Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (335)	2/20/1998 3:21:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 5853

Don't know jfred, but I guess you could make really small fuel cells easier than turbines and generators. I imagine you'd just have to do a bit of electrodeposition of ionized electrodes then fill it with methanol with Cu atoms in a row as conductors with a few Si or other semiconductors in the row of atoms as switches. While the turbine might be small, the fuel supply would be the dominant component. Whichever system you use, it is the oxidation of the fuel which provides the energy - the more efficient one would use less fuel. The more efficient one is the one that invents less entropy. I'd guess tame electron flows in a battery as more efficient than high temperature flows with big heat sinks in a turbine. But the real fun begins inside the quantum world. We are still dealing with everything outside the wave function of these sneaky little sods. Don't forget that inside the wave function of a quark, lepton, neutrino and those few bits and pieces lurk the code for all of existence. Such complexity from so few subatomic trouble makers. Cunning aren't they? Yet so deterministic. Now if we could harness the inside of those we could really go small. Mqurice

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (335)	2/22/1998 3:57:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 5853

jfred, some guy called Hawking is reported in my daily paper today as saying what we see around us, commonly called the universe, started off as small as a pea! Now that is small minded. If I remember rightly, you said there was some guy Goedel who talked about self-reverential systems. So how does S. Hawking know that the pea wasn't really bigger than what we see now? Just how big is a pea? Maybe having a pea sized mind doesn't matter after all. Does size matter? Does matter have size? Does matter matter? Mutter, mutter, mutter. I better go.... MIW Dow 16000 Feb 2002 [ref. Winn's theory of relativity of money - the faster it travels, the smaller it gets, the more they print, etc]