Slashdot Mirror


Light-Producing Nanotubes Could Mean Faster Chips

CannibalBob writes "From PCWorld: Researchers at IBM have used carbon molecules to emit light, a breakthrough that could replace silicon as the foundation of chips and lead to faster computers and telecommunication equipment. This is the first time light has ever been generated from a molecule by applying electricity. Read the article."

123 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. First Time... by c_oflynn · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is the first time light has ever been generated from a molecule by applying electricity

    I always assumed with enough power ANYTHING could emit light.. if only for a brief time

    1. Re:First Time... by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      I always thought this was how an LED worked....

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    2. Re:First Time... by aSiTiC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe that the point is that a single molecule is emitting light. A light bulb utilizes billions of molecules of tungsten to emit light.

      The whole point being that a carbon molecule/nanotube could be the equivalent of a light transistor in the optics world.

    3. Re:First Time... by magnum3065 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Well, Black Body Radiation is the phenomenon where something emits light as it is heated up, and yes this means that you can make pretty much anything give off light by making it really hot. This is how incandescent light bulbs work, the tungsten filament has a high resistance, so when electricity passes through it heats up and gives off light. Though this article is slim on the details, I imagine this new discovery does not involve simply causing the molecules to heat up to the point where they emit light. We all know the current problems processors have with heat dissipation, so I believe this is something that would be avoided.

    4. Re:First Time... by L7_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      a single molecule emits light whenever it makes a state transition... Its the phenomenon that caused the paradigm shift from classical to quantum mechanics.

      That can't be the point.

    5. Re:First Time... by Hayzeus · · Score: 3, Informative

      That would be from a SINGLE molecule; nanotubes are single molecules. More handy dandy info at IBMs nanonotube web site.

    6. Re:First Time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      ... with enough power ANYTHING could emit light.. if only for a brief time

      A classmate of mine managed to get an ordinary transistor to generate light. The case drew blood, where it hit his forehead. Yes, it was a very brief flash.

      Someone else already pointed out that getting light out of a single molecule really is new. Unless you count burning Buckyballs.

    7. Re:First Time... by BTM1001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, some of us went onto college chemistry. a molecule is simply a group of more than one atom that are bonded together. Like say the standard Oxygen in the atmosphere - it is a molocule, O2 - 2 atoms of Oxygen linked. Not sure if Tungon is the same naturally.

    8. Re:First Time... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, it is the point. Although it happens molecule by molecule when it happens in mass, there wasn't a way to control the applicatiion of a signal and stimulate emmision from a chosen molecule. Now there is. For the first time ever, *a* molecule is made to emit when electrically stimulated.

    9. Re:First Time... by homer_ca · · Score: 1, Redundant

      That's also how neon lights work at the atomic level. Electricity excites an electron to a higher orbit, electron gives off light when it drops down to its original orbit.

    10. Re:First Time... by Samari711 · · Score: 1

      sounds like someone didn't pay too much attention in gen chem. although certain elements tend to form covalent bonds to themselves, metals don't; they form metalic bonds which are easily broken and can be visualized as a bunch of atoms with their loosest electrons all milling around

      --

      I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you

    11. Re:First Time... by Samari711 · · Score: 1

      you meant to say: "
      Hi
      Tungsten molecules? It's a metal !
      Please pay attention in high-school chemistry okay?"

      --

      I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you

    12. Re:First Time... by L7_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, its not.

      IIRC, one of the more recent topics in modern biochemistry/biophysics is isolating DNA 'molecules' (about the same size as some of the carbon tubes) and exciting them in different ways. Different ways that include photon and electron scattering (or 'passing electricity').

      I'm not too sure on the results, and was too lazy to find the correct terms through google, but i know that single molecule systems have been seen to produce light through electron scattering.

    13. Re:First Time... by IICV · · Score: 1

      No, it's individual atoms that emit photons when changing states, and millions of tungsten molecules will glow when exposed to enough electricity. I assume that the important part of this is that they're doing it on a molecular level, as opposed to either using a single atom or large masses of atoms.

    14. Re:First Time... by AArmadillo · · Score: 1

      Yes, but a state transition requries an increase or decrease in the atom's energy level. Electricity doesn't necessarily increase or decrease the energy level of an atom -- if you apply electricity to a random object, it doesn't just start emitting light. The significance of this discovery is that the atom will emit light when a regular electric current is applied to it.

    15. Re:First Time... by matrix29 · · Score: 1

      Unless you count burning Buckyballs.

      With that irresistable straight line I have to link to this webpage.

      Gonads and Strife

      Or if that site is Slashdotted same thing...

      Hello Kitty Ate My BuckyBalls!
      (Every party needs a jester)

      --
      "Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
    16. Re:First Time... by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      In another news, the sun, lightbulb emit light.

    17. Re:First Time... by Goldsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What they're really claiming is the world's smallest solid state light emmitter. I guess if you define a nanotube as the smallest possible solid state structure, there you go.

      Dr. Wilson Ho has been doing this for a while at UCI with individual atoms.

      You really should check that out. It's hard to believe, but true.

    18. Re:First Time... by ratfynk · · Score: 1

      Yip yip yahoo now I have to rate if your comment was flaimbait, of coarse "Some of also went on to college chemistry and learned how to spell "Tungsten"..."
      Is a hasty reply from an anonymous coward, but you must have made someone a little pissed, so i will remain agnostic and leave it up to the Gods of /.

      ratfynk

      --
      OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
    19. Re:First Time... by crumley · · Score: 1

      Yep, my guess is that my signature ticked somebody off. My post was just a lame joke, certainly not a flame. Whatever - its just karma.

