Slashdot Mirror


NASA Wires Chips With Nanotubes

carstene writes "SpaceDaily reports that NASA has come up with a way to wire microchips with nanotubes instead of copper interconnects. Aparently this could keep Moore's law a reality well into the next decade."

48 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. royalties by TerraFrost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    with the money NASA can get off the patents for these, the space program may indeed have a future! :)

    1. Re:royalties by bcwalrus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Can they patent something created using your tax dollars?

    2. Re:royalties by Mac+Degger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think technically they can, but I don't think they do.
      I've seen plans for tiny scanning lasers (for docking alignment) on one of nasa's many websites, and loads of other stuff to boot. There's also a host of other reserach papers available online.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    3. Re:royalties by theRiallatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Riiiight. Keep on believing that. We're going to pay for "R&D" costs from companies making these products whether the government developed it or not. Prices are going to be outrageous when this stuff starts to hit the market regardless of how it was developed.

    4. Re:royalties by ShavenYak · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are mistaken. According to the IRS (who should know), in 2001 individual income tax accounted for over $1 trillion in revenue. Corporate income taxes accounted for less than $200 billion.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  2. NASA vs. Intel by traskjd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just wondering - but how much would NASA have spent to find this out? I mean It's common to see companies like IBM come up with stuff that is cool like this (like the copper idea a few years back). It seems to me that Intel doesn't actually come up with too many new ideas? (I mean sure there chips become faster but not amazing new things).

    I could be wrong. Has Intel done anything this cool? Surely they would spend more money on R&D for processors (I would assume NASA spends more on Space?)

    any info about this would be much appreciated.

    1. Re:NASA vs. Intel by Slowping · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Intel has always held a very conservative line regarding research into far-out new technologies. The vast majority of Intel's research money goes into fab/mount/production technologies.

      For stuff like nano-tubes and quantum computing, Intel usually helps fund academia to let them take the high-risk endeavors. And then take the benefits as they are produced.

      I'm not sure what Intel's current plan is now, but it seems that they're putting more R&D dollars into the mobile/ubiquitous computing market, to try and branch out their chip options, instead of being forever racing against Moore's Law.

      Intel-research.net, for some info on Intel and partnerships with academia on this type of research.

      --
      (\(\
      (^.^)
      (")")
      *beware the cute-bunny virus
    2. Re:NASA vs. Intel by arivanov · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was bought with the Alpha team. Dec, then Compaq has had it in development for circa 10 years before don Cappella decided that they cannot make processors (can someone finally deliver him some clue through the relevant orifice). IBM got it through an older partnership with Compaq/Alpha that predated the sale to Intel.

      Anyway, if not this idiotic decision to sell your crown juvels the game in the server town would have been quite different now. Basically the PPC and Alpha would have been multithreaded while Intel would have still cooked eggs (or boiled water) in a single thread of execution.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  3. quantum entaglement by astafas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What interested me more, was that at the bottom of the article, it mentions that we have quantum entanglement of 3 electrons working. I don't know what will be more useful to continue Moore's Law, the nanotubes or the quantum computers. The nanotubes seem to be an evolutionary upgrade where the quantum computers seem to be more revolutionary.

    1. Re:quantum entaglement by addaon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, in terms of keeping moore's law, clearly the evolutionary technology is preferred. One of the most obvious corollary of moore's law is that progress is continuous; revolutionary directly implies non-continuous, and it seems unlikely that the development of feasible quantum computers would lead to a keeping of moore's law, rather than a breaking of it in one direction or the other.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    2. Re:quantum entaglement by wass · · Score: 4, Informative
      Nanotubes actually have significant potential for quantum computing. Nanotubes are much more than just a carbon 'wire', they are a well-structured crystal with a number of symmetry groups that can be exploited for interesting solid-state effects.

      I know some folks trying to make qubits out of nanotubes by patterning gates on them. Very very hard, they're so damn small standard lithography techniques are out the window.

