Would Moore's Law apply to mechanical computers?
$begingroup$
We know through the works of Babbage, Lovelace, et al. that mechanical computers (computers operating through gears, cogs, etc., and powered by steam or some other arbitrary non-electric power source) are possible.
In our world, it has been observed that electronic computers obey various forms of Moore's laws, with exponential growth.
In a world without electronic computers as we know them, would mechanical computers display a Moore's Law-like exponential curve of improvements? If not, why?
- Would Moore's Law simply be inapplicable to mechanically engineered non-microscopic components (e.g. gears, cogs, ratchets, etc.)?
- Would it initially apply, but rapidly hit a "hard" physical barrier/limit?
- Would it follow some other kind of curve, such as linear growth or polynomial growth?
science-based computers steampunk
asked 4 hours ago
Robert ColumbiaRobert Columbia
1,056618
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We know through the works of Babbage, Lovelace, et al. that mechanical computers (computers operating through gears, cogs, etc., and powered by steam or some other arbitrary non-electric power source) are possible.
In our world, it has been observed that electronic computers obey various forms of Moore's laws, with exponential growth.
In a world without electronic computers as we know them, would mechanical computers display a Moore's Law-like exponential curve of improvements? If not, why?
- Would Moore's Law simply be inapplicable to mechanically engineered non-microscopic components (e.g. gears, cogs, ratchets, etc.)?
- Would it initially apply, but rapidly hit a "hard" physical barrier/limit?
- Would it follow some other kind of curve, such as linear growth or polynomial growth?
science-based computers steampunk
asked 4 hours ago
Robert ColumbiaRobert Columbia
1,056618
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Unlikely! We've had centuries to streamline mechanical efficiency
$endgroup$
– nzaman
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
It did apply to mechanical computers if you look at the larger application of the idea. Mechanical computers improved until supplanted by superior technology - constantly shrinking and increasing capability. If you're only asking after its applicability in a purely mechanical context, the answer is no. However, remember that SE's model is one-specific-question/one-best-answer. I count 5. VTC OT:TB. Let me know when you've whittled this down to just one specific question and I'll retract my vote.
$endgroup$
– JBH
35 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH those are not independent questions, but questions to show initial research and indicate the potential structure or nature of an answer. The actual question is the one in the title. The three bullets at the bottom are likewise not additional questions, just possible reasons for a "no" that could be explored.
$endgroup$
– Robert Columbia
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
Please express "questions to show initial research" as something other than a question. At this time, your post has 5 questions to be answered by the community. You get one.
$endgroup$
– JBH
30 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
Also, please explain if any electricity at all is permitted. Can electric motors drive the mechanical engines? Can cathode-ray tube monitors be used? Or is this 100% mechanical with steam the only mode of turning cam shafts? Displays may be the ultimate limiting factor.
$endgroup$
– JBH
27 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We know through the works of Babbage, Lovelace, et al. that mechanical computers (computers operating through gears, cogs, etc., and powered by steam or some other arbitrary non-electric power source) are possible.
In our world, it has been observed that electronic computers obey various forms of Moore's laws, with exponential growth.
In a world without electronic computers as we know them, would mechanical computers display a Moore's Law-like exponential curve of improvements? If not, why?
- Would Moore's Law simply be inapplicable to mechanically engineered non-microscopic components (e.g. gears, cogs, ratchets, etc.)?
- Would it initially apply, but rapidly hit a "hard" physical barrier/limit?
- Would it follow some other kind of curve, such as linear growth or polynomial growth?
science-based computers steampunk
asked 4 hours ago
Robert ColumbiaRobert Columbia
1,056618
$endgroup$
We know through the works of Babbage, Lovelace, et al. that mechanical computers (computers operating through gears, cogs, etc., and powered by steam or some other arbitrary non-electric power source) are possible.
In our world, it has been observed that electronic computers obey various forms of Moore's laws, with exponential growth.
In a world without electronic computers as we know them, would mechanical computers display a Moore's Law-like exponential curve of improvements? If not, why?
- Would Moore's Law simply be inapplicable to mechanically engineered non-microscopic components (e.g. gears, cogs, ratchets, etc.)?
- Would it initially apply, but rapidly hit a "hard" physical barrier/limit?
