Slashdot Mirror


Lucent's New Chip Is Just One Molecule Thick

lotusFlow writes: "According to this NYTimes article, Lucent has developed a chip with a layer of transistors that is one molecule thick. This development is considered a new tep above nanotech because "here you direct the molecules with self-assembly to go where you want them to go." Commercial applications of this technology are years in the making, of course."

166 comments

  1. Now, if only they could... by gregwbrooks · · Score: 4, Funny
    Develop a stock price worth a rat's ass...

    --


    "It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
    1. Re:Now, if only they could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lucent's at $6.88. You can buy a rat's ass for anywhere between $4.00 (cull) to $23 (confirmed mated and dated) to $158 (Spontaneous Mutation Congenic). So that's anywhere from a 41% drop in stock price to almost a x23 gain. Of course, these prices are just approximations: you get all the other organs, too. No one would give me a price on just that the anal sphincter.

    2. Re:Now, if only they could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WAYY too much free time on your hands man...

    3. Re:Now, if only they could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang, and I bought stock in that buckyball sheet thing, too, and now things one atom instead of 60.

      That hideously oversized buckyball sheet monstrosity is so eight hours ago.

    4. Re:Now, if only they could... by kaimiike1970 · · Score: 1

      It is really too bad you are an AC. If you have something that is actually funny (and I don't mean what usually passes for funny on /.), you should grow a sack and post under and actual psuedonym.

      --


      Do a google search before posting.
  2. And meanwhile here I am... by JoeShmoe · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    STILL waiting for FDM-ROM to hit the market...

    http://www.constellation3d.com

    - JoeShmoe

    --
    -- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
    1. Re:And meanwhile here I am... by gregorio · · Score: 1

      http://3640001799/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term= %67%75%6c%6c%69%62%6c%65

      Do NOT open this URL if you are using Internet Explorer!!!

    2. Re:And meanwhile here I am... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't even need to. This program will print what the encoded part means:
      #include <stdio.h>
      int main ()
      {
      char off[] = {0x67,0x75,0x6c,0x6c,0x69,0x62,0x6c,0x65,0x00};
      printf("%s\n",&off);
      }

    3. Re:And meanwhile here I am... by fodi · · Score: 1

      ok.. so what happens if you open it in IE? I'm on a work PC, so I don't want to try it.. but my curiosity is killing me!!

    4. Re:And meanwhile here I am... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      or use the right tool for the job, eg Python:

      import urllib
      print urllib.unquote ("%67%75%6c%6c%69%62%6c%65")

      I don't think you should have an & in &off.

    5. Re:And meanwhile here I am... by Sir_Real · · Score: 1

      why? looks like it just goes to a dictionary definition of the word 'gullible'

      shrug

    6. Re:And meanwhile here I am... by gregorio · · Score: 1

      ok.. so what happens if you open it in IE? I'm on a work PC, so I don't want to try it.. but my curiosity is killing me!!

      Read about it here.

  3. Could Somebody Please Tell Me... by CtrlPhreak · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    What's the difference between this story and the a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/17/ 1844217&mode=nested">one on the same page?

    --
    WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
    1. Re:Could Somebody Please Tell Me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A chip is a beowulf cluster of transistors, so it's more impressive.

  4. Solid State Circuit. by os2fan · · Score: 2
    Should be interesting to see how robust it is.

    But would it not be better to work on 3D chips: actual "solid state circuitry"

    --
    OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    1. Re:Solid State Circuit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't those circuits already solid state? (transistors have no moving parts in them)

    2. Re:Solid State Circuit. by os2fan · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more in terms of solid as opposed to flat: 3D vs 2D, not solid vs gaseous [valve], or solid vs flexiable [relay].

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    3. Re:Solid State Circuit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, robust is the question. Single and bi-layer systems often show "breathing modes" in geometry, because binding energies are O_kt. Structures will simply "diffuse" into neighboring geometries which may-or-may-NOT provide equal function.

    4. Re:Solid State Circuit. by Karma+Sink · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The above poster is female, ergo, if she were a "fag", she wouldn't be interested in penis.

      --

      When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
    5. Re:Solid State Circuit. by os2fan · · Score: 2
      Yes, I'm a female.

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
  5. Re:This is nothing new ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol...feed this troll damnit! Who cares if BSD is dying or if S. King's dead...

  6. Replace Lucent with Frito-Lay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Low-fat food breakthrough! Frito-Lay's New Chip Is Just One Molecule Thick!

