It is probably a matter of time when a LN2 coolers will be produced on a mass scale and cheaply. The low temperature itself is not that big of a deal - what I am curious about is what will be left of the device if the cooler breaks.SGaynor said:Putting on my skeptical scientist hat.....
While cool, don't belive the hype about mass production and changing the world. Seems like they run as superconductors, which means sub-liquid nitrogen temps (-196* C/-321* F). Might be useful for supercomputers, but the average person won't see one.
knewsom said:Even if it's something that doesn't make it to the consumer market immediately, or even for a long time, just a small number of these could have a pretty marked effect on our ability to run computer based analysis and models.
Blue said:Great, maybe they'll finally realize that the global warming models are shit.
Actually, Kris, this is exactly what's wrong with the science these days - "instant gratification" from computer simulations.knewsom said:Even if it's something that doesn't make it to the consumer market immediately, or even for a long time, just a small number of these could have a pretty marked effect on our ability to run computer based analysis and models.
SGaynor said:sub-liquid nitrogen temps (-196* C/-321* F). Might be useful for supercomputers, but the average person won't see one.
p m said:Actually, Kris, this is exactly what's wrong with the science these days - "instant gratification" from computer simulations.
On the other hand, it never ceases to amaze me how much the "old ones" learned simply from observations; they really had patience (something we as a society cannot accept), and good memory of the events.
knewsom said:It's not a home-run, it's a touchdown.
akronk1 said:How realistic is your perception of science?
http://www.americanbiotechnologist.com/blog/science-perception/
p m said:Actually, Kris, this is exactly what's wrong with the science these days - "instant gratification" from computer simulations.
On the other hand, it never ceases to amaze me how much the "old ones" learned simply from observations; they really had patience (something we as a society cannot accept), and good memory of the events.
knewsom said:I completely agree that patience to learn from observation and experimentation rather than just running a computer model and drawing conclusions is incredibly important - and especially agreed that patience in our society is at an all-time low, which greatly complicates proper research and development (not to mention funding). I don't think that the development of markedly more sophisticated computing technology (in this instance, a massive generational leap) is going to invalidate the scientific method or need for real-world experimentation, observation, and testing. I do think it'll likely improve the accuracy of computer simulation at a rapid pace because we'll be able to use more variables and more complex equations than ever - but our scientists will have to conceive of those variables as well, and still test the results in the real world. It could certainly help our experimentation be better directed, not to mention increase the speed at which we make major discoveries.
The major cool factor for me is the notion that we're nearing a functional type of computer that is infinitely more complex in its operation, and functions in an entirely different way than what we've been using. It's not a typical "faster cpu". It's not a home-run, it's a touchdown.