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."

Comments

Another article with a little more information...

[Dammital]

... can be found here.

Nanologic ***Circuits** Have Already Been Built...

[cybrpnk2]

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...

IBM articles...

[edgrale]

can be found here and the full press release here

SI units?

[brejc8]

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.

Single wall carbon nanotube practical issues.

[caesar-auf-nihil]

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.

Clicking on MSNBC link may download hostile code

[Animats]

Clicking on the link for the MSNBC article may result in an attempt to download "ADSAAdClient31.dll". This is apparently some kind of ad delivery system / spyware.

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.