentum. You could build a gadget that has a turbine in the water flow with a fly wheel attached. The gadget would resist water flow starting up, and would resist the water flow slowing down once it's moving. (same as an inductor fighting a change in current)
Capacitance is the same as a flexible membrane across the pipe, which will transmit AC changes in pressure, but not DC.
You could build a capacitor/inductor tuned circuit that either filters or passes certain frequency water waves
Also, water transistors should be fun. A small flow or pressure of water controls a larger flow or pressure (in either an analog or digital fashion)
It would be a way fun tool for teaching electronics.
Actually in Russia (Score:5, Informative)
They were used for large-scale projects, such as modelling of water dams.
Re:Actually in Russia (Score:3, Informative)
Reseach shows the more higly qualified an economist is, the poorer his predictions!
Maximizing processing speed (Score:4, Funny)
We're thinking of giving up on liquid nitrogen and trying liquid helium.
-
Old News. I was doing this when I was 7 years old! (Score:2)
Many equations were solved with that fine machine.
Looks like it would be faster with... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Looks like it would be faster with... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Looks like it would be faster with... (Score:2)
Sheeeeesh. (Score:2)
--j0shua
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Overclocking (Score:2, Funny)
gain (Score:2)
a water adder (Score:5, Insightful)
LINK [bowdoin.edu]
Another Slashdot repeat? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, they claim to have water computing now... (Score:5, Funny)
DNA Computer (Score:2)
On the other hand the speed of molecular reactions and their ability for massive parallelity (is that a word?) sounds like it would hold promise for certain types of computers.
This of course would leave Steve Jobs to insist that his MISC computers were much better even if they were a terahertz or so behind current Pentiums.
Fluidic logic has been around for decades (Score:5, Informative)
The MIT students didn't quite get it right. Their gadget doesn't seem to have gain. The key insight needed for fluidics is that a jet of fluid can be diverted with a smaller jet coming in from the side. This allows building a fluidic amplifier.
Once you have an amplifier, you can do switches, gates, flip-flops, and other logic elements. Analog control systems, with fluidic sensors and amplifiers driving pneumatic or hydraulic cylinders, are also possible. When the inputs and outputs are pneumatic or hydraulic, it's often convenient if the control system is, too. Fluidic elements are very reliable, too - there are no moving parts except the working fluid.
One wierd fluidic application is this kosher public address system. [216.239.53.100]
The Bay Model (Score:2, Informative)
This gives a whole new meaning... (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder if this machine also has an overflow bit!?
Analog fluid calculators (Score:3, Informative)
I have studied about these machines at Uni (I studied in eastern Europe): they use fluids and analog pseudo-circuits to create things like integrators, adders etc. and are capable of solving systems of differential equations in real time. This kind of equations is still a non-trivial problem for digital computers.
However, with the advent of gigabit-clocked CPUs, these machines are definitely out. Their models are, sometimes, replicated in software, though.
Re:Analog fluid calculators (Score:2)
Water? Bah! Use cows! (Score:2)
Ohh, I just found another quote from the book that I once used in a software manual:
- Ray Girvan and Steve JonesWater Computing -- Been There, Done That (Score:2, Informative)
The BBC has just done a radio program on Bill Phillips' invention. You can still hear it on
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/electronicb
--
el bid
"Fluidics" - old Russian tech (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the main benefit was that it was no longer susceptible to electromagnetic interference, so you could build very noise-free amplifiers.
The samples that the guy had were much smaller... about 2-3cm squre wafer-thin metal plates. Each plate had a pattern on them which were machined out to form components. Circuits were built by "sandwiching" a series of plates together, so the outputs from one component could feed into the input of the next component. The resulting devices would be several cm long consisting of dozens of components bolted together with long stringers.
The theory looked about the same as the MIT guy's device, though. I think the Russians developed most of the counterparts to electronic components, though - various transducers and transistors. I'm not sure how they would have done something like a diode,though...
Re:I plan to take it one step further.. (Score:2)
Nah, just build it into the toilet. Makes rebooting all that much more fun. Turn any public restroom into a beowulf cluster!
Re:I plan to take it one step further.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:humm, reminds me of an old Dr. Who ep (Score:2)
Re:why not use air? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So tell me this... (Score:2, Funny)
whats a fella gotta do to get modded down around here?
oh i know
the fonts on my win2k box look great, and it needs no outlook killer - i got the real thing
thank you
oh yeah, tux is lame, and ellen feiss symbolizes all that is and ever was macintosh
Re:This (Score:2)
Can you name some others? I've always enjoyed thinking about doing computing in weird forms.