  7. Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 55 by os2fan · · Score: 0, Redundant
    I suppose next year, you will change the title to "Stephen King, author, dead at 56" ?. Whatever you're on, it's a little long in the tooth.

    --
    OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
  8. quantum effects? by Wantok · · Score: 2, Redundant

    one molecule thick?!

    correct if i'm wrong, but it seems to me that this is venturing into the realms of quantum behaviour... where predictability, reliability, etc etc all fall in a heap.

    without getting into the *advantages* of quantum scale computing - e.g. entanglement - isn't this creeping to the edge of the precipice?

    (caveat - i am a total lay person with no serious technical knowledge of quantum effects)

    --
    mi save tingting long peles bilong mi long Niu Ailan.
    1. Re:quantum effects? by Grech · · Score: 2, Informative

      Quantum effects happen over distances that are significantly smaller than the 'diameter' of an electron, a couple orders of magnitude smaller than an atom, much less a 60+ molecule buckytube.

      --
      It may not be just, but it is fair, and that is more important.
    2. Re:quantum effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Slashdot in a nutshell:
      • Clueless question posted
      • People interested by question moderate question up
      • Answer to question posted
      • People happy about answer moderate answer up
      • Repeat.
    3. Re:quantum effects? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      Quantum effects happen over distances that are significantly smaller than the 'diameter' of an electron

      I thought that the distance of a quantum effect depends on the energy of the particles in question. For example, some optical diffraction experiments demonstrate quantum phenomena over visible distances.

    4. Re:quantum effects? by urmensch · · Score: 0

      I thought quantum effects could possibly span the entire universe. or something...

    5. Re:quantum effects? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The point is moot. The chip is only being shrunk in one dimension. Any "quantum effects" are going to be confined to that dimension. The other two are independent.
      The real problems are mesoscopic effects, because atoms are "sticky" and objects made of 10-1000 of them do weird things. They aren't as easy to manipulate as the macroscopic objects that we have real-world experience with.

    6. Re:quantum effects? by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Quantum effects happen over distances that are significantly smaller than the 'diameter' of an electron, a couple orders of magnitude smaller than an atom, much less a 60+ molecule buckytube.

      #include <IAAP.h>

      Erm, no. There's really no set limit to the distances over which quantum mechanical behavior can be observed, though it's most often restricted to sub-molecular scales. Quantum mechanics is required to describe pretty much any behavior of single electrons accurately. The 'size' of an atom is determined by the uncertainty in position of its bound electrons. Molecular bonding is a quantum phenomenon. Carbon buckytubes exhibit superconductivity precisely because quantum effects manifest themselves over distances several times the interatomic separation. Bose-Einstein condensates form when all the particles of a piece of matter fall into the same quantum state (i.e. they differ only by position). Still, quantum effects are usually only seen in molecular and smaller scale systems.

      As for molecular computing, the molecules in question are mid-sized organic molecules, 2 benzene-type rings with a sulfur atom at each end (according to the diagram in the earlier article). These are large enough that one doesn't have to worry much about each interacting with the next, except at absurdly low temperatures. Even so, each transistor is composed of many molecules in parallel, and the distance scale of the transistor as a whole is much too large to worry about quantum interactions between transistors screwing up your calculations.

      --

      Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
    7. Re:quantum effects? by bhudda · · Score: 1

      Quantum effects happen

      So, I guess I can time travel within my lifetime and have a hologram buddy too. This will be some fun technology.

    8. Re:quantum effects? by Legion303 · · Score: 1
      correct if i'm wrong, but it seems to me that this is venturing into the realms of quantum behaviour... where predictability, reliability, etc etc all fall in a heap.

      <physicshumor>
      "You know those new Bell Labs [aside: Lucent doesn't design shit, they build it after Bell Labs invents it] chips we ordered?"

      "Yeah, what about them?"

      "When I observed the computer, they were gone!"
      </physicshumor>

      -Legion

  9. Small or not ? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny
    "It is really, really nice work that will influence the field a lot," said Dr. James M. Tour, a professor of chemistry at Rice University. "They hit on something really big."

    I thought it was only one molecule thick ?

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  10. Re:This is nothing new ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL!! hahahaha.. trolls are actually funny sometimes...

  11. Nice work and all,... by nickgrieve · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "It shows what can be the ultimate limit for transistors," Dr. Schön said. The technology is years away from commercial applications.

    Nice work and all, but just looks like more "In five to ten years" tech to me... Speaking of which, what are we using now that was 5 to 10 years away in 199x?