- Would it follow some other kind of curve, such as linear growth or polynomial growth?
science-based computers steampunk
science-based computers steampunk
asked 4 hours ago
Robert ColumbiaRobert Columbia
1,056618
asked 4 hours ago
Robert ColumbiaRobert Columbia
1,056618
asked 4 hours ago
Robert ColumbiaRobert Columbia
1,056618
asked 4 hours ago
Robert ColumbiaRobert Columbia
1,056618
asked 4 hours ago
Robert ColumbiaRobert Columbia
1,056618
1,056618
$begingroup$
Unlikely! We've had centuries to streamline mechanical efficiency
$endgroup$
– nzaman
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
It did apply to mechanical computers if you look at the larger application of the idea. Mechanical computers improved until supplanted by superior technology - constantly shrinking and increasing capability. If you're only asking after its applicability in a purely mechanical context, the answer is no. However, remember that SE's model is one-specific-question/one-best-answer. I count 5. VTC OT:TB. Let me know when you've whittled this down to just one specific question and I'll retract my vote.
$endgroup$
– JBH
35 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH those are not independent questions, but questions to show initial research and indicate the potential structure or nature of an answer. The actual question is the one in the title. The three bullets at the bottom are likewise not additional questions, just possible reasons for a "no" that could be explored.
$endgroup$
– Robert Columbia
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
Please express "questions to show initial research" as something other than a question. At this time, your post has 5 questions to be answered by the community. You get one.
$endgroup$
– JBH
30 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
Also, please explain if any electricity at all is permitted. Can electric motors drive the mechanical engines? Can cathode-ray tube monitors be used? Or is this 100% mechanical with steam the only mode of turning cam shafts? Displays may be the ultimate limiting factor.
$endgroup$
– JBH
27 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Unlikely! We've had centuries to streamline mechanical efficiency
$endgroup$
– nzaman
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
It did apply to mechanical computers if you look at the larger application of the idea. Mechanical computers improved until supplanted by superior technology - constantly shrinking and increasing capability. If you're only asking after its applicability in a purely mechanical context, the answer is no. However, remember that SE's model is one-specific-question/one-best-answer. I count 5. VTC OT:TB. Let me know when you've whittled this down to just one specific question and I'll retract my vote.
$endgroup$
– JBH
35 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH those are not independent questions, but questions to show initial research and indicate the potential structure or nature of an answer. The actual question is the one in the title. The three bullets at the bottom are likewise not additional questions, just possible reasons for a "no" that could be explored.
$endgroup$
– Robert Columbia
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
Please express "questions to show initial research" as something other than a question. At this time, your post has 5 questions to be answered by the community. You get one.
$endgroup$
– JBH
30 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
Also, please explain if any electricity at all is permitted. Can electric motors drive the mechanical engines? Can cathode-ray tube monitors be used? Or is this 100% mechanical with steam the only mode of turning cam shafts? Displays may be the ultimate limiting factor.
$endgroup$
– JBH
27 mins ago
$begingroup$
Unlikely! We've had centuries to streamline mechanical efficiency
$endgroup$
– nzaman
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unlikely! We've had centuries to streamline mechanical efficiency
$endgroup$
– nzaman
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
It did apply to mechanical computers if you look at the larger application of the idea. Mechanical computers improved until supplanted by superior technology - constantly shrinking and increasing capability. If you're only asking after its applicability in a purely mechanical context, the answer is no. However, remember that SE's model is one-specific-question/one-best-answer. I count 5. VTC OT:TB. Let me know when you've whittled this down to just one specific question and I'll retract my vote.
$endgroup$
– JBH
35 mins ago
$begingroup$
It did apply to mechanical computers if you look at the larger application of the idea. Mechanical computers improved until supplanted by superior technology - constantly shrinking and increasing capability. If you're only asking after its applicability in a purely mechanical context, the answer is no. However, remember that SE's model is one-specific-question/one-best-answer. I count 5. VTC OT:TB. Let me know when you've whittled this down to just one specific question and I'll retract my vote.
$endgroup$
– JBH
35 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH those are not independent questions, but questions to show initial research and indicate the potential structure or nature of an answer. The actual question is the one in the title. The three bullets at the bottom are likewise not additional questions, just possible reasons for a "no" that could be explored.
$endgroup$
– Robert Columbia
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH those are not independent questions, but questions to show initial research and indicate the potential structure or nature of an answer. The actual question is the one in the title. The three bullets at the bottom are likewise not additional questions, just possible reasons for a "no" that could be explored.
$endgroup$
– Robert Columbia
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
Please express "questions to show initial research" as something other than a question. At this time, your post has 5 questions to be answered by the community. You get one.
$endgroup$
– JBH
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
Please express "questions to show initial research" as something other than a question. At this time, your post has 5 questions to be answered by the community. You get one.
$endgroup$
– JBH
30 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Also, please explain if any electricity at all is permitted. Can electric motors drive the mechanical engines? Can cathode-ray tube monitors be used? Or is this 100% mechanical with steam the only mode of turning cam shafts? Displays may be the ultimate limiting factor.
$endgroup$
– JBH
27 mins ago
$begingroup$
Also, please explain if any electricity at all is permitted. Can electric motors drive the mechanical engines? Can cathode-ray tube monitors be used? Or is this 100% mechanical with steam the only mode of turning cam shafts? Displays may be the ultimate limiting factor.
$endgroup$
– JBH
27 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
First of all, Moore's law is not a law of physics like Newton's law of gravity. It is just an empirical evidence that has hold until now, in a quite surprising way.
While we have been able so far to shrink and shrink the size of electronic components, that is hardly possible with mechanical elements, therefore I highly doubt a mechanical equivalent of Moore's law would hold for more than few generations of calculators.
After that it would just be an horizontal line.
answered 4 hours ago
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
80.3k26192390
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
To be fair, the laws of physics are just empirical evidence that holds up to reality quite well, it’s just that Moore’s Law has a much, much smaller set of experimental evidence and some really dodgy methodology!
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can't we see the theoretical end to the law? There's a physical limit to how close you can put an electrical circuit pathway and not have it induct into another, let alone what we can or can't do with photolithography.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I would argue we already have shrunk mechanical devices to their maximum potential. Three hundred years ago nobody could imagine carrying a mechanical timepiece in their pockets
$endgroup$
– nzaman
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Mazura I've been hearing people say we'd reach that limit when processors clocked at 1ghz, then 2ghz, then 3 and 4. After that limit didn't come we started going multicore. So if that limit is ever reached, I think it won't be in this or the next decade.
$endgroup$
– Renan
29 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Molecular machines
You can in theory make 'mechanical' machines right down to molecular level. They already exist in biology, for example rotary motors:
Three protein motors have been unambiguously identified as rotary
engines: the bacterial flagellar motor and the two motors that
constitute ATP synthase (F 0F 1 ATPase). Of these, the bacterial
flagellar motor and F 0 motors derive their energy from a
transmembrane ion-motive force, whereas the F 1 motor is driven by ATP
hydrolysis.
And also other machines such as ribosomes and the following:
Cytoskeletal motors
Polymerisation motors
Rotary motors:
Nucleic acid motors
Viral DNA packaging motors
Enzymatic motors:
Synthetic molecular
https://www.cell.com/trends/cell-biology/fulltext/S0962-8924(03)00004-7
Reasearchers are currently working on so-called biological computers that work in a different way from the standard von Neumann machines of today.
EDIT
Mechanical monitors would also have improved at a similar rate, having developed from this mechanical TV: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/25/8285977/mechanical-television
answered 3 hours ago
chasly from UKchasly from UK
14k465133
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Are you suggesting that you could have developed the computational capacity to develop the technology necessary to create molecular machines only via mechanical computing? If you'll forgive the hyperbole, 1980s-era computing would have required mechanical computers roughly covering the state of Massachusetts and you have no CRT/monitors in sight.
$endgroup$
– JBH
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH - Surely that is where Moore's Law comes in. Maybe the size halves in ten years instead of one. The 1980s would already have been influenced by Moore's Law in mechanical terms so your assumption is faulty. As for monitors, early TVs were tried with spinning disks. I'm sure that could be refined perfectly easily.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'm familiar with electronic fabrication technology. Based on that experience, you have a chicken-and-the-egg problem. The technology needed to eventually achieve molecular gearing requires more computational power (a lot more) than you can get from non-molecular shrinking. There comes a point before a gear is molecular in size (depending on nuclear forces to keep the gears together) when you can no longer depend on the strength of the metal to keep the teeth on a gear sharp. I can't see a path from A to B that's purely mechanical. Just my opinion, I've not voted either way.
$endgroup$
– JBH
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ JBH - Of course that is the classic Creationist argument ;-) - i.e. You can't get here from there. Creationists claim that the evolution of the human eye is impossible because there are no viable intermediate stages between a simple light-sensitive patch and a full-blown human eye.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Curious, my experience isn't philosophical. BTW, the "mechanical television" you have listed isn't a display. It's the camera. It's electrically driven, uses electrical illumination and signal processing. The "mechanical" part is to capture motion. The results of using it still depend on a CRT screen. It doesn't solve the problem.
$endgroup$
– JBH
8 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137160%2fwould-moores-law-apply-to-mechanical-computers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
First of all, Moore's law is not a law of physics like Newton's law of gravity. It is just an empirical evidence that has hold until now, in a quite surprising way.
While we have been able so far to shrink and shrink the size of electronic components, that is hardly possible with mechanical elements, therefore I highly doubt a mechanical equivalent of Moore's law would hold for more than few generations of calculators.
After that it would just be an horizontal line.
answered 4 hours ago
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
80.3k26192390
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
To be fair, the laws of physics are just empirical evidence that holds up to reality quite well, it’s just that Moore’s Law has a much, much smaller set of experimental evidence and some really dodgy methodology!
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can't we see the theoretical end to the law? There's a physical limit to how close you can put an electrical circuit pathway and not have it induct into another, let alone what we can or can't do with photolithography.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I would argue we already have shrunk mechanical devices to their maximum potential. Three hundred years ago nobody could imagine carrying a mechanical timepiece in their pockets
$endgroup$
– nzaman
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Mazura I've been hearing people say we'd reach that limit when processors clocked at 1ghz, then 2ghz, then 3 and 4. After that limit didn't come we started going multicore. So if that limit is ever reached, I think it won't be in this or the next decade.
$endgroup$
– Renan
29 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First of all, Moore's law is not a law of physics like Newton's law of gravity. It is just an empirical evidence that has hold until now, in a quite surprising way.
While we have been able so far to shrink and shrink the size of electronic components, that is hardly possible with mechanical elements, therefore I highly doubt a mechanical equivalent of Moore's law would hold for more than few generations of calculators.
After that it would just be an horizontal line.
answered 4 hours ago
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
80.3k26192390
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
To be fair, the laws of physics are just empirical evidence that holds up to reality quite well, it’s just that Moore’s Law has a much, much smaller set of experimental evidence and some really dodgy methodology!
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can't we see the theoretical end to the law? There's a physical limit to how close you can put an electrical circuit pathway and not have it induct into another, let alone what we can or can't do with photolithography.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I would argue we already have shrunk mechanical devices to their maximum potential. Three hundred years ago nobody could imagine carrying a mechanical timepiece in their pockets
$endgroup$
– nzaman
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Mazura I've been hearing people say we'd reach that limit when processors clocked at 1ghz, then 2ghz, then 3 and 4. After that limit didn't come we started going multicore. So if that limit is ever reached, I think it won't be in this or the next decade.
$endgroup$
– Renan
29 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First of all, Moore's law is not a law of physics like Newton's law of gravity. It is just an empirical evidence that has hold until now, in a quite surprising way.
While we have been able so far to shrink and shrink the size of electronic components, that is hardly possible with mechanical elements, therefore I highly doubt a mechanical equivalent of Moore's law would hold for more than few generations of calculators.
After that it would just be an horizontal line.
answered 4 hours ago
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
80.3k26192390
$endgroup$
First of all, Moore's law is not a law of physics like Newton's law of gravity. It is just an empirical evidence that has hold until now, in a quite surprising way.
While we have been able so far to shrink and shrink the size of electronic components, that is hardly possible with mechanical elements, therefore I highly doubt a mechanical equivalent of Moore's law would hold for more than few generations of calculators.
After that it would just be an horizontal line.
answered 4 hours ago
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
80.3k26192390
answered 4 hours ago
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
80.3k26192390
answered 4 hours ago
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
80.3k26192390
answered 4 hours ago
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
80.3k26192390
80.3k26192390
2
$begingroup$
To be fair, the laws of physics are just empirical evidence that holds up to reality quite well, it’s just that Moore’s Law has a much, much smaller set of experimental evidence and some really dodgy methodology!
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can't we see the theoretical end to the law? There's a physical limit to how close you can put an electrical circuit pathway and not have it induct into another, let alone what we can or can't do with photolithography.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I would argue we already have shrunk mechanical devices to their maximum potential. Three hundred years ago nobody could imagine carrying a mechanical timepiece in their pockets
$endgroup$
– nzaman
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Mazura I've been hearing people say we'd reach that limit when processors clocked at 1ghz, then 2ghz, then 3 and 4. After that limit didn't come we started going multicore. So if that limit is ever reached, I think it won't be in this or the next decade.
$endgroup$
– Renan
29 mins ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
To be fair, the laws of physics are just empirical evidence that holds up to reality quite well, it’s just that Moore’s Law has a much, much smaller set of experimental evidence and some really dodgy methodology!
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can't we see the theoretical end to the law? There's a physical limit to how close you can put an electrical circuit pathway and not have it induct into another, let alone what we can or can't do with photolithography.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I would argue we already have shrunk mechanical devices to their maximum potential. Three hundred years ago nobody could imagine carrying a mechanical timepiece in their pockets
$endgroup$
– nzaman
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Mazura I've been hearing people say we'd reach that limit when processors clocked at 1ghz, then 2ghz, then 3 and 4. After that limit didn't come we started going multicore. So if that limit is ever reached, I think it won't be in this or the next decade.
$endgroup$
– Renan
29 mins ago
2
2
$begingroup$
To be fair, the laws of physics are just empirical evidence that holds up to reality quite well, it’s just that Moore’s Law has a much, much smaller set of experimental evidence and some really dodgy methodology!
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
To be fair, the laws of physics are just empirical evidence that holds up to reality quite well, it’s just that Moore’s Law has a much, much smaller set of experimental evidence and some really dodgy methodology!
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can't we see the theoretical end to the law? There's a physical limit to how close you can put an electrical circuit pathway and not have it induct into another, let alone what we can or can't do with photolithography.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can't we see the theoretical end to the law? There's a physical limit to how close you can put an electrical circuit pathway and not have it induct into another, let alone what we can or can't do with photolithography.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I would argue we already have shrunk mechanical devices to their maximum potential. Three hundred years ago nobody could imagine carrying a mechanical timepiece in their pockets
$endgroup$
– nzaman
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
I would argue we already have shrunk mechanical devices to their maximum potential. Three hundred years ago nobody could imagine carrying a mechanical timepiece in their pockets
$endgroup$
– nzaman
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Mazura I've been hearing people say we'd reach that limit when processors clocked at 1ghz, then 2ghz, then 3 and 4. After that limit didn't come we started going multicore. So if that limit is ever reached, I think it won't be in this or the next decade.
$endgroup$
– Renan
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Mazura I've been hearing people say we'd reach that limit when processors clocked at 1ghz, then 2ghz, then 3 and 4. After that limit didn't come we started going multicore. So if that limit is ever reached, I think it won't be in this or the next decade.
$endgroup$
– Renan
29 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Molecular machines
You can in theory make 'mechanical' machines right down to molecular level. They already exist in biology, for example rotary motors:
Three protein motors have been unambiguously identified as rotary
engines: the bacterial flagellar motor and the two motors that
constitute ATP synthase (F 0F 1 ATPase). Of these, the bacterial
flagellar motor and F 0 motors derive their energy from a
transmembrane ion-motive force, whereas the F 1 motor is driven by ATP
hydrolysis.
And also other machines such as ribosomes and the following:
Cytoskeletal motors
Polymerisation motors
Rotary motors:
Nucleic acid motors
Viral DNA packaging motors
Enzymatic motors:
Synthetic molecular
https://www.cell.com/trends/cell-biology/fulltext/S0962-8924(03)00004-7
Reasearchers are currently working on so-called biological computers that work in a different way from the standard von Neumann machines of today.
EDIT
Mechanical monitors would also have improved at a similar rate, having developed from this mechanical TV: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/25/8285977/mechanical-television
answered 3 hours ago
chasly from UKchasly from UK
14k465133
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Are you suggesting that you could have developed the computational capacity to develop the technology necessary to create molecular machines only via mechanical computing? If you'll forgive the hyperbole, 1980s-era computing would have required mechanical computers roughly covering the state of Massachusetts and you have no CRT/monitors in sight.
$endgroup$
– JBH
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH - Surely that is where Moore's Law comes in. Maybe the size halves in ten years instead of one. The 1980s would already have been influenced by Moore's Law in mechanical terms so your assumption is faulty. As for monitors, early TVs were tried with spinning disks. I'm sure that could be refined perfectly easily.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'm familiar with electronic fabrication technology. Based on that experience, you have a chicken-and-the-egg problem. The technology needed to eventually achieve molecular gearing requires more computational power (a lot more) than you can get from non-molecular shrinking. There comes a point before a gear is molecular in size (depending on nuclear forces to keep the gears together) when you can no longer depend on the strength of the metal to keep the teeth on a gear sharp. I can't see a path from A to B that's purely mechanical. Just my opinion, I've not voted either way.
$endgroup$
– JBH
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ JBH - Of course that is the classic Creationist argument ;-) - i.e. You can't get here from there. Creationists claim that the evolution of the human eye is impossible because there are no viable intermediate stages between a simple light-sensitive patch and a full-blown human eye.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Curious, my experience isn't philosophical. BTW, the "mechanical television" you have listed isn't a display. It's the camera. It's electrically driven, uses electrical illumination and signal processing. The "mechanical" part is to capture motion. The results of using it still depend on a CRT screen. It doesn't solve the problem.
$endgroup$
– JBH
8 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Molecular machines
You can in theory make 'mechanical' machines right down to molecular level. They already exist in biology, for example rotary motors:
Three protein motors have been unambiguously identified as rotary
engines: the bacterial flagellar motor and the two motors that
constitute ATP synthase (F 0F 1 ATPase). Of these, the bacterial
flagellar motor and F 0 motors derive their energy from a
transmembrane ion-motive force, whereas the F 1 motor is driven by ATP
hydrolysis.
And also other machines such as ribosomes and the following:
Cytoskeletal motors
Polymerisation motors
Rotary motors:
Nucleic acid motors
Viral DNA packaging motors
Enzymatic motors:
Synthetic molecular
https://www.cell.com/trends/cell-biology/fulltext/S0962-8924(03)00004-7
Reasearchers are currently working on so-called biological computers that work in a different way from the standard von Neumann machines of today.
EDIT
Mechanical monitors would also have improved at a similar rate, having developed from this mechanical TV: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/25/8285977/mechanical-television
answered 3 hours ago
chasly from UKchasly from UK
14k465133
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Are you suggesting that you could have developed the computational capacity to develop the technology necessary to create molecular machines only via mechanical computing? If you'll forgive the hyperbole, 1980s-era computing would have required mechanical computers roughly covering the state of Massachusetts and you have no CRT/monitors in sight.
$endgroup$
– JBH
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH - Surely that is where Moore's Law comes in. Maybe the size halves in ten years instead of one. The 1980s would already have been influenced by Moore's Law in mechanical terms so your assumption is faulty. As for monitors, early TVs were tried with spinning disks. I'm sure that could be refined perfectly easily.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'm familiar with electronic fabrication technology. Based on that experience, you have a chicken-and-the-egg problem. The technology needed to eventually achieve molecular gearing requires more computational power (a lot more) than you can get from non-molecular shrinking. There comes a point before a gear is molecular in size (depending on nuclear forces to keep the gears together) when you can no longer depend on the strength of the metal to keep the teeth on a gear sharp. I can't see a path from A to B that's purely mechanical. Just my opinion, I've not voted either way.
$endgroup$
– JBH
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ JBH - Of course that is the classic Creationist argument ;-) - i.e. You can't get here from there. Creationists claim that the evolution of the human eye is impossible because there are no viable intermediate stages between a simple light-sensitive patch and a full-blown human eye.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Curious, my experience isn't philosophical. BTW, the "mechanical television" you have listed isn't a display. It's the camera. It's electrically driven, uses electrical illumination and signal processing. The "mechanical" part is to capture motion. The results of using it still depend on a CRT screen. It doesn't solve the problem.
$endgroup$
– JBH
8 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Molecular machines
You can in theory make 'mechanical' machines right down to molecular level. They already exist in biology, for example rotary motors:
Three protein motors have been unambiguously identified as rotary
engines: the bacterial flagellar motor and the two motors that
constitute ATP synthase (F 0F 1 ATPase). Of these, the bacterial
flagellar motor and F 0 motors derive their energy from a
transmembrane ion-motive force, whereas the F 1 motor is driven by ATP
hydrolysis.
And also other machines such as ribosomes and the following:
Cytoskeletal motors
Polymerisation motors
Rotary motors:
Nucleic acid motors
Viral DNA packaging motors
Enzymatic motors:
Synthetic molecular
https://www.cell.com/trends/cell-biology/fulltext/S0962-8924(03)00004-7
Reasearchers are currently working on so-called biological computers that work in a different way from the standard von Neumann machines of today.
EDIT
Mechanical monitors would also have improved at a similar rate, having developed from this mechanical TV: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/25/8285977/mechanical-television
answered 3 hours ago
chasly from UKchasly from UK
14k465133
$endgroup$
Molecular machines
You can in theory make 'mechanical' machines right down to molecular level. They already exist in biology, for example rotary motors:
Three protein motors have been unambiguously identified as rotary
engines: the bacterial flagellar motor and the two motors that
constitute ATP synthase (F 0F 1 ATPase). Of these, the bacterial
flagellar motor and F 0 motors derive their energy from a
transmembrane ion-motive force, whereas the F 1 motor is driven by ATP
hydrolysis.
