More On Flexible Transistors

kryzx writes "MIT Technology Review has a piece on recent developments in flexible transistors. " The applicability of the flexible transistor, at least from the article's point of view, is the applications in everyday life - it's interesting to see how things are developing.

Comments

Couple of recent articles on printed transistors

[warmcat]

This article at EETimes discusses plastic transistors being used as a display device, and this story is about a startup offering a transistor printing process.

Re:ubiquitous computing

[Jedi Binglebop]

In fact, we have the more difficult task of figuring out why some predicted technologies work out, and others languish, even if they seem really cool.

This is something I've thought about a lot, but more along the lines of "what makes a good idea good?" So far, this is what I've concluded.

People make choices on a daily basis, and those choices will often be made to reflect a persons personality. Eg - would you by cream coloured Levi's that are flared at the bottom? There's nothing "technically unsound" about the idea, but it doens't work now!

So there is personal gratification in our decisions. There are exceptions however. Eg - when something is needed to fulfill a particular task. Personal gratification is shelved to some degree, and we then go in search of something to fulfill our "need". If the solution isn't totally accetable, but no other solution is available, we'll buy the product anyway. But there'll be a desire for something "better" (handier/thoughfully designed/cooler looking/more convinient/etc).

The ideal is to combine personal gratification with the fulfillment of a need. What need though?

Does this give the necessary ideas for a successful product? Not at all, but it helps you recognise those ideas that stand out from the fanatical fads that are designed purely for fast money (and there is far too many of those on the market today, it becoming numbing).

Anyhow, I just wanted to exress those ideas in a post. Please don't flame me for it!

-JB

Re:Floppy Processors? Nah, LEGOS!

[otomo_1001]

Think about it, we buy a lcd lego for the screen in the size we want. Then we get the cd accessory, hard drive mounting kit, and processor kit. With technology like Transmeta and processors that can be added-on at will/dynamically, not only could we make it look cool, but we can add on easily, and run any type of app out there for any processor.

This would extend the concept of modular design to computers, and if the blocks could network themselves together and figure out how to use each other in a biological sense, it'd be even cooler.

I just wonder what to name them, Compu-blocks? I better just go back to programming.

One use: Smart cards

[cfish]

The current smart card technology is limited by the size of the chip implented into the card. Reason is, in europe, the smart cards must pass a certain "bend test" and survive. If transisters c an bend, it "may" help smart cards technology to store more memory or process faster.

that's a little computer in your wallet, man.

Flexible Transistors? As a liquid?

[ryuko]

Cherie talks about using the transistors as a liquid, which she can use to spray onto objects, like ink. Is it me or is that like the idea of putting 'LCD' anywhere? :) Like an ultra-thin sheets of displays that can be stuck anywhere? Or am I off base on this technology?

ubiquitous computing

[Proud Geek]

People who aren't familiar with ubiquitous computing might wonder what the advantages of these are. I know that I had a very difficult time explaining to my father what it is at all.

Ubiquitous means that the computer is always around you, always there. It becomes a part of your lifestyle, to consult the computer just as you consult your wristwatch. Perhaps like a mobile phone, but the goal is that a ubiquitous computer is much more transparent to the user than that.

My father said, "When I'm walking in the woods, I don't want a computer; it would just be an annoying distraction." But even there, how many times have you wondered what something was, or made a mental note about something you later forgot. The idea is that it does not take over your life, but fits seamlessly into it.

In that contest, a flexible transistor is a great benefit. Current wearable computers are very small (for a general purpose computer), but they still are not good things to wear. By making electronics flexible, it becomes much easier to embed them into clothing or other things that are carried around.

As well as the MIT group, check out Steve Mann's work for more information about wearable computers. They are very cool!

Way to go, to the groups mentioned in the article, and I hope they succeed very soon.

Re:ubiquitous computing

[elenchos]

I think you are on the right track, thinking about how computers fit into a person's life, but you should take a more critical approach. The reason why people mock smart toasters and intelligent clothing is because they are the answers to questions that nobody asked. They are attempts to apply high-technology to every single thing you can think of without discrimination. People the world over are crying out for a browser that doesn't suck, or a way to safely shop on the web. Nobody is walking through the woods wishing they could go online right that instant. A piece of paper will let your record your thoughts, and realistically, you can look up the names of trees and animals later with little lost by the delay, or just carry a book if you can't wait.

Start by looking at the pattern of technologies that fail versus those that catch on. There are good reasons for the choices people make (except when they are being idiots of course).

Re:ubiquitous computing

[elenchos]

The fallacy you are falling into is similar to the argument "They said Gallieo was wrong, but he was proven right, and therefore (since they say I'm wrong) I will be proven right too." You could reverse it and say that in the 1950's they predicted everyone would have flying cars in 2000, which shows that all predictions of future technology will be proven false.

In fact, we have the more difficult task of figuring out why some predicted technologies work out, and others languish, even if they seem really cool. Why did it take 100 years for the fax machine to catch on? Why do people in the year 2000 still die of polio? Why do so many people rush to get the most up to the minute cell phone but not update their voting machines or their web server security? This is not a random process. So what does this pattern tell you about the future of computerized clothing?

Re:ubiquitous computing

[Proud Geek]

You're very right about solutions being needed to the problems that exist now, and also that many technologies that aren't wanted probably have no real purpose.

On the other hand, the killer application is the one that no one thought of before hand. Wasn't it Thomas Watson of IBM who said that there would only ever be a need for three computers in the world, and Bill Gates, who said we would never need more than 640K? Obviously, both of them changed their minds. The reason? New technology allowed new applications that they hadn't thought of.

Don't mock something just because you can't think of a use for it. I'd be fine with a smart toaster, so long as it burned my toast less often.

Re:ubiquitous computing

[localroger]

Wasn't it Thomas Watson of IBM who said that there would only ever be a need for three computers in the world

It was actually John von Neumann who said there would never be more than 10. Of course, this was back in the late 1940's. At that time I think Alan Turing had a much clearer idea of what the computer would be useful for -- von Neumann only envisioned computers as being useful for attacking otherwise insoluble problems like weather prediction or the hydrodynamics of H-bombs. Turing saw them as universal engines which could mimic the functions of life.

As late as the 1970's "toy computers" were really electromechanical imitations and nobody imagined that real ones would end up in doorbells, coffee makers, and wristwatches. The people making all the foofraw about "smart appliances" are basically trying to avoid the same error. There is really no telling what kind of connectivity we will take for granted in 2020.

On the other hand, it could all go off in some unexpected direction. In the '50's and '60's it was assumed that personal VTOL aircraft would replace cars, pedestrians would be sporting jetpacks, and high energy projects fuelled by cheap nuclear energy would dominate the landscape of the future (our today). While the world has changed a lot, it hasn't changed in those ways. It's almost impossible to say what will turn out to be practical in economic terms given the unknown basic advances which will be coming down the pike.

It all comes full circle in the end :-)

[Flabdabb Hubbard]

With all the talk of optical computing, quantum computing, genetic computing and the like, its good to see some energy being focussed on proven technology.

I sometimes wonder if the entrenched interests stifle this kind of research, becaust of the dramatic effects it could have on their industries.

Read Bruce Sterling's 'Distraction' and you'll understand what I mean.

Sorry... wrong link in article.

[Proud Geek]

Should be Steve Mann at wearcam.org.

Flexible Transistor Research Web Site

[Zeus305]

Here is a link to the web site of the scientist at IBM who developed the flexible transistor, Cherie Kagan.

Cool, but...

[elenchos]

As I follow the MIT link and wonder how the fonts will be mangled if the page ever finishes loading and the browser doesn't just up and crash, I also sort of wonder what flexible transisitors could be used for. Chips embedded in my clothing! At least it isn't a smart toaster. I'm getting tired of that one.

Clothing? Newspapers?

[smoon]

Soooo... if IBM comes out with a computerized shirt, then Microsoft will upstage them with a computerized jacket. And where will that take us? "Oh, sorry, my jacket seems to have crashed, let me take it off and put it back on again..."

Of course the really killer app will be computerized condoms (digital technology for her pleasure). This would of course bring a whole new meaning to PKI.

The paint-on display concept would be great for cabs -- imagine times square driving down every street...

Re:Clothing? Newspapers?

[10.0.0.1]

"Oh, sorry, my jacket seems to have crashed, let me take it off and put it back on again..."

Or, you could just zip it up and send it off to tech support for analysis.

Re:Clothing? Newspapers?

[Hard_Code]

Hey, I'm over a week late, but so what...:

if IBM comes out with a computerized shirt, then Microsoft will upstage them with a computerized jacket.

And then comes inevitable "bloat". Microsoft will then come out with a computerized trench coat, and then tundra coat, and space suit. Linus will then come out with a super mega-coat which is actually constructed by thousands of patches of different materials zippered together, each patch individually removable and configurable. We will trumpet it as being more "free" and allowing "choice" in wearable computing. ;)

Is this really useful?

[Lee Charlie HasWalld]

While this new technology is great, is it really useful? To answer this we must look to see if such a technology can really be applied to our daily lives. Can such a transistor make much of an impact on our lives that we need to spend a lot of money on it.

If it is indeed such a valuable and important thing, it would surely have already been invented. And it already has. Just look here at DigiCorps claim to this technology. This was realsed in early 97!! There have been numerous divices already made and implemented. You certainly don't see our lives changing. It is just like lcd screens in cell phones, all they do is make the phone cost more. Is this a techonolgy that is really necessary, or even worthy of slashdot?

Re:Is this really useful?

