"cr88192" wrote:
...
[...code styles and performance]
>> There might be optimising tools around, but I'm confident sure that I
>> could do it shorter/faster/smarter in machine code if I had all info.
>> By 'input code' you mean the GPU-commands (instruction/parameters) ?
> I meant, in general.
> input code I indirectly meant, the code being written by the developers.
> for example, if we write in assembler, then the efficiency is often
limited
> by said assembler code (if the coder isn't very skilled, or the system
> architecture changes, the code is no longer so efficient...).
> if we write in C, then optimizability and ****tability somewhat increase
(in
> many cases, the compiler can adjust to features or shortcommings of the
> target, and the demands on the developer are lower).
> if we target system libraries, rather than hard-coding everything, then
> improvements made to the libraries silently benefit the apps that use
them,
I can't agree on this one.
Hardware-drivers can be written totally independent from OS and of
course every brand will need its own driver.
You probably mean the function-links to the OS's API which usually
come as a set of DLLs that show only part of hardware capabilities.
And I see no way in windoze to overcome this detours.
Unlike ATAPI, VESA and legacy ****ts, standards for 2D/3D Graphic
are unfortunately still missing, so I heavy daubt that a compiler
can optimize hardware related code without knowing all details.
[...future CPU] ok
[...multithreaded design] ok
[...power]
>> I think the fusion generator above our heads got enough power for
>> all our needs and may last for 'some' time.
> the problem is getting it in usably large amounts...
1..4 KiloWatt/square-meter sound a lot when I look at the roof surface
of a small house. The problem is still how to store it, we could
use anchient methods like lift a huge stone or what's already in use
for decades: Hydroelectric plants use spare energy to pump water uphill.
> biofuels typically rely on solar anyways, but the volumes are more
limited
> (more fuel means bigger facility, ...).
We could take some knowledge on DNA and/or nature to optimise this.
> nuclear can be very productive and very cheap, but for whatever reason
many
> people are afraid of it (especially breeder reactors and likewise).
We got a nuclear power plant in Austria since many years, but even it's
kept and held in service because it was an expensive toy, it never were
turned on. Our former Cancellor built it and asked the crowd after done,
and the crowd cried: "NO!" :)
> China, India, and Japan use large amounts of nuclear power (uncluding
> breeder reactors) with no real problems. even the soviets only had a few
> problems, and they were pioneering many of these technologies, while
making
> use of minimal safety and poor workman****p.
> I still personally believe that nuclear is likely to be both the safest,
> cleanest, and most economical option, and we have enough nuclear fuel
(if
we > include U-238, Plutonium, Thorium, ...) that there is no danger of
running
> out (only that many people in the US and Europe are afraid of anything
that
> isn't the ultra-rare U-235, which then they only burn a small amount of
it
> and try to discard the rest, in a show of pure inefficiency...).
> for example, of all companies, Hitachi is making liquid-Sodium cooled
> breeder reactors, why should the US be so damn afraid?...
Not only US-citicens are afraid, there is some danger: "the human factor".
>> Hydrogen could be the key, create it with solar-panels or similar
>> natural 'tools' (plants/bacteria may know better than silicon).
>> Then first burn it, feed motors or O-H cells with it, and after that
>> reuse (we may even drink) the resulting waste.
> burning oxygen and hydrogen tends to produce some small amount of
peroxide
> in the waste as well, so drinking it directly may not be entirely safe
> (distilation or passing it through an organic filter would probably
> react-out the peroxide though), but then again, there are much less safe
> things around...
Sure. I once suggested an OH-burner which also cleans air and waste water
by sort out all the dirt with gas-chromatic and mud filters driven by the
otherwise wasted side heat. The calculated effectivty was about 50%, so
just above a coal/steam generator, but this was 30 years ago.
[...Batteries]
>> Electrical cars are available and aren't too bad on milage/load.
>> We just haven't enough reload/replace stations yet.
>> Another idea is to have power-rails on highways...
> yes, however, if we consider how much power usage an android is likely
to
> have, and existing battery capacities, the batteries would likely be
fairly
> decent size (say, a decent chunk of the torso), and may only allow the
thing > to run for a time measurable in hours (one would have to be sure
to
recharge > their android often).
Little vacuum cleaner robots are available already, and it's rumoured
that the next generation may find a power-outlet by themself ...
> I would think, ideally, the thing 'should' be be able to run a few days
or
> weeks or more if needed without reflueling or recharging...
> none the less, lithium ion and NiMH batteries are still a lot better
than
> lead acid (which would likely be pitiful, largish lead-acid batteries
unable > to even keep my damn desktop running for any reasonable amount of
time...).
It may be just a cost reason why cars still must carry heavy lead ...
[gas vs liquid]
> hydrogen though, would need to be stored in pressurized tanks.
> but, yes, a hydrogen-based fuel storage would offer a good deal of
energy
> capacity (vs current litium-ion batteries), but as can be noted, would
still > need either a small engine or fuel cells (likely to remain
expensive), to
> convert it back to electricity.
I look one more time on how Nature decided to power us.
Electricity is just used for sensing and control, while motions avoid
rotating at all and are driven really effective by chemical power.
Why not 'design' faster horses or grow big birds to ride on it ?
and for androids, we could train apes.... oh, another movie yet :)
> also, as a detractor, electrolysis is not a very efficient way of
producing
> hydrogen (so, a better option may be needed). for example, I had read
before > of someone pulling off higher-efficiency water cracking with
microwaves, so
> efficient production could be possible.
I've heard that UV-light would be cheaper, cause we got 'some' natural
sources.
__
wolfgang
|