And also other machines such as ribosomes and the following:
Cytoskeletal motors
Polymerisation motors
Rotary motors:
Nucleic acid motors
Viral DNA packaging motors
Enzymatic motors:
Synthetic molecular
https://www.cell.com/trends/cell-biology/fulltext/S0962-8924(03)00004-7
Reasearchers are currently working on so-called biological computers that work in a different way from the standard von Neumann machines of today.
EDIT
Mechanical monitors would also have improved at a similar rate, having developed from this mechanical TV: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/25/8285977/mechanical-television
answered 3 hours ago
chasly from UKchasly from UK
14k465133
edited 18 mins ago
answered 3 hours ago
chasly from UKchasly from UK
14k465133
answered 3 hours ago
chasly from UKchasly from UK
14k465133
answered 3 hours ago
chasly from UKchasly from UK
14k465133
14k465133
$begingroup$
Are you suggesting that you could have developed the computational capacity to develop the technology necessary to create molecular machines only via mechanical computing? If you'll forgive the hyperbole, 1980s-era computing would have required mechanical computers roughly covering the state of Massachusetts and you have no CRT/monitors in sight.
$endgroup$
– JBH
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH - Surely that is where Moore's Law comes in. Maybe the size halves in ten years instead of one. The 1980s would already have been influenced by Moore's Law in mechanical terms so your assumption is faulty. As for monitors, early TVs were tried with spinning disks. I'm sure that could be refined perfectly easily.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'm familiar with electronic fabrication technology. Based on that experience, you have a chicken-and-the-egg problem. The technology needed to eventually achieve molecular gearing requires more computational power (a lot more) than you can get from non-molecular shrinking. There comes a point before a gear is molecular in size (depending on nuclear forces to keep the gears together) when you can no longer depend on the strength of the metal to keep the teeth on a gear sharp. I can't see a path from A to B that's purely mechanical. Just my opinion, I've not voted either way.
$endgroup$
– JBH
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ JBH - Of course that is the classic Creationist argument ;-) - i.e. You can't get here from there. Creationists claim that the evolution of the human eye is impossible because there are no viable intermediate stages between a simple light-sensitive patch and a full-blown human eye.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Curious, my experience isn't philosophical. BTW, the "mechanical television" you have listed isn't a display. It's the camera. It's electrically driven, uses electrical illumination and signal processing. The "mechanical" part is to capture motion. The results of using it still depend on a CRT screen. It doesn't solve the problem.
$endgroup$
– JBH
8 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Are you suggesting that you could have developed the computational capacity to develop the technology necessary to create molecular machines only via mechanical computing? If you'll forgive the hyperbole, 1980s-era computing would have required mechanical computers roughly covering the state of Massachusetts and you have no CRT/monitors in sight.
$endgroup$
– JBH
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH - Surely that is where Moore's Law comes in. Maybe the size halves in ten years instead of one. The 1980s would already have been influenced by Moore's Law in mechanical terms so your assumption is faulty. As for monitors, early TVs were tried with spinning disks. I'm sure that could be refined perfectly easily.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'm familiar with electronic fabrication technology. Based on that experience, you have a chicken-and-the-egg problem. The technology needed to eventually achieve molecular gearing requires more computational power (a lot more) than you can get from non-molecular shrinking. There comes a point before a gear is molecular in size (depending on nuclear forces to keep the gears together) when you can no longer depend on the strength of the metal to keep the teeth on a gear sharp. I can't see a path from A to B that's purely mechanical. Just my opinion, I've not voted either way.
$endgroup$
– JBH
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ JBH - Of course that is the classic Creationist argument ;-) - i.e. You can't get here from there. Creationists claim that the evolution of the human eye is impossible because there are no viable intermediate stages between a simple light-sensitive patch and a full-blown human eye.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Curious, my experience isn't philosophical. BTW, the "mechanical television" you have listed isn't a display. It's the camera. It's electrically driven, uses electrical illumination and signal processing. The "mechanical" part is to capture motion. The results of using it still depend on a CRT screen. It doesn't solve the problem.
$endgroup$
– JBH
8 mins ago
$begingroup$
Are you suggesting that you could have developed the computational capacity to develop the technology necessary to create molecular machines only via mechanical computing? If you'll forgive the hyperbole, 1980s-era computing would have required mechanical computers roughly covering the state of Massachusetts and you have no CRT/monitors in sight.
$endgroup$
– JBH
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
Are you suggesting that you could have developed the computational capacity to develop the technology necessary to create molecular machines only via mechanical computing? If you'll forgive the hyperbole, 1980s-era computing would have required mechanical computers roughly covering the state of Massachusetts and you have no CRT/monitors in sight.
$endgroup$
– JBH
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH - Surely that is where Moore's Law comes in. Maybe the size halves in ten years instead of one. The 1980s would already have been influenced by Moore's Law in mechanical terms so your assumption is faulty. As for monitors, early TVs were tried with spinning disks. I'm sure that could be refined perfectly easily.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH - Surely that is where Moore's Law comes in. Maybe the size halves in ten years instead of one. The 1980s would already have been influenced by Moore's Law in mechanical terms so your assumption is faulty. As for monitors, early TVs were tried with spinning disks. I'm sure that could be refined perfectly easily.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'm familiar with electronic fabrication technology. Based on that experience, you have a chicken-and-the-egg problem. The technology needed to eventually achieve molecular gearing requires more computational power (a lot more) than you can get from non-molecular shrinking. There comes a point before a gear is molecular in size (depending on nuclear forces to keep the gears together) when you can no longer depend on the strength of the metal to keep the teeth on a gear sharp. I can't see a path from A to B that's purely mechanical. Just my opinion, I've not voted either way.
$endgroup$
– JBH
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'm familiar with electronic fabrication technology. Based on that experience, you have a chicken-and-the-egg problem. The technology needed to eventually achieve molecular gearing requires more computational power (a lot more) than you can get from non-molecular shrinking. There comes a point before a gear is molecular in size (depending on nuclear forces to keep the gears together) when you can no longer depend on the strength of the metal to keep the teeth on a gear sharp. I can't see a path from A to B that's purely mechanical. Just my opinion, I've not voted either way.
$endgroup$
– JBH
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ JBH - Of course that is the classic Creationist argument ;-) - i.e. You can't get here from there. Creationists claim that the evolution of the human eye is impossible because there are no viable intermediate stages between a simple light-sensitive patch and a full-blown human eye.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ JBH - Of course that is the classic Creationist argument ;-) - i.e. You can't get here from there. Creationists claim that the evolution of the human eye is impossible because there are no viable intermediate stages between a simple light-sensitive patch and a full-blown human eye.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Curious, my experience isn't philosophical. BTW, the "mechanical television" you have listed isn't a display. It's the camera. It's electrically driven, uses electrical illumination and signal processing. The "mechanical" part is to capture motion. The results of using it still depend on a CRT screen. It doesn't solve the problem.
$endgroup$
– JBH
8 mins ago
$begingroup$
Curious, my experience isn't philosophical. BTW, the "mechanical television" you have listed isn't a display. It's the camera. It's electrically driven, uses electrical illumination and signal processing. The "mechanical" part is to capture motion. The results of using it still depend on a CRT screen. It doesn't solve the problem.
$endgroup$
– JBH
8 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137160%2fwould-moores-law-apply-to-mechanical-computers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Unlikely! We've had centuries to streamline mechanical efficiency
$endgroup$
– nzaman
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
It did apply to mechanical computers if you look at the larger application of the idea. Mechanical computers improved until supplanted by superior technology - constantly shrinking and increasing capability. If you're only asking after its applicability in a purely mechanical context, the answer is no. However, remember that SE's model is one-specific-question/one-best-answer. I count 5. VTC OT:TB. Let me know when you've whittled this down to just one specific question and I'll retract my vote.
$endgroup$
– JBH
35 mins ago
$begingroup$
@JBH those are not independent questions, but questions to show initial research and indicate the potential structure or nature of an answer. The actual question is the one in the title. The three bullets at the bottom are likewise not additional questions, just possible reasons for a "no" that could be explored.
$endgroup$
– Robert Columbia
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
Please express "questions to show initial research" as something other than a question. At this time, your post has 5 questions to be answered by the community. You get one.
$endgroup$
– JBH
30 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
Also, please explain if any electricity at all is permitted. Can electric motors drive the mechanical engines? Can cathode-ray tube monitors be used? Or is this 100% mechanical with steam the only mode of turning cam shafts? Displays may be the ultimate limiting factor.
$endgroup$
– JBH
27 mins ago