If a configuration of vaccuum tubes and relays (i.e. resistors, capacitors and inductors) can emulate a transitor, and a configuration of transitors can emulate a memresistor, then it follows that there exists (in theory) a configuration of vaccuum tubes and relays which can emulate a memresistor...or not?
Harry ----- Original Message ----- From: Terry Blanton <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009 3:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Memristor > Harry, I think he emulated a memristor using transistors. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chua%27s_circuit > > Terry > > On 1/1/09, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > cool, but there is something that confuses me. > > > > Near the beginning of this article... > > > > http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6207 > > > > we are told that the memristor is a new fundamental > > > > circuit element because it cannot be made from a combination of the > > > > three known fundamental circuit elements - the resistor, the > capacity and > > the inductor. > > > > Then we are told further down the article that the theoretician > behind the > > memristor built a memresitor > > > > in the 1970's using a bunch of standard circuit elements. These are > > contradictory claims. > > > > Harry > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Terry Blanton <[email protected]> > > > > Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:21 am > > > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC A prediction about future computers > > > > > > > > > There is a new innovation in electronics which will renew the > > > computing industry: > > > > > > http://www.hpl.hp.com/news/2008/apr-jun/memristor.html > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor > > > > > > This two port device is "written" by a voltage and duration > (fixing> > its resistance) and "read" by a much lower voltage. > Moore was banging > > > his head against quantum physics with transistors approaching 250 > > > atoms in size; but, the memristor will renew the law. Unlike > dynamic> > ram, the memristor does not need to be refreshed so > that, when you > > > turn your computer on, it will "instantly" return to the state > prior> > to power off. > > > > > > IEEE Spectrum has several articles including the story of how the > > > device was built: > > > > > > http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/dec08/7024 > > > > > > Terry > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Jed Rothwell > > & gt; <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It is common knowledge that in the not so distant future hard > > > disks will be > > > > replaced with solid state memory, and MPP architecture will > become> > > commonplace. No doubt computers will run thousands of > times> > faster than they > > > > do now, just as today's computers run anywhere from 1000 to > > > 100,000 times > > > > faster than personal computers did circa 1980 (my estimate -- I > > > would like > > > > to see a more authoritative estimate). > > > > > > > > Anyway, I would like to make a prediction about these upcoming > > > machines.> Despite the fact that they will run thousands of times > > > faster, I predict > > > > that it will still take two minutes to turn Windows on. And to > > > turn it off, > > > > for crying out loud! Why it takes so long to terminate a program > > > is a > > > > mystery. The disk access light flutters and twitches, but the > > > program gives > > > > no hint what it is up to. By the standards of 1980 these > things are > > > > supercomputers and in two minutes you could probably enumerate > > > every person > > > > in the U.S. Anyway, two minutes seems to be a built-in computer > > > constant,> along with the price of whatever computer you want to > > > buy, which Dave Barry > > > > defined as: "$500 more than you hoped to pay." > > > > > > > > - Jed > > > > > > > > > > > >