      --
      Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
  2. First time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How do light bulbs work? True, they burn as a side effect of being heated, but you apply electricity, and you [eventually] get light. Then there's the the whole laser thing... Florcent tubes?

    1. Re:First time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe they mean that the electricity directly creates light. In a regular light bulb, the electricity heats the element (tungsten in most cases), which then produces light from the heat. In chips, heat is a Bad Thing(tm), and getting it directly from electricity, and producing very little heat, would be a Good Thing(tm).

    2. Re:First time? by f97tosc · · Score: 4, Informative

      How do light bulbs work? True, they burn as a side effect of being heated, but you apply electricity, and you [eventually] get light. Then there's the the whole laser thing... Florcent tubes?

      Well, any light form needs energy - and electricity is a common way of providing this.

      Light bulbs emit light because they are heated by electricity. Unfourtunately, about 95% of the light emitted is not visible to humans, and thus wasted (human eyes are tuned to best view light from a certain body at about 6000 degrees, and this is much hotter than the light bulb - thus the inefficiency).

      There are, however, ways to convert electricity to light without heating anything. LEDs do this - all energy is converted to light of a single certain frequency - which we can see. This is true for lasers also, but they go even further by not only having light of a single frequency but also aligning the light waves that compose the light.

      But both light bulbs and LEDs are made of big crystals of metal / silicon (as opposed to molecules). What is new here is the atomic structure of the of the light emitting material; it is nanotubes which technically are big molecules. This is a major discovery - although it is probably too early to tell exactly what it will be useful for in the future.

      Tor

    3. Re:First time? by assaultriflesforfree · · Score: 1

      No, they're not talking about heating up tungsten. A good analogy for how light is generated in that manner is that the resistance of the tungsten is similar to friction, and as the electrons pass through it, they heat it up, eventually resulting in light. This phenomenon involves interactions between positive and negative charges in a nanotube resulting the release of light - a bit different from the analogy of releasing mechanical energy needed to force the electrons through medal as heat. I never much cared for solid-state physics, but I wonder how much heat this thing does create.

    4. Re:First time? by jkauzlar · · Score: 4, Funny
      Its very complicated for a layman to understand, but I'll do my best:

      The molecules in a light-bulb filament (called lightrodes) are ramp-shaped. When the electricity flows along the filament, some of the electrons hit this lightrodes and they fly out into the room. Hence, the light you see is simply dispersed electricity. It sounds crazy, I know, but, that's where static electricity comes from! How else would you explain electricity getting onto the carpet?

      I would explain florescent lights, but you would need an advanced degree in science (30+ yrs of school) to even understand the basic concepts.

    5. Re:First time? by E1v!$ · · Score: 1

      I always hoped the intelligence of people who approve stories was higher than that of the average reader. Apparently this isn't the case.

      Put the brains back behind slashdot. Perhaps if we apply enough electricity their brains may shed some light....

  3. This is cool, but... by KCardoza · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wouldn't ignorant jackholes who read too many bad sci-fi novels like Bill Joy worry about these "Nanotubes" going haywire and turning the planet to gray goo? Or would Apple sue them into oblivion for using "Carbon" in a computer without their express permission?

    --
    Despite millions of years of evolution, human beings, taken as a group, are still stupid, panicky animals.
    1. Re:This is cool, but... by Steffan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think Bill Joy's issue is with Nanotubes per se, but with self-replicating nanomachines that could, due to a 'programming' bug or something similar, not stop replicating even after their task is done, hence the 'gray-goo' you hear about. It's a legitimate concern, but IMO should not and does not justify the cessation for nanotechnology research.

    2. Re:This is cool, but... by malfunct · · Score: 1

      Nanotubes and nanites are not really related. Nanotubes are just one of the forms that a pure carbon molecule can take.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

  4. You obviously don't do much grillin' by bearl · · Score: 5, Funny

    >This is the first time light has ever been generated from a molecule by applying electricity.

    Heck, if you put too much lighter fuel on the charcoal and apply your electric grill lighter while standing too close you'll see PLENTY of light from those charcoal molecules!

    1. Re:You obviously don't do much grillin' by Surt · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the challenge here is to spray your lighter fluid onto a single charcoal molecule, and then ignite it.

      Then the double challenge is to make a good barbeque out the result.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:You obviously don't do much grillin' by theoddball · · Score: 1
      Am I the only one that remembers those guys from Purdue who would light their charcoal grills with LOX? Combustion gave off so much light you could barely see anything in the pictures...

      Oh man...

      They didn't have a barbeque so much as a hunk of melted metal with some carbon molecules left over.

      ...but "they" (whoever they are) pulled the site...*teardrop*
      Anybody know of a mirror?

    3. Re:You obviously don't do much grillin' by Fesh · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, that frigging figures. Chalk up another victory for the terrorists. It was probably pulled because of the side caution to pour the LOX on after placing the lit match on top of the stack (if you were so inclined as to risk your life in such an obviously hazardous manner by imitating them). They went on to explain that if you let the LOX soak in first and then applied the match, each briquette would be equivalent to a stick of TNT...

      *sigh* Got halfway into a nice rant about the right to think before backing up here. It doesn't matter. The forces of ignorance will always win in the end.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
  5. Doesn't everything now? by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and lead to faster computers and telecommunication equipment.

