Slashdot Mirror
IBM Nanotechnology Transistor Faster than Silicon
Dustin Destree writes: "This article on MSNBC talks about how IBM has developed a new transistor based on nanotube technology that at its first stages outperforms even the fastest silicon transistor. Interesting read that gives ideas about where the computer industry is heading in the next few years."
Got to say, the only really interesting thing I got from the article was that they can build nanotransistors that can take a fair amout of current. This has been a problem with some prior implementations
I suspect this might just be PR; they haven't shown that they can produce nanotransistors at a reasonable cost, or hook them together in large enough arrays.
"As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig.
Calling Moore's law a law is a misnomer. There's no science or math behind it. Moore just made some simple observations, drew a line on a graph, and said "Hey, look at that, doubles every 18 months." There's no fundamental reason for chip development to go at that rate, it's just a trend that we've happened to follow. It could in fact be a self fullfilling prophecy. People expect chips to develop at that rate, so that's what marketing and development shoot for.
Since the IBM experiments (and others done elsewhere) almost always use single wall carbon nanotubes, there are a few issues of practical nature I wonder about with this technology.
One is that single wall nanotubes are oxygen sensitive. Specifically, contact with O2 will cause single site defects in the nanotube structure, thus causing the whole nanotube to lose its electronic properties. It makes me wonder about how they will package these "molecular transistors" such that O2 can't get to it, but the encapsulation of the nanotube doesn't cause it to short out.
Another is that when these things heat up, they do ignite. As we've seen with the light-based ignition shown in Science and here on slashdot, these materials do burn. The above mentioned oxygen reaction sometimes causes the semi-conducting nanotubes to become insulators, thus they heat up, ignite, and disintegrate. So I'm wondering if frying one's nanotube-based chip would be more than just a figurative term if this happened.
Finally, there is the fabrication issue. I know that in the near future, one can make kilotons of nanotubes, and probably even kilograms of single wall nanotubes today (maybe 2kg a year, but you don't need that much if you only need 1 nanotube), but how are you going to fabricate them into architechures onto chips with existing chip fabrication technology?
Maybe IBM has all this worked out. I do have to remember that what they've published today is what they already have covered in patents and what they've been working on already for several months to one year. They don't publish unless they've got more going on AND if they already have the technology protected.
-When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
It seems that one of the main concerns facing chips today is over heating. How does this new technolgy hold up in this respect?
The highest end RAM chips have 100-500 million gates on them and sell for a few dollars. No other technology approaches this cost effectiveness.
I'm only going to tell you morons this one more time!
The second law of thermodynamics is an empirical law. It is based upon observations, with no theory backing it up. It's like watching traffic and saying "of the last 100 cars, 20 of them were blue, ergo, 20% of all cars are blue".
So I don't want you losers trotting out that little bit of 19th century superstition when trying to explain why that "anomolous heat" can't possibly exist, hence these fine upstanding chemists are obivious frauds who lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.
If you yoyos weren't so busy burying your heads in the sand, you'd have the time to take an honest look at the data and do your own damn experiments to prove or disprove the matter once and for all. Instead you engage in ad hominem attacks rather than doing real science.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff