TED Conversations

Ken brown


This conversation is closed.

Light instead of electricity?

The link below gives the barest minimum of data but the possibility is there for a global switch.If this technology pans out then it could give intel and other chip designers a possible jump in their current roadmaps.The classic "Tick Tock" could be a "Double Tick" and moores law spikes.

I'm a dreamer who loves looking for new and possible exciting technologies and i came across this and it caught my eye and i thought, maybe the teddets would be interested,from where i sit, though in wild speculation our energy footprint could be markedly reduced

If anyone who is an engineer or who is technically minded i would enjoy a response or anyone who can see it's potential or it's failure.



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 6 2012: The principle will allow for smaller circuits and new results, but it will still take electricity to create the light used as the input and to cool part of the process.

    What is saved in energy by nano-electronics may well be consumed by a resultant increase in the number of computers. Your car may already have more than one computer and your household possibly has several that you don't know about.

    Humans now tend to light things at night rather than use daylight like they once did, they use remote controls, cranes, transportation devices, mechanical aids for any number of tasks, rely upon electronic entertainment, prefer more stable temperatures than nature provides, seek comfort by enhancing their environment and generally consume far more energy than necessary. Earth is a closed system with light and heat energy arriving from the sun, if we do anything to compromise that source of energy or exceed our capacity to utilise it, we're out of here!

    Our survival depends on making greater use of all resources. The end game may be unimaginable at the moment, but could lead to agriculture or food production in space, as we don't have room for it here any more. Some may look forward to it, but personally I would prefer to die in a world that had some semblance to the one I was born in.

    These new developments are emulating nature in their design and this should be a good thing. However mistakes will be made. The population of the earth is also increasing exponentially, and if we don't utilise these new ideas we will run out of space, food, and other resources to the extent where we kill off our own population by overcrowding. A natural phenomenon in the animal and plant worlds.

    So essentially it is inevitable. The speed will allow us to solve new problems. New limits will be set. If Earth 2.0 is 600 light years away, then we have the life of our own sun less the 600 light years travel time, plus a bit for colonisation, to solve the problem of relocating to Earth 2.0.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.