    Doesn't it seem like this catch-phrase is tacked onto every new discovery? Couldn't these folks just be making nifty flashlight bulb replacements? Does EVERYTHING need to give us faster computers?

    --

    1. Re:Doesn't everything now? by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 1

      I believe the basis of this lie with the funding going to computer improvements. Business knows computers sell and anything else is a bonus.

    2. Re:Doesn't everything now? by Ikeya · · Score: 1

      Yeah! A new IBM Lighting Division would be cool! :)

      We could have "Light at the speed of e-Business at the speed of light!"

      --
      ---- Move SIG...For great justice!
    3. Re:Doesn't everything now? by einer · · Score: 1

      Just how much of your disposable income do you have earmarked for emergency lighting?

    4. Re:Doesn't everything now? by pdbogen · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    5. Re:Doesn't everything now? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Well, it will technically be faster than electrical signals because electrical signals generally only travel around 0.6 c. Whether or not the end-user will see the difference, on the other hand, is a question of design.

      Which means AMD's electricity-based chips will still be faster than any optics-based hardware Intel produces for quite a while now. :)

    6. Re:Doesn't everything now? by afidel · · Score: 1

      The problem is to do actual work you need to go back to electronics (not all the relevant parts exist for optical circuits to act as semiconductor parts) so you need an optoelectric transition and the parts for this are still slower then just pushing the signal across the die. If we could do all the necessary processing without crossing domains then bandwidth would increase tremendously as then all optical switches would become a reality =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  6. Re:Stupid quote by Aviancer · · Score: 1
    Uhrm, to point out the important part:

    This is the first time light has ever been generated from a molecule by applying electricity

    Previously we've needed many molecules.

  7. First Time--where'd they pull it from? by petronivs · · Score: 1

    Not only that, I didn't see it mentioned in the article. What is our honoured submitter smokin'?

    --
    This is the real signature
    (Beats those shadows on the cave wall, don't it?)
  8. What can't they do? by AlabamaMike · · Score: 5, Funny
    Self assembly, high tensile strength, readily available (at least for Carbon), and now light emitting! What is is that carbon nanotubes can't do? It seems everyday there's a new application for these things. I'm ready for the guys @ Highlift to buckle down and just get the space elevator done. Maybe while their at it, they could use the nanotube cable as some type of large transmission line for the Interplanetary Internet!

    -A.M.

    --
    Pimpin' all the Karma Hoes!
    1. Re:What can't they do? by Bodhidharma · · Score: 1

      It should already transmit billions of Joules from the Van Allen belt to the earth. The scpace elevator sounds like a giant lightning rod. We need to find a way to work with all that juice.

      --
      A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
    2. Re:What can't they do? by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "What is is that carbon nanotubes can't do?"

      Be cheap.

    3. Re:What can't they do? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      space elevator...pfffttt. I want it to defy gravity. ;)

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:What can't they do? by LiquidLich · · Score: 1

      They can't give you love =P

    5. Re:What can't they do? by Scooter · · Score: 1

      They're pretty sh*t at getting your floors clean too.

  9. First Paragraph by hendridm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Was this a troll?

    "Researchers at IBM have used carbon molecules to emit light, a breakthrough that could replace silicon as the foundation of chips and lead to faster computers and telecommunication equipment." (emphasis added)

    It was also reported a year ago that they had created transistors using nanotubes, although not with light.

    1. Re:First Paragraph by pdbogen · · Score: 1

      No, that's not a troll.

  10. Mass Production by L7_ · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Pardon me for being skeptical (I am a theorist, not an experimentalist), but isn't there a revolutionary new 'Carbon Nano-tube Technology' every 2 months? I mean, how many of these technologies will be applicable with thier current specifications?

    And not only that, but it seems that nano-tubes are not currently being mass produced in any reasonable way. If they are, why aren't more small graduate materials labratories basing research on them?

    I'm not against plausible speculations to applied science, but it just seems that the carbon nano-tube technology is still in its beginning phases, and we won't see these 'small optical fibers' or any other applied devices anytime before 2020.

    1. Re:Mass Production by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's the major problem they've had...the things are pretty damn hard to manufacture with any quality.

      Thankfully, some newish production methods are being put through, and a couple dedicated factories are being built. From what I read in new scientist, it should drop the price down to $5/kilogram instead of $500/milligram (or some similar outlandish figure)

    2. Re:Mass Production by anonymous+loser · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm not against plausible speculations to applied science, but it just seems that the carbon nano-tube technology is still in its beginning phases, and we won't see these 'small optical fibers' or any other applied devices anytime before 2020.

      The first semiconductor transistor (the point-contact transistor) was produced in 1947. The junction field-effect transistor was invented a few weeks later, and the first working prototype was produced in 1949. By 1958 integrated circuits were being made with them.

  11. Stability by tijnbraun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm a complete ignorant about these things. But how stable are these systems that work on nano levels? For instance if I would give my computer a hard kick, would it be affected in any way? The energy levels it works on are so low.

    1. Re:Stability by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1
      For instance if I would give my computer a hard kick, would it be affected in any way?

      You mean our non nano-level computers shouldn't be affected if I give it a hard kick? Dang!!! Shouldn't have trusted that guy when I tried to RMA my Dell...

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  12. Nano Nano by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny
    Light-Producing Nanotubes Could Mean Faster Chips

    Yeah, then kill you because nanostuff gets through your skin and the light give you malinoma from the inside.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  13. Getting the Facts on Light Emitting Carbon Nanotub by jscribner · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the detailed info on all this:
    IBM Research Light Emitting Carbon Nanotube news release

    There's also an animation, but the pictures in the release are easier to follow.

    --
    JS - IBM Metaverse devteam
    The opinions expressed here are mine & not necessarily representative of IBM
  14. This is interesting? by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 1

    Just in case you are wondering, it is white LEDs which will give you better flashlights. Maybe you can find something intersting to say about that.

  15. Nanotube display? by Tyrdium · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they managed to refine this enough, could we be seeing nanotube displays some time in the future? And how would the power drain compare to that of an LCD or OLED display?

    1. Re:Nanotube display? by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly what I was thinking. Imagine the resolution you would get from a 21" nano-tube display. At 1.4 nm diameter, assuming you could align these in a perfect grid (and my math isn't totally screwed up), you would have a theoretical max resolution of 17.857 million dots/inch or 375,000,000 x 281,250,000 pixels in a 21" screen :) You'll need a mofo graphics card to drive it, of course :)

    2. Re:Nanotube display? by shamino0 · · Score: 2, Funny
      At 1.4 nm diameter ... you would have a theoretical max resolution of 17.857 million dots/inch or 375,000,000 x 281,250,000 pixels in a 21" screen ...

      And we'd find out how many applications all crash because they're using 16-bit integers to track the display resolution. Of course, some of us may have a bigger problem buying the 281,025 gigabytes of video RAM may be a bigger problem for you.

      You want how much memory capacity on the GeForce-5 chipset now???

    3. Re:Nanotube display? by MQBS · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to divide that number by three; one for each primary display color. A slightly more managble ~million x ~million pixel display ^_^

      --
      The dream reveals the reality which conception lags behind. That is the horror of life- the terror of art. -Franz Kafka
  16. The carbon nanotube... by tellezj · · Score: 4, Informative

    would constitute a single molecule. Applying electricity to it, as pointed out in the article, they were able to produce light (1.5 micron). An LED, tungsten wire, or burning lump of coal are not made up of a single molecule, no more so than an ice cube is a single molecule of water. What this constitutes is an engineering first. What is left to be seen is if they can find useful applications and mass produce it.

    --

    End of Line.

  17. How to use for computers? by MntlChaos · · Score: 1

    Okay, we got electricity->light. but now we need something else to get it back to electricity iff light present.

    1. Re:How to use for computers? by Absurd+Being · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Obviously, you use the light, run back through nanotubes, to turn into electricity. See also: LED's and Solar Panels (which are also essentially diodes) Every $%@ physical process is reversible.

      --
      Karma: Excellent^(-t/Tau), Tau=Wittiness/Trollishness
    2. Re:How to use for computers? by MntlChaos · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... how does light run back through nanotubes produce electricity? While every physical process is reversible, we need one that will occur using REALLY SMALL areas.

  18. Am I the only one... by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

    After looking at the Babel-dy-gook of translations of the PPC 970 article, everything I read on slashdot had the appearance of broken English. Sigh. This too shall pass.

    Anyways, couldn't they get much better performance if they had a electrical signal that had a not so fast not so regular repeating pattern of pulses of light and then used a second out of phase signal to modify it to get the correct pattern. Both signals could run at a lower rate (leaving room for improvement and lowering costs of development, time to market) and then the final pattern would be nearly the same as the single signal trying to do all the work. The single signal would approach the point of insufficient return on investment faster than the two signals.

    --
    The message on the other side of this sig is false.
  19. Heading in the right direction by Paddyish · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Thursday's announcement won't translate into products for quite some time, Avouris said.

    Yes. The article doesn't mention much about how light will be recieved (though I suspect it will just happen in the reverse - light will generate electricity), and it also fails to point out that with the immense complexity of today's chips, it wouldn't be just an easy jump to convert existing designs to accept light pathways over silicon. This would require a new industry apart from the semiconductor sector, with new designs following different physics and fabrication techniques. That may be a great thing, but 'years' is most certainly how far away it is right now.

    1. Re:Heading in the right direction by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

      Speaking of light, what's happening with Lumeloid/Alvin Marks? I was never able to contact him.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    2. Re:Heading in the right direction by Paddyish · · Score: 1

      I referred your question...

  20. Carbon? by Poeir · · Score: 1

    Since this is carbon, would it be possible to begin development on an organic computer that grows? Or is that still a ways off? I mean, I know they have windshield that "heal," and I think that works on a similar idea, but how far away are machines that are grown, rather than built?

    --
    Sigs are like bumper stickers.
  21. Maybe as a corollary? by OrbNobz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Would it stand to reason that these devices would _generate_ electricity when bombarded by photons? Or would they be destroyed?
    I'm sure several orders of magnitude more of these nanotubes would fit in the space of a solar cell.
    Stephenson's aerostats just might work. :)
    Perhaps someone with a background could answer.

    - OrbNobz
    I don't care about the answer, the nano-machine operating my fingers is asking.

    1. Re:Maybe as a corollary? by damien_kane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would it stand to reason that these devices would _generate_ electricity when bombarded by photons?

      Nope, they explode

    2. Re:Maybe as a corollary? by JonnyElvis42 · · Score: 1

      Would it stand to reason that these devices would _generate_ electricity when bombarded by photons? Or would they be destroyed?
      I'm sure several orders of magnitude more of these nanotubes would fit in the space of a solar cell.
      Stephenson's aerostats just might work. :)
      Perhaps someone with a background could answer.


      Well, I don't know about that, but you might be able to pull somebody who doesn't know jack about electricity, solar cells, or nanotubes, but is extremely opinionated, and they could say something like "That'd never work, it's clearly impossible you moron!" or "Of course it'd work, I was trying to suggest that at my last job, but they wouldn't support me, so I quit, and can't afford the research or a patent myself, so some huge corporation is just going to come along and rip off my idea!"

    3. Re:Maybe as a corollary? by putigger · · Score: 2, Informative

      In principle, yes. That's how solar cells and photodiodes work. Now, just because something is efficient at converting electricity into light, however, doesn't mean that it will be similarly efficient at converting light to electricity. Generally, devices are usually specialized toward one function or the other. I suspect that nanotubes wouldn't be that great as photocells. For one, you can already make high efficiency semiconductor photocells with large surface areas (important for light collection!), whereas, nanotubes wouldn't give you much of an active area to work with unless you manage to pack them densely on a surface.

  22. Lemme think by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Funny
    Does EVERYTHING need to give us faster computers?

    Yes.

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  23. That's convenient! by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now, not only can we build nanotube fiber cables to orbit, but we can light them up at night too!

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  24. Could another electrical engineer tell me if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    they're talking about making a MOSFET? I can't imagine them creating a light BJT...how would that work, anyway? Is beta then the ratio of the number of photons?

  25. Where's NanoGator? by armyofone · · Score: 1

    Hmmm.. I notice NanoGator is suspiciously missing from this discussion.

    Oh my god! They've killed NanoGator with their evil research! Those bastards!

    It's a joke - laugh.

    --
    "A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
  26. obligatory post by valmont · · Score: 1, Funny

    imagine a blinding, sunshades-requiring, skin-melting, vampire-killing, burn-baby-burn, let-there-be-FUCKLOADS-of-light beowulf cluster of those.

  27. Light by 56ksucks · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I once saw some cheesy scientist on the tonight show or letterman or whatever get light from a pickle! He stuck two forks in each end and connected each fork to the AC and the pickle lit up! I'm not sure what this has to do with computers but it was pretty cool!

    --

    ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

  28. Posted on physicsweb by parkanoid · · Score: 5, Informative
  29. One more step in the grand plan by back@slash · · Score: 2, Funny

    Optical computers have been discovered? Superconducting fibre will soon follow and we will be able to build the dreaded gatling laser!
    After that it is only a matter of time before fusion power is harnessed and our units are twice as strong as the enemies!

    /discoveries according to Alpha Centauri

    --
    This comment was generated by a Squadron of Ultra Ninjas
  30. Re:Mass Production (of nanotubes) by wass · · Score: 5, Informative
    yes, nanotech is currently one of the 'sexy' topics, and so every two months (or more often, usually) someone gets to publish their new fabrication or measurement technique.

    I'm a graduate physics student (experimentalist), and I'll be working with nanotubes. But we're just building up our lab now (my advisor just arrived here only a few months ago). We'll be doing measurements with carbon nanotubes, initially continuing what we did last summer (at her old postdoc lab) by measuring superconducting nanowires. If you're curious, these nanowires are created by sputtering a superconducting alloy (MoGe) on top of a nanotube substrate. They're interesting because the system dimensions are small enough that the wires are effectively one-dimensional, which means they can't support long-range order and thus cannot allow Cooper-pair supercurrents to flow unimpeded through the wire.

    It's hard to create nanotubes, and harder to put them where you want them. One way to create them is to use chemical vapor deposition (CVD), where you basically try to create a controlled environment where some hydrocarbon (eg methane) is ignited (the environment is somewhat oxygen-deficient so CO2 isn't the only carbon species produced) The 'soot' that is subsequently deposited on your substrate should contain nanotubes if the right conditions are met.

    To get the tubes in certain places, sometimes little 'seeds' of iron particles are used, in hopes the nanotubes will grow/branch from them. It's hard to create good SWNT (Single-Walled Nanotubes), but easier to form 'ropes' of many nanotubes intertwined together.

    Another difficult factor to control is the 'chirality' of the tube. Basically, a carbon nanotube is a rolled graphite sheet, but when the sheet is rolled, it can have certain 'twist' to it. For example, if you rolled lined paper into a cylinder, you can have zero helicity, in which case your lines will form independent circles. Or you can shift the lines by an integer number, in which case the lines will form helices of varying pitch. This factor in nanotubes determines the electronic band structure, which mandates whether the tubes are metallic or semiconducting. It would be highly desirable to be able to produce consistently tubes of the same chirality.

    I hope this makes sense, I was up all night doing E&M homework (ya gotta love Jackson), so my brain is kinda fried right now.

    --

    make world, not war

  31. Single molecule? by siskbc · · Score: 1

    Single-crystal semiconductors don't count?

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  32. Make humans glow! by DJ+Rubbie · · Score: 1

    Couldn't we just apply electricity and make all the carbon's in our bodies glow?

    --
    Please direct all bug reports to /dev/null
    1. Re:Make humans glow! by wass · · Score: 2, Informative
      Couldn't we just apply electricity and make all the carbon's in our bodies glow?

      I don't know how facetious you're being, but I'll answer anyway. The carbon atoms in a carbon nanotube are in a highly ordered arrangement (a nanotube is essential a crystal with well-defined point symmetry groups), which means the potential energy (ignoring end-effects of the tube) is invariant under certain symmetry operations, namely translation and rotation. These symmetries will manifest themselves when you solve Schrodinger's equation in some form of electronic band structure, probably as a splitting of their corresponding degenerate states. The resulting bandgap is what is most-likely being exploited to emit the photons.

      Contrasted to the human body, in which case the carbon atoms don't have much ordering at all, and chemical reactions are constantly occurring. Hence the band structure would be a chaotic non-equilibrium mess.

      --

      make world, not war

    2. Re:Make humans glow! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      how much you wanna bet I give 'er enough juice she lights up real perty.

    3. Re:Make humans glow! by tinrib · · Score: 1

      No one likes a smart arse.

  33. Cheaper chips? by jrl87 · · Score: 1

    After they perfect whatever process they used to develop this; theoretically, chips should be cheaper since fairly pure sources of carbon are fairly abundant (graphite, coal, ...). Of course this is assuming that manufacturing cost of it isn't some astronomical figure.

  34. Graphite pencil leads by troff · · Score: 1

    In high-school physics/electronics class, I used to get the lead out of a Pacer (propelling pencil, not a car), put it between two alligator clips and run 12 volts DC through them. Just like a light bulb, it burns rather brightly. Just unlike a light bulb, I didn't have it encased in a glass-sealed vacuum. Not to be funny, but I got a LOT of molecules to emit light just by applying electricity to them.

    Having RTF(under-detail-laden)A, a couple of questions spring to mind:

    1) What's done to prevent the rapid over-oxidation, especially in something that astonishingly thin?

    2) How long until LECNTs replaced those old-fashioned LEDs that are already providing so many of the household and street-traffic lights around today? :-)

    (and just because I have positive karma and realised it don't make no difference anymore...)

    3) Profit! :->

    1. Re:Graphite pencil leads by pclminion · · Score: 2, Informative
      What's done to prevent the rapid over-oxidation, especially in something that astonishingly thin?

      In your experiment, the graphite glowed because it got hot. It also oxidized because it got hot. It's a simple case of resistive power dissipation.

      In this case, the carbon is emitting light through a quantum process, not thermal radiation. The graphite doesn't get hot and therefore doesn't oxidize.

    2. Re:Graphite pencil leads by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but lets see you light up ONLY 1 molecule.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Graphite pencil leads by troff · · Score: 1

      Whoa. Most cool (pun originally unintended). Informative; thank you.

    4. Re:Graphite pencil leads by shaitand · · Score: 1

      simple, chop off a molecule sized chunk of pencil led, hook up some really damn small alligator clips (it's all in the clips) and watch the sparks fly via microscope.

  35. Re:What can't they do? --NEWSFLASH-- by Ubiquitous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Researchers at IBM have used carbon molecules to increase the average female bustline.
    Melony Swayback, an IBM test subject states, "These new nanotube implants work great! Now they look perky without even wearing a bra!"

    Director of IBM R&D states, "Wow! What CAN'T these things do??"

    - My oranges are RIPE!

  36. m$ and slower computers by QEDog · · Score: 1

    with the current trend in OSs by M$, no. Each new M$ OS is designed to give you a slower computer.

    --
    "There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
  37. Next in /. by QEDog · · Score: 1

    "Researchers at IBM have used vacuum tubes to emit light, a breakthrough that could replace silicon as the foundation of chips and lead to faster computers and telecommunication equipment."

    --
    "There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
  38. Re:first molecule ... I think not ... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "First molecule to emit light when electricity is applied?"

    From my understanding, it's a first because they went from electrical signal to light emission from individual molecules without any intermediary.

    "That would surprise the people working on organic LEDs,"

    Diodes aren't individual molecules, diodes are groups of molecules organized in a very specific way so that electricity can only flow through the group of molecules in one direction only. You're not going to get a single molecule to work like a diode without making Heisenberg angry.

    "not to mention slightly older guys like Thom Edison,"

    A light bulb is again something that works because it is a group of molecules. The electricity doesn't cause the molecules to emit photons directly, but instead it causes the average kinetic energy of all the molecules in the filament to increase (ie. "heats it up"). Only when these molecules have been excited do they start giving off photons. And then you have to make sure they don't come in contact with other certain molecules, like O2.

  39. OLED: ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING diodes. by purduephotog · · Score: 1

    Hrmmm.... lets look at the name.
    OK, sorry, cheap shot. I work with this stuff... and carbon has been emitting light for a very long time. If the focus is a specific molecule, well, look at dopants- thats where the energy is released (hence the name)... and thats where the light comes from. Hosts provide the path.Kodak OLED information

  40. Re:Mass Production (of nanotubes) by wass · · Score: 1

    Yup. Do I know who you are? Come on, at least give me a little hint...

    --

    make world, not war

  41. Finally by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

    At last, something strong enough to make a light saber out of!

    --
    Nothing to see here; Move along.
  42. Re:Mass Production (of nanotubes) by L7_ · · Score: 1

    It makes sense. :)

    And the reason that I bring up mass production of the stuff is because it is often overlooked. I mean, Kroto and Smaley (the scientists that discovered fullerenes and won the nobel prize for it) analyzed spectrums to determine that there was a new form of carbon, but they couldnt separate it from the 'soot' and noone could really do experiments on it.

    I know this because one of my undergrad profs at UofA Dr. Huffman talked about it quite a bit when he was able to use an enzyme to separate the c60 molecules from the soot, enabling a fairly cheap way of producing c60 molecules in bulk. He also showed a viewgraph of the research papers done on fullerenes before and after his discovery was published, and it went from 10000. :P

    So yeah, have fun with your problem sets. ;)

  43. single molecule light transmission -- examples by martinbogo · · Score: 1


    - L.A.S.E.R. light
    - Light Emitting Diodes
    - electriluminecent films
    - Organic polymeric light (OLED)

    All of these and -more- emit light when an electrical voltage is applied. One molecule at a time, even though there are plenty of them in aggregation.

    So, the nanotube emitters are wonderful... but hardly the first. Just the _latest_. Still extremely interesting technology nonetheless.

    --
    "Don't worry about the problems you have in mathematics, I assure you mine are much greater." - Einstein c.1919
  44. Isn't it felicitous... by BigBadBri · · Score: 5, Interesting
    that these nanotubes happen to emit at around 1500nm, which is a good wavelength for fibre optics?

    Thinking about it, would it not be feasible to make them emit harmonics (375nm blue, anyone?) for use in optical storage too?

    I'm just a dumb old maths guy, not a physicist, but surely someone can enlighten us?

    --
    oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  45. Another application: Nano optocouplers? by VCAGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In theatrical lighting, the power stage is separated from the signal side by an optocoupler--which basically ensures that if the power stage leaks 240VAC, it won't travel down the DMX wire and fry everything else.

    I wonder if they could use these "lighted" carbon nanotubes to put an optocoupler directly on the IGBT of the dimmer...that, as my coworkers would say, would be "freakin' awesome"!

    --
    Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
    A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
  46. nanoprinting? by Dossy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd like to know if these light-emitting nanotubes can be used for nanoprinting of ultra-dense transistor chips. Talk about entering into the next age of computing power ...

    -- Dossy

  47. Silicon Does Not Emit Light? by Pooua · · Score: 2, Informative
    Silicon, the main material used in semiconductors, does not emit light, and therefore can't be used in optoelectronic products, Avouris said.

    I beg to differ. Silicon has been made to emit light in various ways for over a decade.

    "Scientists at Surrey University, led by researcher Kevin Homewood, are showing off a prototype silicon-based light-emitting diode (LED) -- an invention that could be of significance to the whole electronics and communication industry.

    "By enabling silicon to emit light, the scientists say they may have found a way to use light to efficiently transfer data around microchips. This could lead to smaller, more powerful computers and improve data communications significantly."

    ZDNet UK: Light-emitting silicon boosts chip speeds: 8th March 2001

    "The photoluminescence emanating from a regular array of 1.2 m sized dots composed of Si nanocrystals was studied with spatial, spectral and temporal resolution."

    New Journal of Physics: Nanostructuration with visible-light-emitting silicon nanocrystals

    "GENEVA, Switzerland -- STMicrolectronics claims to have achieved a breakthrough in the creation of light-emitting silicon and said it would have engineering samples of monolithic silicon devices based on the technology, combining electrical isolation and optical communication, before the end of 2002.

    "The development allows silicon light emitters to match the efficiency of compound semiconductor materials such as gallium arsenide for the first time, the company said."

    EE Times: STMicro claims light-emitting silicon breakthrough: October 28, 2002

    "The discovery of visible luminescence from porous silicon [1] has stimulated a large interest in this material. Numerous studies have demonstrated that it is possible to achieve efficient visible luminescence from porous silicon layers [2]. This material system has significant economic potential as efficient visible emitters could be fabricated on silicon wafers and incorporated with current microelectronic devices using existing silicon processing technologies."

    [1] L. T. Canham. "Silicon quantum wire array fabrication by electrochemical and chemical dissolution of wafers." Appl. Phys.Lett., 1990, 57 1046 - 1048.

    [2] For a recent review of the work in porous silicon see : Thin Solid Films, 1995, 225 and "Porous Silicon", edited by Z. Chuan and R Tsu, World Scientific, Singapore, 1995.

    A Visible Large Area Light Emitting Diode Fabricated From Porous Silicon Using A Conducting Polyaniline Contact

    BTW, technically, photocells are optoelectronic devices, as are LEDs.

    --
    Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
  48. Light + Nanotube = Fire by jmichaelg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Doesn't anyone remember this? Nanotubes seem to catch fire when you take pictures of them with a flash camera. How is putting light inside the tube going to take care of this *small* problem?

  49. That explains... by KinkyClown · · Score: 2, Funny

    why my computer lights up when it is running, doesn't it?

  50. Forget Generating Electricity... by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

    apply light and you get an explosion...

    --
    Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
  51. First SINGLE molecule ... by CrocOS · · Score: 1

    The statement is essentially correct... if you add the word "single" in front of the word "molecule" =)

    OLEDs, LEDs and light-bulbs, etc, all have a few billion molecules (or several google molecules in the case of ol' Thom's thread) that are triggered to make that light. What is special about this is that just a single molecule has had electricity applied to produce the light - in just that molecule, not any others.

    I hope that cleared that up for you.
    -Trav

    --

    I should really get around to creating a sig.... Nah - too lazy =)
    1. Re:First SINGLE molecule ... by PhysicsExpert · · Score: 1

      (or several google molecules in the case of ol' Thom's thread)

      Asuming you mean a googol (10^100) then I don't think your statement is correct seeing that the number of particles in the universe has been estimated at somewhere between 10^72 and 10^85.

      As a side note 10^100 atoms of carbon would weigh around 1.7E74 Kg which would be quite heavy really.

      --
      All that glitters has a high refractive index.
    2. Re:First SINGLE molecule ... by CrocOS · · Score: 1

      I was aware of said scientific estimates, but I decided to be flippant instead of asinine. Can you ever forgive me? =p ... and just remember: I said SEVERAL google molecules... =) ... and no: I don't give a rats behind that I misspelt googol.

      Please... do not waste my time by posting a reply.

      --

      I should really get around to creating a sig.... Nah - too lazy =)
  52. LEPs and OLEDs are Molecules that Emit Light! by Makarakalax · · Score: 1

    The parent is correct, it certainly is not the first time that light has ever been generated from a molecule by applying electricity!

    I refer you to the parent's link and Cambrige Display Technology. Both are well on the way in the development of applications for simple polymer molecules that emit light when a current is passed.

    I know that the simplest LEP Cambridge Display Technologies discovered (PPV) is of a similar scale (if not even smaller in diameter) to nanotubes, however I can't compare efficiencies, nor do I know much about optoelectronics so I couldn't say how a wavelength of 1.5 microns (the emission quoted in the article) compares to those of LEPs (visible light so between 400 and 700 nanometers).

    My point is that I dispute the article's claim that it is the first time that molecules have produced light when an electrical potential is placed across them. Perhaps IBM think that nanotube light emission is more suited to optoelectronics than OLEDS/LEPs.

    If you want to learn more about LEPs I did a project on them as part of my Chemistry degree, it's hosted by the Royal Society of Chemistry here and a slightly more up-to-date but not as pretty version is hosted here

  53. They might also be hazardous.. by Makarakalax · · Score: 1

    If you can recall the scare-paper featured on slashdot the other week which discussed why nanoparticles were potentially dangerous to people's health.

    It suggested that nanotubes could act like asbestos if inhaled. That was one of the few points in the paper that I thought was credible. They are immensely sharp, pointy, often branched and light enough to be carried by air.

    It might be dangerous in the future to dispose of your computer!

  54. Mass production of fullerenes by Makarakalax · · Score: 1

    I don't supose you saw a sample of pure fullerenes did you? I can only imagine what interesting properties such a material would have.

    Would it be an extremely fine powder? Would the individual balls bounce? Would it be a lubricant? Any ideas?

    1. Re:Mass production of fullerenes by wass · · Score: 1
      back in high school (around 1993) a chemist came to speak to our class and brought a vial containing what she said were buckyballs. I don't know how pure they were or not.

      It looked like some black soot, but behaved really weird when you shook up the vial. Ie, normal soot would fall right to the bottom when you stop shaking it. This stuff would kind of 'roll' around the vial for a few seconds, seeming to keep falling from the top, kind of paralleling the sound a rainstick makes after you flip it - the seeds keep falling when you'd expect them normally to have all fallen to the bottom.

      --

      make world, not war

  55. Electroluminescence is old hat by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

    I am a graduate student in organic chemistry at the UCLA Exotic Materials Institute which basically means I read about this tuff all day long (and I can't spell). In fact, a researcher from IBM just gave a talk here two weeks ago, but on a different topic. I am at work, so I couldn't read all the posts, but I felt I needed to throw in my two cents anyway... Getting molecules to emit light is easy. You can do it with light (e.g. fluorescence) or eletric fields (e.g. electroluminescence) or even chemical reactions (think glow sticks). OLEDs do in fact use the same method to generate light, but are comprised of many molecules and different molecules, like phosphore doped conducting polymers. An example is OLEDs based on C60, which was the hot "nanotech" molecule of yesteryear, but is a carbon allotrope like nanotubes. Anyway, PLED's are polymer based LEDs in which a single molecular component (a polymer) conducts the current and emits the light. Light emitting nanotubes are the latest application of the "nantotech" flavor of the month. Isolating single SWCNTs (single walled carbon nanotubes) between tiny electrodes has lead to a whole field of research, for example SWCNT chemosensors. Every single paper beings with "the first time a single molecule has been used for ______" because that's how you sell it. The neat thing about what IBM has done is to use a carbon allotrope (in chemistry land we aren't allowed to say carbon molecule) in a new functional device. So instead of PLEDs and OLEDs which have the difficult synthesize/purify steps on top of the difficult device fabrication step, you can get nanotubes to grow directly on (or across) your device (substrate). Emission wavelengths can be controlled readily by alterting the morphology and size of the tubes. Ok, so summarize; SWCNTs are easy to make relative to other organic molecules (that have similar properties). Any device made from a SWCNT is "the first time _____ has been done with a single molecule". Any device fabricated from a carbon allotrope has applications in "replacing modern silicon based ____ " because it is comprised of only carbon atoms... Granted this is all my opinion, so don't take it as the gospel truth unless you're well informed enough to know about the research I'm talking about first hand.

    --
    Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
  56. Porous silicon? by sydres · · Score: 1

    I read a few years back that porous silicon emits
    light when a current is passed through it so this article lies when it says that silicon does not emit light

  57. Re:good thing it's measured in hair widths by Atrahasis · · Score: 1

    Hair's breadths are an actual bona fide measurement. Equivalent to 1/16 of an inch, IIRC

  58. Sense or not by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I can tell your brain is fried. But you still managed to give a clearer picture of the current state of nanotech than any of the gee-whiz stuff I've read recently. Lots of nanotech enthusiasts seem to think it's like building radio-controlled cars, only smaller. Please consider starting a blog or something!

  59. Re:Old news by rumpledstiltskin · · Score: 1

    This is a link to gay porn that will spawn an infinite number of windows. click at your own peril