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."
We have seen many things in the last two years that outperform silicon based transistors. When it becomes cost effective and just plain realistic, thats when I wan't to hear about it. Is there anything cool that we might actually be using in 5 years?
I always wondered if the law was right, because we just keep putting more and more people on the task of making the machines faster. There are a lot more people working on making computers faster now then when he said that.
;)
On the other hand, software has a way of becoming so abstract as to ensure that computers will always need to get faster.
Since the article is about nanotechnology does it mean that it has to be a small read as well? Dont look for anything concerning this issue for the next 5 years.
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
it just doesn't have quite the ring that "Silicon Valley" has, does it?
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
"The carbon nanotube...is the strongest fiber in nature and 10 times stronger than steel."
Faster, more powerful... in the next round of tests perhaps we'll find out it reacts poorly when in the vicinity of kryptonite.
As a side note, IBM seems hell-bent on getting out of the hardware business, so if they manufacture carbon transistors themselves or license the technology to another firm remains to be seen.
Can I be looking forward to buying some borg nano probes any time soon?
Hacker Media
... can be found here.
First of all, nano is e-9, not e-12 like says. Second, the tubes don't carry electric charge on the interiors like a straw. It is carried on the surface--the interior is a vacuum. And fourth, the tubes are nano in length as well, which kind of makes making a ribbon cable moot.
Not to take anything away from IBM, but not only have individual nanotube transistors already been done, but they're already being used to produce inttegrated circuits of logic gates in Europe at Delft University of Technology. A paper about their nanotube logic circuitry is here...
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.
Ok thats all fine and dandy to say we can now have transistors which will carry on moores law for another x years but there are still physical problems we cannot get roud without rethinking the whole VLSI consept.
In future technology it will take several clock cycles to get a signal at a speed of light from one side of the chip to the other. Its impossible to breat that rule.
Imagine distributing a clock where the destination is 50 cycles ahead and each clock path has to be accurate to within a 10th of a cycle.
Or if one transistor has one atom of impurity it will make a pipeline stage three times slower and basicly make the chip unworkable.
The material to make these circuits out of isnt the biggest problem. Even before silicon runs out of steam we will hit a great big technology wall which requires new ways of thinking.
I beleve asynchronous logic is the answear but thats just me.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
can be found here and the full press release here
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
That is if they are used for 300hrs consecutively... If the technology is fast enough, they will have rolling blackouts inside the processors. That way no one set of cores is in use for an extended period of time. This will extend the life of the circuits, and of the chip.
Don't forget this is an IBM's R&D lab here. In 24-48 months we will hear that not only do they last an unlimited amount of time, they are twice as fast, and three times as small. Only thing between this new merical and us will be a huge licensing fee.
Speed=Heat=Wear. The principals of Moores Law could also track the life expectancy of the faster technologies.
100,000 thinner than a human hair? Can anyone tell me what that is in nm/pm ?
Currently we are working on a 1,000,000th the size of a cow process to make our chips.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
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!
IBM announced it has created the highest performing nanotubes transistors to date and has proven that carbon nanotubes -- tube-shaped molecules made of carbon atoms that are 50,000 times thinner than a human hair -- can outperform the leading silicon transistor prototypes available today.
From the MSNBC article:
ARMONK, NEW YORK-BASED IBM said it used a carbon nanotube -- a tiny cylindrical structure made up of carbon atoms that is about 100,000 times thinner than a human hair
So which is it - 100,000 or 50,000 times smaller than a human hair? It seems that there is quite a bit of hype on the MSNBC side of things. Doesn't it bother anyone that MSNBC distorted the truth?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
In addition to looking at using the carbon nanotube, which is the strongest fiber in nature and 10 times stronger than steel, scientists are also studying the possibility of quantum computing based on atoms.
Oh? Silicon computing isn't based on atoms?
Watch IBM patent this tech and send it careening towards another MCA-type failure....
-- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
For those looking for this story, it is posted on the IBM Research website. There are also news stories on the NY Times and C|Net.
JS - IBM Metaverse devteam
The opinions expressed here are mine & not necessarily representative of IBM
Do not click on that link with automatic downloading of DLLs or Active-X controls enabled.
I was surprised to see hostile code from a supposedly respectable news organization. There's no contractual relationship or EULA which could possibly justify this. In California, this is a criminal offense. California law is tougher on computer viruses and related hostile code than other states.
Here's the relevant Calfornia law:
"502. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to expand the degree of protection afforded to individuals, businesses, and governmental agencies from tampering, interference, damage, and unauthorized access to lawfully created computer data and computer systems." ...
-
(4) Knowingly accesses and without permission adds, alters,
damages, deletes, or destroys any data, computer software, or
computer programs which reside or exist internal or external to a
computer, computer system, or computer network.
- (5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the
disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of
computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer
system, or computer network.
- (6) Knowingly and without permission provides or assists in
providing a means of accessing a computer, computer system, or
computer network in violation of this section.
- (7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be
accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network.
-
(8) Knowingly introduces any computer contaminant into any
computer, computer system, or computer network.
That seems to cover it.I have filed a complaint with the Office of the California Attorney General in this matter.
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've heard of the company this guy works for. Their products are a load of crap.
CNET version of the same article.
An interesting quote from the article...
The small (size) is of course very important, but it is a little bit overhyped. It is really the performance we are after," said Phaedon Avouris, manager of nanoscience and nanotechnology for IBM Research.
Who says size doesn't matter? As long as the electrons are satisfied!
-ez
That's what I was trying to say, just not as well as you have.
Moore's 'LAW' probably is a self fullfilling prophecy, and someday as all the naysayers state, it will not come true.
However, I believe that when that day comes, and the hardware can't be made any faster, then the software will just get more efficient to make the hardware SEEM faster.
The Raven
The Raven
"Is this the first post about Wolfram on a topic not about Wolfram... and is this going to continue. That reminds me: How about a Beowulf Cluster of these things. :)"
Yes, imagine that. A cluster of transistors.
Get a "cluster" of several hundred nodes and you might even have a full adder!
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
Sure, you're not likely to be using this stuff for a while. But don't you find this interesting anyway, both from the perspective of "what's gonna happen when conventional silicon technologies run out in a decade" (if that's indeed going to happen as it seems), and "hey, that's really cool, regardless of whether it's practical or not"?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)