Why would we assume that a larger device will produce an equal number of electrons of noise? It seems reasonable to expect instead that a increased photosite bulk produces an increase in noise sources. Also, larger well capacities require larger capacities for charge, voltage, or current all along the analog signal transport and processing chain, which seems to have the potential to increase the number of electrons of noise from sources like amplifiers (amp. noise is apparently the dominant noise source in the high end Canon's at low ISO).
This expectation is supported by data for Kodak CCDs, where total dark noise levels in electrons tend to increase with photosite size.
By the way, 1000 electrons is an absurdly high number, suggesting that you are not even vaguely aware of the real values, which run roughly from 3 to 30 electrons in spec. sheets and published measurements for SLR sensors.
It seems that one's time on a forum and post count are directly related to their propensity to be an arse. At best, you have poor reading comprehension and missed the part where I explain the number is an exaggerated number, which I used to make the ratios significant to be noticed. At worst you're an A-hole who likes to mischaracterize what others have said and cast unwarranted aspersions against them. Alternatively, you could just be an idiot.
If you had at least said something like the noise in the signal to noise ratio is the square root of the number of electrons in the well and not insulted me, I could have simply noted you as someone who is trying to be a little more precise for the OP.
On the other hand, I don't think the OP was interested, nor at a level, to be worrying about the math.
And it appears that you're not aware that there is really no trend for read noise dependent on pixel pitch with modern sensors. For example, a Canon S70 has pixel spacing of 2.3 microns, a full well of 8,200 electrons, and a read noise of 3.2 electrons. A Canon 350D has corresponding numbers of 6.4 microns, 43,000 electrons, and 3.7 electrons respectively. While a Canon 5D has corresponding numbers of 8.2 microns, 80,000 electrons, and 3.7 electrons.
Moreover, I'm not impressed that you've seen some specs on Kodak sensors (are you an astrophotographer?). Why don't you explain to the OP what you mean by dark noise? And while you're at it why don't you tell him about shot noise, reset noise, output amplifier noise, white noise, and flicker noise? Or the noise generated by various ADC's?
You could do all that yet you would illuminate no more for the OP than I did and we would still be right where I left it -- that larger pixels have a higher signal to noise ratio than smaller pixels.
You sound like someone with just enough knowledge to make them dangerous and who thinks the laws of physics are going to be turned on their head and Nikon/Sony, Canon, Kodak, or whomever are going to release a 24 megapixel camera with the same noise levels and high ISO performance of the D3/D700 despite smaller pixels.
If you know how to make that work for them, I'm sure Nikon or Canon will not only pay you a fortune, but you may even win a Nobel.
If you want to know in greater detail why you're wrong in thinking that noise becomes an increasing problem as photosites get larger, this scientist has laid it out pretty well:
Thanks for reminding me why so many decent people get turned off by internet forums. Maybe I'll spend the weekend telling people here who know what they're talking about they don't know what they're talking about so I can be as full of myself as you are.