Talk:Chemical computer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article had a pretty good jump-start by Hipporoo. I sectioned it, and trimmed it a bit by linking stuff explained elsewhere. A few things that might need a bit more attention:

• How come it would be so much easier to arrange chemicals than lines on a chip. Is there some sort of selfassembly planned?
• A clearer explanation of how exactly this could outperform chips (the "neuron" paragraph).
• ^{[citation needed]}
• Work by other than Adamatzky
• My language should probably be checked over again

Hipporoo: I'd really like to see your references. The ones I put in are for journal articles that are very technical and subscription-only and I think you have some better ones. Just found one freely available here, maybe that should go in too.

Thanks, but I am afraid I don't have much personal knowledge in the field. I read the article on the net and found it so interesting that I thought it wouldn't hurt if it was transferred to Wikipedia, where others hopefully would add their own knowledge to the subject now and then. So I took the information and tried to write most of it with my own words, to make sure it isn't a direkt copy to avoid evntuel copyright problems. Since you have done some edits on your own, it is even less similar, and probably clearer. I don't know where the information in the article I read came from, but I can try to give some answears to some of the questions.

"How come it would be so much easier to arrange chemicals than lines on a chip?" From the article, I got the impression that since there is no need for the complicated electronic "highways" in the chemical component, it seems just logical it has a simpler "anatomy" and because of that easier to produce. And cheaper.

"A clearer explanation of how exactly this could outperform chips (the "neuron" paragraph)." Like mentioned, if the technology keeps its promises, which is handling a much larger amount of data because of the chemical properties, it will outperform the present chips. It is like saying if it succeeds to built a car that use only 10% as much fuel as the cars of today, it will in the longer run outperform our conventional cars. Not much realistic for the moment, but you get the idea. I don't have any links for the moment, but it has been mentioned in some article that the brain works in a different way than a computer, even if there is many similrities, and in a more chaotic way. And then we have the old example about how big a computer would have to be if it should have the sama capacity as a brain.

What modern theoretical analyses concerning sufficient complicated reactions it is referred to, I cannot tell, but the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction itself should be proof enough.

Some of the "citation needed" statements is based on "if it succeeds to turn theory into practice". From what the theory says, it sounds like the new principles will have a lot of advantages compared to the conventional machines.

The original article for those who read the language;

http://www.illustrertvitenskap.com/polopoly.jsp?d=154&a=3176 Hipporoo 23:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Du kunne jo bare have sagt du var norsk! ;-)

Tjaaa, jeg kunne vel i grunnen det. Skal i fremtiden forsøke å finne en balansegang.

Next time just put your link under references and mark it "(Norwegian)" - won't hurt, and might help. In any case, Illustrert Vitenskap has a quite deserved reputation for over-hyping (it sells) so I'll try to tone the claims down a bit. Let's see when I get around to it. Nice move on getting content in without copyright trouble. Nvj 10:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll remember that. And take a look now and then in case there is any edits. Hipporoo 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)