      Nanotubes also have interesting phonon characteristics that make them good candidates for qubit systems. Also, it has been demonstrated that spin-orbit coupling in nanotubes can be drastically reduced, which can greatly enhance coherence times for spintronic qubits.

      So, if Intel or NASA is "only" looking at using these guys for interconnects, carbon nanotubes still have significant potential for revolutionary computing breakthroughs.

      --

      make world, not war

  4. Sorry Dave by bcwalrus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now Mr. Bowman is supposed to pull Hal's nanotube? That's a bit hard.

  5. need more info? by jayoyayo · · Score: 5, Informative

    oddly enough, for more in depth information, check out the recorded answers they provide for integration into radio broadcasts.

  6. Re:How good conductors? by DCowern · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oh, I'd say that they conduct somewhere around "more than a million amperes of current in a one square centimeter area without any deterioration". Direct quote from the article...

  7. I gotta do it.... by tiger_66_y2k · · Score: 4, Funny

    Okay everybody you can LOOK at my new CPU, but what every you do, DON'T TAKE A PICTURE!!!

    *flash*
    **POP**

    ....shit....

    :)

  8. Re:Why is NASA doing this? by repetty · · Score: 3, Funny

    NASA doesn't have enough money to do space travel.

  9. Re:Why is NASA doing this? by Mage+Powers · · Score: 4, Funny

    >Why don't NASA use their very limited amount of money for something acutally useful to Space travel.

    Like what? I know! they could make smaller chips for their computers so they could have more onboard computing power without sacrificing having a few spares! oh wait, that probbly involves playing around with nano tech, whoops!
    besides, they probbly raise funds this way...

  10. Re:NanoTubes... by Muhammar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some Nanotubes are excellent conductors and some are poor conductors - depends on the tube type. So far it has proven difficult to grow only one kind of tube.

    The way out may be a redundancy - several tubes doing the same function.
    Maybe they can use them in vertical connections - for stacking chips up - one onto another, with nanotubes connecting the layers. But the overheating of such compact assemblies would be problem.

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  11. This will take a while to seep down to home users by Suchetha · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What NASA has done is to make a switch from copper connectors to carbon nanotube connectors within the chip and (maybe) the boards. but while this IS a revolutionary step it will be a LONG while until we see this kind of chip for sale in teh home market because :
    • there are very few companies who are geared for this kind of manufacturing since everyone so far has been using copper for the past umpteen years
    • changing over to this kind of manufacturing will be a massive capital investment for a company, especially the companies in the East (asia not new york) where are a lot of these chips/boards are made
    • there are AFAIK no companies that make nanotubes in sufficient quantity and quality to feed the demand for the tubes at the moment
    • unless you are a gamer home computers are more than fast enough now for what we want (internet/email/minor word processing) this kind of tech will only benefit the "Power User" community..
    that said i should add that this is a pretty cool tech.. and i hope it works out.. after all .. <toolman>more POW-er urrhh urrh urrh</toolman>
    Suchetha
    --

    learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
    or one out of three ain't bad
  12. Moores law will never fail! by kinnell · · Score: 3, Funny

    I for one am confident that the media and marketing people will be sufficiently creative to keep people believing in the Moores law myth well into the 23rd century.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    1. Re:Moores law will never fail! by bluGill · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm still waiting for the day when I can go to Best Buy and get a harddrive with more storage than the number of elimentery particals in the universe. I figgure at current rates that is only about 60 years away.

  13. Warrent some explanation by lingqi · · Score: 4, Informative
    nanotubes spontaneously combust when bright light is shone upon them.

    I think it was discovered at RPI.

    AFAIK Oxygen is necessary for this combustion to take place, so your chips would be safe.

    But in the end nobody really knows.

    p.s. this has serious implications on the space-elevator, if y'all havn't thought about it already. =)

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:Warrent some explanation by mdielmann · · Score: 3, Informative

      Note that this is only for single-walled nanotubes...here's an article about it...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  14. Chimps... by K3lvin · · Score: 5, Funny

    I read it "NASA Wires Chimps With Nanotubes"

  15. "good conductors" by lingqi · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't remember nanotubes being excellent conductors (there are not so many free-floating electrons, so resistance is not as low as other materials), however, for the size they can handle a LOT of current. Because the atomic structure is so strong (this also contributes to the tensile strength), large quantities of electrons flowing does not "knock" atoms from their stable positions off, which would cause serious problems (silicon and copper both are exhibiting this troublesome behavior, and will be more problematic as transisters continue to shrink).

    However, there has been recent research that suggest carbon compounds (diamond was it?) can be made to superconduct. It was from Africa, methinks? If that was really possible, nanotubes may have hope.

    I would personally think the next big thing should be joseph-junction based (SQUID) computers, which would REALLY kick butt. (natural resonance frequency of 500GHz!)

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  16. Re:How good conductors? by wass · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Nanotubes come in several chiralities, some of which are semiconducting and some of which are metallic.

    I've measured resistance of a nanotube of approx. 200 nm in length and about 5-10 nm in diameter to be a few hundred kilo-ohms (sorry, don't have exact numbers with me). This was for temperatures from room (300 K) down to about 2 K. We were looking at verifying some initial claims by groups claiming that nanotubes were superconducting. they aren't.

    --

    make world, not war

  17. Re:This will take a while to seep down to home use by kinnell · · Score: 5, Informative
    there are very few companies who are geared for this kind of manufacturing since everyone so far has been using copper for the past umpteen years

    That's completely untrue. For most of the history of the semiconductor industry, aluminium has been used, because the manufacturing process for copper was much more difficult. Copper has only recently become commonplace.

    changing over to this kind of manufacturing will be a massive capital investment for a company, especially the companies in the East (asia not new york) where are a lot of these chips/boards are made

    Changing to new manufacturing processes is a fact of life in the semiconductor industry and happens regularly. It always requires massive capital investment, yet somehow, they seem to manage (see above).

    there are AFAIK no companies that make nanotubes in sufficient quantity and quality to feed the demand for the tubes at the moment

    There are also no companies which manufacture nano scale copper wires for routing layers on ICs. This is because it's not done that way. Once you have a process for growing carbon nano-tubes on chips, you just have make it cost effective - just like any other semiconductor manufacturing technology.

    unless you are a gamer home computers are more than fast enough now for what we want (internet/email/minor word processing) this kind of tech will only benefit the "Power User" community..

    There's no amount of processing power that the desktop software industry will not be able to squander.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  18. "only benefit the "Power User" community" by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ahem...

    People saying "unless you are a gamer home computers are more than fast enough now for what we want (internet/email/minor word processing) " are forgetting that ...

    1 - Starting Word 2024 will require 1.5 TeraFlops because every key you strike will require the calculation of two 8192 bytes key and the exchange of 1024 security tokens / sec, and we have to get ready to cope with that

    2 - My old and faithfull Dual PIII 1Ghz, that was once considered the fastest rig on my block is now just a piece of interesting junk that still allows me to play Quake and encode divxs at the same time, and LOTS of you just dream about doing it for real

    3 - it's not because i'm not a basic luser that immediatly jump categories and becomes a Power User. And if you think a softcore gamer or a hardcore Quaker is a "Power User", you never saw a real 16 CPU machine being "stability tested" for a round or ten of Quake @1024 fps, or the fastest Divx encode ever (11 minutes 8p)...

    4 - "internet/email/minor word processing" can be achieved since 486 DX2 66 with no problem and little fuss... I mean my mail Server/Firewall/Ftp/ Webserver/PDC is a Pentium 133 and it serves the need of 10 ppl...So stop complaining when we allow you the use of a 2 Ghz computer just so you can play Freecell @ 25 fps 8p

    Would be BOFH, hoping for Admin job...

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  19. IBM pioneered Carbon Nanotubing by olePigeon+(Wik) · · Score: 5, Informative

    As reported in the April 27 (2001) issue of the journal Science, IBM researchers have built the world's first array of transistors out of carbon nanotubes -- tiny cylinders of carbon atoms that measure about 10 atoms across, are 500 times smaller than today's silicon-based transistors and are 1,000 times stronger than steel. The breakthrough bypasses the slow process of manipulating individual nanotubes one-by-one, and is more suitable for a future manufacturing process. Story is here.

  20. Re:NanoTubes... by Compuser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, it seems they are using multi-wall nanotubes
    with rather large number of shells. Then you can
    pass enough current to blow out all semiconducting
    shells and get a metallic conductor. I don't
    know if they use this trick but that's what IBM
    people have done a while back.
    The real trick is positioning these nanotubes
    and contacting them. I wonder what they do to
    assure good electrical contact. Typically your
    contacts will be the first to blow out and the
    thing to limit electronic mobility. Plus
    encasing the nanotubes in silica sounds like a
    bad idea because these suckers are really
    sensitive to external perturbations and may not
    conduct as well under external stress.

  21. Re:Why is NASA doing this? by WegianWarrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Faster, smaller, lighter computers are usefull for spacetravel. Just because they sendt a man to the moon with an onboard computer with less calculating power than a cheap pocket calculator and a weight of about 70 lbs (in addition to the 17.5 lbs DSKY) don't means that we should be satisfied with that sort of perfomance in the future.

    BTW, more info on the Apollo guidance computer can be found at "One Giant Leap: The Apollo Guidance Computer" for those interested.

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
  22. One Million Amps!!!???? by addikt10 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Understatement of the year:
    One advantage of using carbon nanotube interconnects within integrated circuits is that these interconnects have the ability to conduct very high currents, more than a million amperes of current in a one square centimeter area without any deterioration, which seems to be a problem with today's copper interconnects,"
    Dr Evil: One - Meelleeeooon Amps!!!!!
  23. More info on their research on carbon tubes.. by cOdEgUru · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google points to here

    Also the interview mentions the fact that in October 2002, it was still in basic research form and could take as much as a couple of years to production and maybe a bit more for commercial purposes.

    But that still bodes well for us since Silicon will tide us through another 10 good years.

    Wish I werent 30 right now. The average lifespan looking like 70 (hopefully!) I just have 40 more years left....oopss.. Panic Attack!

  24. how many amps??? by daveatwork · · Score: 2, Funny

    More than a million Amps in a cm^2?? If space applications in the future are gonna need currents of a million amps going down a wire that feeds under your vertical bed, I sure as hell won't be an astronaut! :-)

  25. I know where they got the idea from by Wicked+L · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just like the microwave, this is just yet another technological advancement made possible by Roswell.

  26. IBM pioneered Carbon Nanotubing led to pixie dust by adzoox · · Score: 2, Informative

    This led to their creation of "pixie dust" which has enabled notebook hard drive capacities to rise. They found unique magnetic properties of "glass" when manipulating compounds on a molecular level.

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  27. That's all nice, but ... by DaneelGiskard · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... processors are not the bottleneck in any way. They are already so fast that buses, caches and memory have a very hard time to keep up, not speeking about secondary or even tertiary memory at all. That's the real bottleneck these days, the buses to the caches and the caches/memory itself. Most of you know how many processor cycles are lost if some data cannot be pulled out of the cache, but must be pulled out of the memory or even the harddisk (we are speaking about millions of ns's here...).

    So I'd like to see some evolutionary/revolutionary inventions in these sectors, rather than making cpu's even faster and making the bottleneck of buses, caches and memories even larger...

  28. does it have to be carbon? by crovira · · Score: 2, Interesting

    couldn't any atom in the valence group do as well? (I'm remembering my old chart of the elements and we could have silicon nanotubes too.)

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  29. Group IV elements by AlpineR · · Score: 3, Informative
    Good thought. The crystal structure of a silicon wafer is the same as a carbon diamond. Germanium, too, routinely grows in a diamond structure. But carbon also forms graphite, which is a sheetlike structure. Carbon nanotubes are essentially rolled up graphite sheets. But silicon and germanium are not stable in sheet structures, so they can't roll into nanotubes.

    However, intense research of carbon is what led to the discovery of buckyballs and nanotubes. Perhaps there other cool forms of silicon which are yet to be discovered.