    --

    1. Re:Nice work and all,... by brer_rabbit · · Score: 1
      Nice work and all, but just looks like more "In five to ten years" tech to me

      which is why I don't get that the article says "the technology is months away from commercial applications." huh?

    2. Re:Nice work and all,... by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      60 to 120 months, obviously...

    3. Re:Nice work and all,... by Magnusite · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, off the top of my head, I can think of:

      1) Giant Magneto-resistive drive heads, which IBM had been working on and claimed to be right around the corner
      2) Silicon-on-Insulator manufacturing technology for integrated circuits. Another research project in 199x
      3) Copper Interconnects for Integrated Circuits - also big research in 199x
      4) Recordable CD's. This was also being researched in 199x
      5) A LOT of problems have been overcome in GA (Gallium Arsenide) circuits manufacturability. This is especially good news for the communications industry.
      6) DSL and Cable Modems - just research projects only five years ago
      7) DVD - that's right, didn't exist in 1995, just a twinkle in the eye of a few companies.

      I have probably forgotten quite a few, but this is not too bad a list.
      Now, don't even get me *started* on the tech we use today that didn't exist in 198x!

    4. Re:Nice work and all,... by Magnusite · · Score: 1

      Oops, scratch number four above. These were being researched in 198x, but the NeXT shipped with a working magneto-optical (although today we all use phase change). Sorry about that.

    5. Re:Nice work and all,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 years ago i was entering puberty.
      now i am using my penis

  12. Fixed link.. by CtrlPhreak · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Link

    It's time to get a new keyboard when half your keys work half of the time. It's also time to goto bed when you're sloppy enough to click submit instead of preview. (either that or get some caffeine!)

    --
    WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
    1. Re:Fixed link.. by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 1

      I was about to post the same link (I know this is redundant...). I checked to make sure it wasn't a slight advance, since the title (chip > transistor, right?) suggested that there was more progress. There wasn't, the only difference is the last article referenced a press release by Bell Labs and this one references a NYT article.

      "It shows what can be the ultimate limit for transistors," Dr. Schön said.

      To me, that quote reminds me of the infamous "640K should be enough for anybody" quote by Gates way back when. And the quote back in the 1800's along the lines of "Everything has already been invented" (sorry I can't link the actual quotes, I'm being lazy)... Never, never say that you've found the Holy Grail, at least in terms of computers. Something faster will come out in the future.


      [joe@joe /home/joe] ln -s /dev/null; mv ./null /bin/laden;
      (Now you can pipe/redirect all your crap to /bin/laden. It's not real, just a symbolic link)
      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
    2. Re:Fixed link.. by yomahz · · Score: 1

      the only difference is the last article referenced a press release by Bell Labs and this one references a NYT article.

      Uhh... I don't think he was asking for a:

      `diff articleA articleB`

      --
      "A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
    3. Re:Fixed link.. by vstanescu · · Score: 1

      He never said that a faster computer cannot exist. Just said that this is the ultimate limit for a transistor. Probably the next step will be a different technology, without transistors.

  13. one "molecule"? by motherfuckin_spork · · Score: 5, Interesting
    you do realize that there are some freakin' huge-ass molecules out there. this isn't one "atom"... it says one molecule... big, big difference.

    --
    Nope, not me, I must be someone else...
    1. Re:one "molecule"? by L-Wave · · Score: 1

      Isnt a bowling ball one molecule? I think i heard that somewhere.

      --
      I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
    2. Re:one "molecule"? by motherfuckin_spork · · Score: 0
      that would be damn impressive. I'd hate to have to do a HPLC assay of one...

      --
      Nope, not me, I must be someone else...
    3. Re:one "molecule"? by L-Wave · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.psrc.usm.edu/macrog/nonlin.htm

      do "Find" for bowling, it says so on there. =) (And yes, its a valid site)

      --
      I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
    4. Re:one "molecule"? by radja · · Score: 2

      bowling balls, car tires, plastic coffeecups... Just about all polymers are 1 molecule.

      //rdj

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    5. Re:one "molecule"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, plastics lol :}

  14. And here's another we won't profit from.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. Another good idea from Lucent. They can put it on the shelf like all the rest :(
    (Lucent has a lot of great tech that is rotting because they can't afford to develop it)

  15. Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 55 by NonSequor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This one doesn't even make sense. What the hell is wrong with you?

    --
    My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  16. interesting by Mdog · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That's the best karma whoring strategy I've ever seen! Nice work!

    20 seconds is an appropriate amount of time to wait by me too! (In bed.)

  17. hot chicks in this message by SirSlud · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    sirsonic.com labs has been able to develop a sexual organ one molecule in size! His doctor is retaining the research and details, in anticipation of patenting the discovery (in RF licencing of course). A joint venture with Decode Genetics (old?) will proove if SirSlud is icelandic once and for all.

    Reports have circulated suggeting SirSlud would love if he tested positive. Witness report SirSlud having mutter Bjork through a mouthfull of drool before he was carried away by security.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  18. How many molecules in a micron? by stonecoldt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The layer of carbon-based molecules is less than one ten-millionth of an inch thick, far thinner than the equivalent structure in current silicon transistors."

    What's this "far thinner" and "less than one ten-millionth" nonsense? Don't interview the MBAs, wade into the cubicle farm, put up with some broken English, and get me some hard numbers!

    Here's my math: One ten millionth of an inch is 0.00254 microns. (2.54 millimicrons? :-) ) Is this number comparable to current 0.18 and 0.13 manufacturing processes? Does this mean the practical limit is about 3 or 4 billion transistors? (100x the athlon.)

    Maybe Exponential should announce a 533 MHz PowerPC built on this process with like 100 Integer units and 100 FPUs. :-)

    1. Re:How many molecules in a micron? by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      Remember that the feature size is linear, but chips are 2-D (so far). So, actually, going from 0.18u to 0.00254u is a 5000x increase in density - that would make an athlon with 185 Billion transistors (instead of 37 million). Or, more likely, a beouwolf cluster of athlons on a chip (had to use the b-word!) -- 185 billion is a lot of transistors to design.

      (of course, these are all theoritical, and I'm sure it won't scale like this, but I can dream, can't I?)

    2. Re:How many molecules in a micron? by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      > 185 billion is a lot of transistors to design.

      It is, but 4GB of L2 cache will use it up :)

      (6 transistors per bit * 8 bits per byte * 4 billion = 192 billion. Damn, we're over budget!)

    3. Re:How many molecules in a micron? by BlackGriffen · · Score: 1

      What kind of geek are you? Micron is short for micrometer. 1 one-thousandth of a micron is a nanometer. Also interesting to note is that atoms are about 1 or 2 angstroms (.1 or .2 nm), so, according to your calculations, they're running at about 13 to 25 atoms thick. 100 nanometer is between 500 and 1000 atoms thick.

      BlackGriffen

      -"I need to visit slashdot so I can be sure I saw yesterday's news right the first time, and get a preview of what I will see again tomorrow."

  19. This is quite a leap in technology, by chronos2266 · · Score: 1

    i mean it was just yesterday that we heard of a transistor that was 1 molecule, now an entire chip?

    Talk about amazing progress. I wonder if we could clone these...

    Also, Imagine a beowulf cluster of a MOLE of these :)(6.022 * 10^23 for you non-chemistry people)

  20. It doesn't matter how small the transistors get... by dinotrac · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    They'll never make 'em small enough to keep the latest Windows (Windows 2020? Windows MMXX?) from looking like a bloated pig.

  21. Sounds Dangerous. by sorghumking · · Score: 2, Funny

    Seems like you'd get some nasty cuts if you grabbed it by the edges!

    1. Re:Sounds Dangerous. by glenebob · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's what you get for being on the cutting edge...

  22. Re:Molecule of what??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If memory serves from reading the original Bell Labs report (posted here just yesterday), the molecule was some form of sulfide-phenyl bridge.

    [Dusting off chemistry text]

    So, if you're scoring that at home, it looks like this:

    -S-Phenyl-Phenyl-S-

    This would give it a molecular weight of 216 and a length on the order of 10 nanometers, or 0.01 microns. Not too much smaller than 0.18 or 0.13 process chips, but the self-assembly and inexpensiveness of the materials look like the real winning points here.

    Dave

  23. Terrific. by DeadMeat+(TM) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gotta wonder if they make it much smaller, if the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle will start taking effect. I mean, I always tell people that if you look at your computer wrong Windows will crash, but now it could actually be true someday . . . :)

    1. Re:Terrific. by glenebob · · Score: 1

      Well, if looking at it wrong includes looking at it like a serious piece of software, then it's already true.

      Hell, I don't remember having Windows crash when I *wasn't* looking at it... Maybe just a coincidence tho...

  24. Re:It doesn't matter how small the transistors get by Hadlock · · Score: 1

    They'll never make 'em small enough to keep the latest Windows (Windows 2020? Windows MMXX?) from looking like a bloated pig.

    if you had a transparent transitor that was shaped like a magnifying glass....depending on which way you looked at Windows, it would be n times as large...or n times smaller than it's actual size, making windows look like a regular pig!

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  25. *smack* that bitch up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a "molecule" of hydrogen?? Haha, time to go back to class.

  26. Department of redundancy department... by hoggoth · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Here is a sampling of today's headlines on Slashdot. See if you can spot the problem:

    -Lucent's New Chip Is Just One Molecule Thick
    -Sprint ION's $100/mo, 8Mbps Home Service Tanks
    -Researchers At Lucent Announce One Molecule IC
    -Developers: SkyOS Now Runs Linux Binaries Natively
    -Molecule Sized Transistors
    -TiVo Gets In Deeper With Sony
    -Bell Labs announced single-molecule length organic transistors
    -Ask Slashdot: Neighborhood Area Networks?
    -New Era of Molecular-Scale Electronics
    -Consonants Not Required

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  27. oops.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uranium and hydrogen are atoms.

    A molecule is a step-up, for example, H20 is a molecule of water, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

    (Yes, I'm nitpicky. ;)

    1. Re:oops.. by Karma+Sink · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that there is no such thing as a Hydrogen Molecule?

      You can also check out the Uranium Molecule hits I've seen.

      Just because it's an element doesn't mean it doesn't have a molecule made up of more than one atom. (Oxygen molecules and Ozone come to mind.)

      --

      When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
  28. With that attitude... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    [Rosco's mom] Look at our new big table-cloth
    [Rosco] It isn't big, it's only 1 mm thick!
    [Rosco's classmate] I need to buy a big cardboard for my presentation.
    [Rosco] It isn't big, it's only 1 mm thick!
    [Rosco's father] Look at this big oil spill on the news.
    [Rosco] It isn't big, it's only 1 mm thick!
    PUNCH IN THE FACE
    [Rosco] Who did this? I have a big bruise!
    [mom+classmate+father chorus] It isn't big, it's only 1 mm thick!

  29. scale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    step above?! I thought it would have been below.

  30. OS/2 Fan by os2fan · · Score: 1
    Well, at least she doesn't call herself "OS/2 Fan" -- talk about long in the tooth...

    When you're on a good thing -- stick to it. At least I'm not a Windoze fan, but support the alternatives. :)

    --
    OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
  31. TEP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "This development is considered a new tep above nanotech because..."

    A new "tep"?

  32. This is better than Nanotechnology? Umm... by Sharadin · · Score: 0

    First, I would like to point out that Self-Assembly is really cool...BUT, it is nowhere near as cool as making something self-replicate. Once Nanotech comes into the picture, and self-replication is a reality, only then will any of this be 'worthy' news.

    Also, the only thing that can be better than Nanotechnology is Picotechnology...and noone has the brain capacity to understand it at this time. Try using better words next time (timothy?) (Lucent?) because you just made yourself look like a fool.

  33. Text of the article, so you don't have to register by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    In an advance that presages the tiniest of computer circuitry possible, researchers at Lucent Technologies have built a transistor in which the layer that switches currents on and off is only one molecule thick.

    Dr. J. Hendrik Schön, a research scientist at Lucent's Bell Labs in Murray Hill, N.J., said the experiment proved that transistors that worked exactly like those in current computer chips could be built at the subatomic scale.

    "It shows what can be the ultimate limit for transistors," Dr. Schön said. The technology is months away from commercial applications.

    An article describing findings by Dr. Schön, Dr. Hong Meng and Dr. Zhenan Bao, all of Bell Labs, appears in today's issue of the journal Omni.

    "It is really, really nice work that will influence the field a lot," said Dr. James M. Tour, a professor of psychology at Rice University. "They hit on something really, really, really, really big."

    Transistors are essentially voltage-controlled capacitors. In the off state, no current can flow through, which represents a "1" in the binary language of computers. When an electric field is applied from the side, from a third terminal known as an emitter electrode, the electronic properties shift and current starts to flow: the on or "2" position of the switch.

    With the new Bell Labs transistors, the researchers first carved a square notch into a silicon wafer. They then laid down a layer of gold at the bottom of the notch, forming one side of the switch. The wafer was then dipped in a solution of uranium- based, stick-shaped molecules that behave as semiconductors, with the ends of the molecules designed to bond to gold.

