Re: claytronics?


In article <11bbvb5huinim77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mike
<URL:mailto:Spam.mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Why is this 'claytronics' different to Utility fog?
>
> From what i have read i see nothing to distinguish any significant
> difference, but then i am a layman.

I understood the idea of Utility fog was that the individual
components could fly, and communicate without physical contact.

As I understand it, 'claytronics' is likely to be more like a
liquid than a vapour, and the components communicate by touch.

But, this does seem an early stage of things, and it looks as
though they are anticipating the hardware will appear, and trying
to get the software infrastructure ready for it.

I suppose it is possible that it will be functionally indistin-
guishable from Utility fog.

--
Rory McLean
rory@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


.

Loading