[DeepDarkSky]

Are you that used to technology moving quickly that you don't realize that technology takes time to apply? Even as it is, it will take them time to make the printed transistors faster, smaller, cheaper, and more efficient. Will it be useful? Of course. If you don't see our lives changing because you look and don't see. LCD screens make cell phones more expensive? Sure, but aren't they (arguably) more useful? Won't they be even more useful in the future when even more high-res versions or HUD versions make them as useful as PC browser screens?

Is this technology necessary? Is ANY technology REALLY necessary? The printed transistor technology is not so much necessary as it is revolutionary in the progress of making ubiquitous computing possible.

The one piece of crap comment that bothers me is, what does any of this have anything to do with worthiness of this story/technology on Slashdot? I suppose if Slashdot continues to have short-sighted people who pretend to be knowledgeable and forward-thinking but instead are only elitist, then methinks that Slashdot is not worthy of the story.

Re:Is this really useful?

[goastdog]

im not so sure we need these flexible resisters. im mean what do you know is round that would need a flexible resister..i got an idea how about we sell the technology to apple....maybe they can come out with somthing similar to their imac.. maybe they can make it round with this new fangled technolgy i hope they call it the iball..ohh and lets hope they put no fans in these iballs just like in the imac....that takes brains.

Re:Is this really useful?

[AoT]

yes it is relevent, this wont ad cost to anything, thats the point. its a cheaper way to do this, basically it can be printed on a liserjet printer as well.

hmm....

[dlittled]

Maybe someone can make a little "potato pocket power supply" to power your t-shirt

older stuff

[AoT]

laso check out this older article at tech review about printable computing

A dream: PDA Tatoos

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

After reading other poster's comments about printable transistors, flexible displays, computerized T-shirts, etc. I had a dream. (Wierd what you think up while asleep.)

PDA's are "printed" on the surface of your skin. So it's not exactly like a tatoo. Just roll up your sleeve to use a PDA. In time they become so useful, they are a "must" have, like credit cards are now. Everyone's got to have one.

Since they wear off, you have to have them re-printed on your skin after awhile. But since you need them, if you can't afford one, there are corporate sponsorships. A corporation will pay to print a PDA on your hand if in addition they can also print a color, animated, advertising strip banner on your forehead. :-)

Just imagine, animated advertising banners aren't just for the web anymore.

EARTH FOOL! Prepare to be FLAMED!!!

[elenchos]

Your pleas for mercy mean NOTHING!!!

No, just kidding. My preferred theory is just the simple observation that people have gone nuts over things like pagers, cell phones and the Internet because they help them communicate better. It is incredible how much bad technology people are willing to endure if it can in some small way bring them closer to other people and make them feel more wanted and more included. Smart toasters and most wearable computers don't really address this kind of need.

So then they must address some other need that people feel strongly about. VHS took off because what people really wanted was to record sports broadcasts and watch porn at home. Beta video was all about picture quality and other technical advantages that were besides the point. What does that tell you about the future of HDTV? Look next at the popularity of MP3's, which are popular in spite of their low sound quality (same with CD's vs vinyl, or even wax cylinders).

This disconnect between what geeks like (Beta, wearable HUD Internet eyepiece things) and what everyone else likes (VHS, PDA's full of phone numbers) follows a consistent pattern. It shouldn't be that hard to predict where things will go. What gets us off track is when we think that what we like is synonymous with what anybody would like. The cool thing is that now even if what you like isn't popular you can still be comfortable in a little niche outside the mainstream.

Go ahead and flame me all you want. I'm into it.

Floppy Processors?

[SuperJ]

Would this be possible? Make a processor that's around the size of 3.5 in disk, and created a drive that interfaces it to the motherboard. Then you could have removable processor slots! Want to upgrade? Just eject the old processor and stick in the new one? Eventually you'll be able to buy processors in packs, they'll come in red, green, yellow and blue. AOL will send out processor disks that render your computer useless except for connecting to AOL. Just imagine whipping out your disk holder and saying "Hey baby, check out my Beowulf cluster..."

Amazingly amazing!

[Jedi Binglebop]

You sound like a froupie!

Isn't "computer" more of a "mathematical machine" type of term? Would a hybrid transistor still be used only for mass mathematical calculations?

Not that I'm suggesting a possible AI alternative/possibility. I'm actually against (as such) the idea of AI, mainly because I can see already that people (generally speaking) will go to extraordinary lengths to make AI work, and spend massive amounts of money on it - because it's one of those ideas that just doesn't go away. It can't be simply pondered upon, it has to be done!

I already know it won't work, but I also suspect people (once again, generally speaking) will try to cheat to make it work. It won't. Ever. And besides all that, it isn't "necessary".

We don't need it for anything. We're already coping quite well. AI in not science (the study of stuff that exists) nor engineering (building stuff). But that is just my humble opinion. I can't stop people wanting AI. And why would I? Whatever will be, will be!

Did you ever get the feeling that you've gone off on a tangent and forgotten what your original point was?

-JB