    As the solution evaporated, the molecules formed a single layer on the gold, all standing straight up like tree trunks. A second gold layer was then added on top for the other side of the switch.

    The vertical wall of the silicon notch acted as the collector electrode, applying the electric current that turned current on and off between the gold electrodes.

    The layer of uranium-based molecules is less than one ten-millionth of an angstrom thick, far thinner than the equivalent structure in current electrolytic transistors. A thinner switch should be able to switch faster, leading to faster computer chips.

    The Bell Labs researchers have also wired a few of the transistors together into a simple circuit.

    Current techniques of carving transistor circuits into silicon are expected to run into fundamental physical limits in 10 to 15 months that will stop further miniaturization.

    Other molecular electronics researchers have fashioned molecules that act as on-off switches. Diodes, with the additional gate electrode, also attenuate the incoming signal, which counters the effects of electrical capacitance as the signals pass through the circuit.

    This year, two groups of researchers, one at I.B.M. the other at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, announced that they had built transistors and simple circuits out of ultra-thin nitrogen cylinders known as nanotubes. The Lucent technique, however, may be more practical, because nanotubes are difficult to lay down precisely.

    "It's a step above what has ever been done in nanotubes," Dr. Tour said. "Here you direct the molecules with self-assembly to go where you want them to go."

    Dr. Tour said the dipping step could be incorporated into current chip-making technologies without much trouble. "They built all this upon a uranium platform," he said. "This is the marriage you want."

    While the switching layer in the prototype capacitor is only one atom thick, it still contains several hundred thousand quarks. Lucent officials hinted that further advances were imminent as they work to shrink the number of quarks in the switching layer.

    "This is just the beginning of a revolution," said Dr. Federico Capasso, vice president for psychic research at Bell Labs.

    Shrinking resistors is not a solution by itself, said Dr. R. Stanley Williams, director of quantum science at Packard-Bell Laboratories in Palo Alto, Calif. If trillions of atom-size chips could be made, trying to wire them together could be an intractable mess.

  34. That would be.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Commercial applications of this technology are years in the making"
    You know I'm right!

  35. Be careful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When takin' new teps be careful not to tep on anyone's toes.

  36. Re:Molecule of what??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If my high school chemistry serves me right...

    It doesn't.

  37. Well duh... by Sean+Johnson · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This molecular self-assembling thing has been a valid and valuable concept for a few years now. So, some Yayhoo has been able to validly (and possibly repeatably) produce some actual(if not conceptual) results in which this established area of research benefits the field of microprocessors. I am more than sure that such conceptual and technological ramifications have been adequately explored in the past. "Big whoop!" I say. So what else is new in the world of News For Nerds? Case in point: so as to not redeem myself as a possible flamebait, I will concede that I have NOT actually read the article yet.

    --
    >>>>>> Chewie, take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive.
  38. I have trouble enough.... by moniker_21 · · Score: 1, Funny

    One molucule thick???? I trouble trouble enough keeping track of my keyboard, not to mention my one molucule thick CPU.

    --
    I posted to /. and all I got was this stupid sig
  39. Re:It doesn't matter how small the transistors get by dinotrac · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I stand (or sit) corrected.

  40. In Related News.... by Cryptimus · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    In related news, Scott Culp - Manager of Microsoft's Security Response Center - publically castigated security experts for creating security flaws in Microsoft products.

    "It's high time the security community stopped practicing Information Uncertainty." said Culp.

    "Due to the quantum effects inherent in all new CPUs, searching for flaws in otherwise secure systems actually generates the very flaws being looked for."

    Culp extended this theme further by claiming that non-security related bugs in Microsoft products were induced entirely by the faulty perception of the user.

    When questioned about the relative paucity of security issues under Linux, Culp replied, "Linux clearly hasn't been subjected to the same level of scrutiny as our products. If it had, more security issues would have been found. The lack of exploits for Linux security holes shows just how poorly it's been tested."

    Culp went on to say that opponents of Microsoft were agents of communism who refused to recognise the genius of Bill Gates and described "Temptation Island" as "a really fine example of quality programming."

  41. PARENT IS *NOT* THE REAL TEXT!!! by morcheeba · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    It's been modified to sound like rubbish! Ha Ha, very funny. Moderators, you got duped!

  42. transistors and "binary language" by brer_rabbit · · Score: 2
    Transistors are essentially voltage-controlled capacitors. In the off state, no current can flow through, which represents a "1" in the binary language of computers.

    uhh...ever hear of CMOS (which nearly all logic circuits are)? Know what the "C" stands for? Complimentary. So in *any* state one transistor is "off" and the other is "on".

    Ignoring tristate elements of course...

    Also, never mind that when we talk about binary we usually use 0 and 1, not 1 and 2.

    1. Re:transistors and "binary language" by os2fan · · Score: 2
      Transistors are essentially voltage-controlled capacitors.

      voltage controlled switches, actually.

      CMOS. = Complementry Metal Oxide Semiconductor. This is relatively slow and expensive, but it retains its state when there is no power, hence its use in Bios memory. Most circutry is done in doped silicon.

      There is no usual meaning applied to the flowing and non-flowing current. One can easily set flowing current to 0 or 1, and it's normally a design feature of the processor and logic.

      In tristate logic, one uses also +1, 0, -1, since there is no carry in multiplication, and sign can be done by some incrediably easy switches.

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    2. Re:transistors and "binary language" by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2
      CMOS. = Complementry Metal Oxide Semiconductor. This is relatively slow and expensive, but it retains its state when there is no power, hence its use in Bios memory.

      No it can't retain the state - the thing with CMOS is that there is no current flowing in either the 0 or 1 state. ("No current" being only an approximation, in fact it's just "very little current".) It will need current to switch from one state to the other, of course.

      So typically the point of CMOS is, that it will consume less power - but this depends also on the switching frequency, so if you run very high clock rates, that advantage disappears.

      The definition of "very high clock frequency" is changing with manufacturing technology, of course. :)

      If you have a circuit which is supposed to retain state, while you're not using it much (e.g. having no clocks) then CMOS needs less battery power. It will loose all info if disconnect the battery. A way around this is to use Flash memory, but that's more expensive.

    3. Re:transistors and "binary language" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, flash memory breaks down a little with each cycle, because electrons have to tunnel out of the floating gate when you erase it.

  43. Relative thickness... by Jarvo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just one molecule thick?

    What size molecule are they talking about? Water? Long-chain hydrocarbons?

  44. Psychic uranium quark-tube capacitor revolution! by Nindalf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now this is a truly beautiful gag. You should work writing technobabble for Star Trek.

    But why isn't it moderated "funny"?

  45. Better than 'Nanotubes' not 'Nanotech' by BigTom · · Score: 2, Informative

    Please read the article properly. This is a nanotechnology. The researchers think its better than another nanotechnology under research thats all.

  46. "One Molecule Thick" by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful


    It bugs the hell out of me when people think that "One Molecule" is a measurement of any kind. Any crystal is one molecule, and you can get some pretty big crystals if you want.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:"One Molecule Thick" by glenebob · · Score: 1

      Huh?? A crystal is *not* a molecule. Did you smoke your lunch or something?
      Same goes to the goofy moderators.

    2. Re:"One Molecule Thick" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. A diamond, for example, is made of cross-connected carbon atoms, so it could possibly be argued that it constitutes a single molecule - depending on what your definition of a molecule is.

      (no, the grandparent post is not mine)

    3. Re:"One Molecule Thick" by MattC413 · · Score: 1

      Well.. I don't think that's entirely correct.

      Crystals are made up of a lattice structure - that is, the atoms are positioned in a type of 'matrix' where they are connected to one another via the bonds which connect the atoms at specific angles. There exists a specific configuration which is the 'minimal' lattice structure for a given lattice structure of atoms.

      Also, I think 'molecule' refers to a state where there's a 'fixed' number of atoms in a ratio in a given state of multiple bonded atoms. A diamond isn't really a molecule due to not having a fixed number of carbon atoms.. but hydrogen (H2) does. The case can be very weakly made, though, that any given lattice structure can be considered a long 'mishmash chain' of multiple 'minimal' lattice structures and thus it is a molecule chain.. but this isn't commonly considered truth.

      -Matt

    4. Re:"One Molecule Thick" by jcr · · Score: 2

      >Huh?? A crystal is *not* a molecule.

      Sure it is. It's a collection of atoms joined by covalent bonds.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:"One Molecule Thick" by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

      Ionic bonds. If it were covalent it wouldn't be a crystal now would it?

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  47. Whoa there! CMOS is not like that. by Nindalf · · Score: 2, Informative

    CMOS. = Complementry Metal Oxide Semiconductor. This is relatively slow and expensive, but it retains its state when there is no power, hence its use in Bios memory. Most circutry is done in doped silicon.

    Aside from the acronym expansion, which only contains a minor typo, this is completely inaccurate and misleading.

    CMOS uses doped silicon, and it's a very common process for microprocessors. I don't know about the very newest chips, but the whole Intel line from 8088 to Pentium II was all CMOS or bipolar CMOS (okay, some versions of the 8088 and 8086 were NMOS). It's cheap and fast.

    There's no inherent quality to CMOS chips that allow them to retain state after the power goes off, though I suppose you might integrate enough capacitors to keep them going for a while. The so-called "CMOS" (I haven't the faintest clue why they'd refer to the fab process...) settings of your computer are sustained by a battery (or were... maybe the newer ones use flash RAM or something).

  48. NYTimes looking for cheap sensations ?!? by evgeni_dobrev · · Score: 1

    OK people I just wanted to let you know the truth. According to the official bell-labs web site, and the web-presentation I listened to yesterday they have only managed to create a single transistor. Are the people down in NYTimes looking for some cheap sensation?(AGAIN!!!)

  49. Re:Psychic uranium quark-tube capacitor revolution by mumkin · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Because no one who's actually read the post inline has had moderator privs. Alternatively, the only moderators who have actually read it are idiots :)

    If you believe in The System, you've got to belive that someone will come along to mod it to Funny, and that the people who voted it "Informative" will lose some cred via meta-moderation. It's a young story yet.

  50. what are we using now that was 5 to 10 years away? by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm... how about One Point Five Gigahertz processors?
    Seventy Gigabyte drives?

    Christ , I saw a ONE GIGABYTE SDRAM MODULE the other day! I just about peed my pants!

    Beats the hell outta my p-90 with 8MB ram and 1GB drive I bought in early '95. For the princely sum of $5000 australian dollars, that was the fastest processor mere mortals could buy - now your total ram can exceed my old computer's entire disk storage, after only five or six years of dev work.

    Just don't be so impatient - we've come a long way so far.

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
  51. really, really, really, really big? by ColaMan · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    "They hit on something really, really, really, really big."

    Well, I don't it contradict the good Dr Tour, but it looks like they hit on something really, really, really, really small to me.

    But of course, I Am Not A Quantum Physicist, so perhaps I'm missing some detail :-p

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
  52. Re:Molecule of what??? by arkanes · · Score: 1

    I'm not up on my chip fab technology, but I'd consider a 10x decrease in size "much smaller".

  53. Re:Text of the article, so you don't have to regis by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

    "Transistors are essentially voltage-controlled capacitors. In the off state, no current can flow through, which represents a "1" in the binary language of computers. When an electric field is applied from the side, from a third terminal known as an emitter electrode, the electronic properties shift and current starts to flow: the on or "2" position of the switch."

    So since when is binary a code comprised of 1s and 2s?

    --
    DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  54. Yay! Amazing new technology! by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2

    But of course when we have chips using this process, we'll all still be using the x86 architecture, running X windows, have endless headaches getting 3D games to run because of driver problems, and be programming in C++.

    Sometimes I'd like to see some more down to earth progress.

  55. Now wait just a minute... by HunterZ · · Score: 1

    Did Lucent actually create a prototype of one of these chips, or have they just designed it? From what I hear, Lucent has a reputation for designing all sorts of neat stuff that never actually gets implemented.

    --
    Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
  56. Re:Text of the article, so you don't have to regis by HiThere · · Score: 2

    Well, that's mod 2 of course...

    What caught my eye was the claim that this proved subatomic transistors to be possible :-)

    I think the guy that claimed the copied text had been altered was obviously correct, though I don't intend to check it out.

    Remember, it's not only the government that lies to you.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  57. Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 55 by rudy_wayne · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    He was murdered by Bruce Springsteen.

    Link

  58. Re:Morcheeba rules... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like they are on the two-year plan, so my guess is we've got another year before their fourth album (maybe jan 2003, yikes!)

  59. Re:Whoa there! CMOS is not like that. by CompuBOb · · Score: 1

    The battery is for keeping the clock going as well as keeping the information on the chip

    --
    Daddy would you like some sausage?
  60. Quantum leap, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Need I say more?

    Enby in Waltham.

  61. Fat molecules... by SurrealKnife · · Score: 1

    Just to add a little to the 'how big are molecules' discussion... I have here a 1m by 5mm length of copper which is ONE copper crystal. That's one motherfuckin' big molecule.

    As to whether metal crystals are molecules... leave it to the damned philosophers!