    On a different topic, how do the NASA researchers propose to connect the nanotubes in a useful way? I can understand growing the tubes on a silicon wafer and filling in the surrounding space, but this just produces a bunch of parallel wires not a designed circuit.

    AlpineR

  30. Are they small enough? by stevesliva · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes, perhaps they promise less resistance than copper interconnect of the same size, but isn't a diameter of 100nm actually a bit large? Can nanotubes shrink, or is their diameter a chemical requirement? According to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, copper wiring pitch should now in 2003 already be 245nm. So with 50% spacing between those nanotubes, you're not even talking a 2x improvement in size over current interconnect. What if the things are too big to be used as interconnect for those 35nm gates we're supposed to see in 2007?

    --
    Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    1. Re:Are they small enough? by dunedan · · Score: 2

      When I was working with nantubes there were some common ones(10,10 tubes) just under 2nm in diameter. is a factor of 100 better?

  31. Ban It! by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 3, Funny

    I call for an immediate ban on all future use of nanotubes by NASA. I don't care about the "performance increases" they claim. All I care about is the health effects of nanotechnology - this must be banned before it gets out of control!

    -Crazy researcher from other recent /. article

  32. Only in America... by uwbbjai · · Score: 2, Funny

    SpaceDaily reports that NASA has come up with a way to wire microchips with nanotubes instead of copper interconnects.

    In other news, Intel's R&D department announced that mounting heatsink+fan on shuttles' thermal tiles can efficiently disspate heat during reentry into the Earth atmosphere.

  33. Smaller wires == More cache by dspeyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Right now, the majority of space on chip is taken up by verious caches. A significant proportion of that space is taken up by wiring. Having much smaller wiring should allow much larger caches. A system with 8Mb on-chip cache (and a well-designed asynchronous algorythm for filling it) would hardly ever wait for the front-side-bus at all.

  34. Re:How good conductors? by wass · · Score: 2, Informative

    yeah, that value didn't include contact resistance. but there are losses in the tube itself. carriers aren't purely ballistic (maybe theoretically but not in our samples). We also couldn't be certain if we truly had single-walled tubes, they could have been ropes. Whether metallic or semiconducting can be determined by noting R decreasing at low T.

    --

    make world, not war

  35. BullSh*t by djohnsto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hyperthreading was built into the very first Pentium 4 (Willamette) processor, who's design started around 1994 (maybe 1995, I don't remember) under the codename P68. Regardless of when the design started, the first chip was released in what, 2000? That's well before Intel hired most of the Alpha team and got IP rights to Alpha technology.

    Now, I'm not saying the Intel invented SMT (hyperthreading), but they didn't really just take it from Compaq either.

    Most of the Intel inventions are either not disclosed (trade secret), or are modifications of existing technology to make it commercially feasible. Much of the process technology Intel adopts (or not adopts) is due to cost considerations, not just processor performance. Therefore, while IBM probably has technically better process technology, Intel has better yeilds (lower cost per processor).

    Some "inventions" created by Intel include:

    - the first microprocessor (4004)
    - the first commercially used 2-level adaptive branch prediction (Pentium Pro) (invented with research done by Prof Yale Patt and his students)

    - USB
    - PCI
    - AGP
    - PCI Express (most of these buses were done by working groups headed by Intel)

    - the first commercially used post-decode trace cache (Pentium 4)
    - lot's of low power techniques with Pentium M

    There are a lot more, but usually not public.

    --
    Dan
  36. NASA by JerryLs · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ok, this is the same NASA that only uses 486's in shuttles?

    --
    Ad Astra Per Asper
  37. Not quite by dcmeserve · · Score: 3, Informative
    NASA has come up with a way to wire microchips with nanotubes instead of copper interconnects.

    If you read the article closely, you'll see it's not talking about about replacing all copper interconnect on the chip -- only a small portion, in fact: the vias. The carbon nanotube are being used only for the interconnect between metal layers, not between devices on the chip in general.

    --
    "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell