Slashdot Mirror


First Ever Nanotube Transistors On A Circuit

btsdev writes "Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and Stanford University have developed the first ever integrated silicon circuit with nanotube technology. According to the article on UC Berkeley's site, this brings researchers one step closer to developing memory chips with carbon nanotubes - chips that could hold approximately 10,000 times more data than those we have today."

216 comments

  1. Seven... by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess this means the Ferengi do not have to abduct Seven of Nine after all.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Seven... by mansa · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd think they'd do it anyway... for her sexy "implants". :)

    2. Re:Seven... by jangell · · Score: 0

      TFA states that what they've created is a matrix of silicon islands connected by molybdenum MOS transistors to automate batch testing of carbon nanotubes (about 2000 at a time). Yes, they look for I/V curves, but the CNTs are being tested as two-terminal devices (e.g. diodes) not three-terminal devices (e.g. transistors). At least, they're not laying claim to it (though you can bet they would like to). Their more modest (!) goal is to characterize the fabrication process in hopes of achieving higher yields of semiconducting (vs. metallic) CNTs.

      There will definitely be a few problems with productization; molybdenum's not something you want to get anywhere near a commercial fab, and that big blob of CNT growth catalyst is a bit of a disaster. But this looks like a very nice bit of engineering.

    3. Re:Seven... by aardwolf204 · · Score: 1

      WTF does this have to do with sexy borgs?

      --
      Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
    4. Re:Seven... by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      borg have nano-implants.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  2. Always Impressive by Elpacoloco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Berkley has made some great stuff over the years. But this is truly cool. You could make a supercomputer the size of your current computer tower today. Or maybe even smaller with some other control method.

    Or even maybe implant it in your body.

    1. Re:Always Impressive by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


      You could make a supercomputer the size of your current computer tower

      But... but.. Steve Jobs said my current computer tower is a supercomputer!

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:Always Impressive by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Informative
      Steve Jobs said my current computer tower is a supercomputer!

      sigh. when the g4 was introduced, the united states defined "supercomputers" or "high performance computers" for the purpose of export as any machine that could do 2000 MTOPS (million theoretical operations per second).

      any machine that met this definition was under strict export control to "tier 3" countries (n. korea, iran, pretty much all of s. america &c.). hence the "supercomputer" appellation from jobs & co.

      now the export control for computers has been raised to 6500 MTOPS - so iranians can merrily get their g5's.

    3. Re:Always Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a Mac fan, it was just a joke :P

    4. Re:Always Impressive by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Or even maybe implant it in your body."

      I'll pass on the Kray Suppository, thank you.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:Always Impressive by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "I'll pass on the Kray Suppository, thank you."

      I'll pass the Kray Suppositiry, hope it's waterproof.

    6. Re:Always Impressive by webtre · · Score: 4, Informative

      My course in VLSI design was many, many years in the past, but what I do remember is that early integrated circuits used metal gates in the fabrication process. That process was later abandoned in favor of polysilicon because poly was much easier to work with at smaller feature sizes (I'm a bit foggy on this one). Gee, so now we're going back to metal gate processes, and we'll have real metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistors again?

      If this is becoming easier to do at deep submicron level, I suppose processes for making deep submicron feature-sized Gallium-Arsenide MESFET's also got easier? Now wouldn't we just love to have such GaAs chips on our desktops... (I do know I'm forgetting another difficulty in working with GaAs, anyone care to remind me why GaAs is not as common as silicon today?)

      --
      litigious bastards
      suck it sco!
    7. Re:Always Impressive by xilmaril · · Score: 2, Informative

      >anyone care to remind me why GaAs is not as common as silicon today?

      price. silicon is dirt cheap, gaAs not.

    8. Re:Always Impressive by Frymaster · · Score: 1
      I am a Mac fan, it was just a joke :P

      er. yeah. um. i thought it was strange that you had one of those little green "cool people" dots beside your name... but, hey, flying off the handle is a bit of a trademark for me.

    9. Re:Always Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who are these Gallian-Arse MISFITs, a new French punk band I haven't heard of?

      (See, the lameness filter doesn't work.)

    10. Re:Always Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errrr, isn't it supposed to be Cray??
      http://www.cray.com

      http://www.kray.com
      now that is a funny website.

    11. Re:Always Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GaAs is also toxic...especially if inhaled as fuming chips!

    12. Re:Always Impressive by HiggsBison · · Score: 1
      I seem to recall that GaAs claim to fame was high switching speed. But at the cost of high power usage. I thought they were bipolar instead of CMOS, so they were fast, but they sure as hell weren't very efficient. I forget whether they came up with GaAs in a complimentary configuration or not.

      So the nominees for GaAs downside seem to be:
      cost
      toxicity
      high power consumption
      design trickiness?

      --
      My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
    13. Re:Always Impressive by bronsinbound · · Score: 1

      That should be Cray, as in Seymour Cray. Not Kray.

    14. Re:Always Impressive by jrrl · · Score: 1
      You could make a supercomputer the size of your current computer tower today.

      Reminds me of a quote from god knows when (80s?). It went along the lines that supercomputers will always be the same size because if it gets smaller, they will just make a bigger one and THAT ONE will then be the super computer. Smaller ones then are just faster computers.

      By that reasoning, anything the size of my desktop box will never be "super", since something the size of my desk could be "superer". Oh, well. It was a nice thought... -John.

      --
      Self Serving Sig: Hosting Comparison
  3. 10,000? by AvengerXP · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Take that Moore's Law.

    --
    Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
    1. Re:10,000? by inertia187 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Moore's Law gets a shot in the arm. I'm tired of waiting a whole 18 months for only one doubling. Or, maybe we should observe Moore's Law and add a throttle down innovation. I'm sure the all of the chapters of the Guild of Semi-Conductor Fabricators of America agrees.

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    2. Re:10,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the increase, if you apply Moore's law to produce the time this technology will actually hit the market, gives you...

      20 Years!

      Sounds about right to me, good old Moore's law.

  4. 10,000 times more data? by MachDelta · · Score: 1

    Probably 10,000 times the cost too.

    1. Re:10,000 times more data? by mandalayx · · Score: 1

      Probably 10,000 times the cost too.

      Actually, in electronics, lower prices have followed smaller form factors...

      GO BEARS!

  5. What large memory you have! by ObviousGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All the better to track you, my dear.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:What large memory you have! by smokin_juan · · Score: 1

      What? You think they don't already have this technology? Pbbt.

    2. Re:What large memory you have! by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "All the better to track you, my dear."

      If they were tin-foil nanotubes would you feel safer?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    3. Re:What large memory you have! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well-known troller. Mod down!

  6. I'll take it from here... by clifgriffin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's see.

    1. I'd like to see a bewolf cluster of these.
    2. How long until it runs linux?
    3.

    I think that covers it all. You may proceed.

    Feel free to contribute.

    1. Re:I'll take it from here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Profit!!! NIGGAAAAAAAAAAAH

    2. Re:I'll take it from here... by clifgriffin · · Score: 1

      Arg. I knew I was forgetting an obvious one.

    3. Re:I'll take it from here... by Pyro226 · · Score: 1
      You forgot:

      I for one welcome our new nanotube based overlords.

      Links to Goatse and tubgirl.

      The unknown step is supposed to be step 2, as step 3 is Profit.

      --
      This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
    4. Re:I'll take it from here... by saramakos · · Score: 1, Redundant

      What about:

      4. Profit???

      ...

      In soviet Russia circuits are on a Nanotube Transistor?

    5. Re:I'll take it from here... by IntelliTubbie · · Score: 0, Redundant

      1. I'd like to see a bewolf cluster of these.
      2. How long until it runs linux?
      3.


      Dude, you forgot "4. Profit!"

      Cheers,
      IT

      --

      Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

    6. Re:I'll take it from here... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Feel free to contribute."

      I, for one, welcome our nano..

      ah screw it. You're right, it's covered.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:I'll take it from here... by clifgriffin · · Score: 1

      Hmm, "You insensitive clod." might work, though not very applicable.

    8. Re:I'll take it from here... by evronm · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Let's see. 1. I'd like to see a bewolf cluster of these. 2. How long until it runs linux? 3. I think that covers it all. You may proceed. Feel free to contribute

      3. is profit!

      Don't you read /.??
  7. Lots of small memory chips by vpscolo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you could get lots of small chips to give high memory density, pack them into a PC and then setup a huge RAM disk with some permanent storage things would suddenly become a lot faster

    Rus

    1. Re:Lots of small memory chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit, Sherlock.

  8. Imagine a beowulf cluster of these by RLiegh · · Score: 4, Funny

    stuck under your fingernails!!

    1. Re:Imagine a beowulf cluster of these by jeremytribby · · Score: 2, Funny

      And then you'd have sco yelling at you to clean linux out from under your fingernails.

    2. Re:Imagine a beowulf cluster of these by originalTMAN · · Score: 1

      But then we could scratch them.

  9. iPod by pvt_medic · · Score: 4, Troll

    well just wait till they pop one of these into an iPod you be able to store like 1 million songs. on that thing.

    --
    30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
    Score:5, Troll
    1. Re:iPod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is that a troll?

    2. Re:iPod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      obviously they dont like iPods... pity

    3. Re:iPod by NanoGator · · Score: 0

      "well just wait till they pop one of these into an iPod you be able to store like 1 million songs. on that thing."

      Troll? Why are the dudes with mod-points so overly jumpy about Apple products?

      Lighten up.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:iPod by emo+boy · · Score: 0


      I agree. Take a second to actually think about what you're modding before you do it.

      Sincerely,
      Steve Jobs...I mean Steve Smith

    5. Re:iPod by xilmaril · · Score: 1

      suggestion: counnter-options on modding. ie 'unfair mod'. failing that, I and a few others have rated it conversely. and isn't there something heartwarming about a '+5 troll' mod? or is it just me?

    6. Re:iPod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but the battery would be utterly dead/deceased/devoid of life/pushing up daisies/an ex-battery before you got a chance to play them all, so what's the point?

    7. Re:iPod by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "iPod (Score:5, Troll)"

      Man, there's something for the ol' resume. "Once got a +5 Troll on Slashdot!"

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:iPod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll

      This so has to go in your .sig

  10. Heat and carbon nanotubes... by MajorDick · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ummmm. There is a pretty serious problem with heat dissapation and CARBON nanotubes Like this report shows

    Isnt this going to cause a pretty serious problem in integrating nanotube technology into electronics ?

    1. Re:Heat and carbon nanotubes... by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you even read the article you linked to? In order for that to happen, you need to fill a laundary list of rather specific criteria:

      1) Single walled nanotubes
      2) Presence of oxygen
      3) Temperatures in excess of 1,500 C
      4) Only intense light seems to effect it (photons are absorbed by the nanotubes directly)

      We can let #1 slide since I do not know if there is any specific requirement if nanotubes can (or must be) single or multi walled for use in electronics. Since there hasn't been any real development of nanotube electronics yet, I don't think anyone really knows. The linked article is about tool to analize nanotubes, not no much build electronic devices that incorperate them. It does make a good proof-of-concept though.

      #2 is easily remedied because the devices would be hermetically sealed in opaque packages. That also takes care of #4...

      And I don't think anyone will have to worry about the 1500 degree temperatures so far as electronics are concerned. At least nobody in the private sector...

      I mean damn, it's one thing to not RTFA, but you didn't even read your own sources!
      =Smidge=

    2. Re:Heat and carbon nanotubes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean damn, it's one thing to not RTFA, but you didn't even read your own sources!
      No, but he got a w1ck3d k4rm4 boost from all the mods that didn't read it either.

    3. Re:Heat and carbon nanotubes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I read the article, I thought it implied the 1500 C temperature was caused by the camera flash, and was not part of the experiment.

      The researchers say that if the tubes are alligned correctly, the heat should be dissipated. It was the random alignment that got them.

      Seems they're really good insulators/heat pumps?

      Jason Pollock

    4. Re:Heat and carbon nanotubes... by JonnyQabbala · · Score: 2, Funny
      And I don't think anyone will have to worry about the 1500 degree temperatures so far as electronics are concerned.

      You don't own an Athlon.

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank
    5. Re:Heat and carbon nanotubes... by jmichaelg · · Score: 1

      Gives new meaning to the term "Flash Memory."

    6. Re:Heat and carbon nanotubes... by kernelpanic77 · · Score: 0

      It might be with out current cooling solutions, IE air cooling. However, it is about time we have moved away from that, and went onto something a little bit more cooler. Yes I know its fun sticking in oodels and oodles of glowing fans into your case... but lets face it. We are eventually going to hit a point where fans moving around air will not do. So, what other alternatives are there? Watercooling for one. Add a cooling system to the water, and you've got good cooling that looks cool, and isn't so loud your mother is yelling at you from across the house to "turn off those infernal ventilators". Then there is the Vapochill cooling technology...that is something I would look forward to if it wasn't so dam expensive. However, I would be most thrilled if liquid NO based cooling systems became avaialable... now that would be COOL (in both senses of the word)

    7. Re:Heat and carbon nanotubes... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      :3) Temperatures in excess of 1,500 C

      well, you might not want to run AMD... ;)

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Heat and carbon nanotubes... by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Informative

      From TFA: Because extensive rearrangement of the carbon atoms occurs, the scientists estimate that the tubes reach temperatures of nearly 1,500 degrees Celsius.

      This doesn't happen *while* the nanotubes are at 1,500 C, the nanotubes heat up to 1,500 C as a result of the flash!

      You really *REALLY* should RTFA when chastising somebody else for not RTFA!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    9. Re:Heat and carbon nanotubes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deep breath,and now exhale. Sometimes relaxing, will help you to feel more comfortable and less irratable.

    10. Re:Heat and carbon nanotubes... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Why, I did in fact read the article. Both of them. While they were lax on specifics, here's what I gathered te process was:

      1) Intense burst of light is absorbed by nanotubes
      2) Absorbed energy cannot be dissipated, so temperature rises to 1500C
      3) High temperature disrupts molecular configuration, nanotubes becomes susceptible to chemical reactions
      4) Nanotubes react with atmospheric oxygen, burst into flames

      Based on that, High temps are required for the combustion to take place. So yes, combustion does happen *while* the nanotubes are at 1500C, at least within the context of the linked article.
      =Smidge=

    11. Re:Heat and carbon nanotubes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there hasn't been any real development of nanotube electronics yet, I don't think anyone really knows

      There has actually been a lot of research in the area of carbon nanotubes and they are quite (albeit not like silicon or something) well understood. The single walled tubes are the ones that are generally semiconducting and the multi-walled ones are generally metallic in nature. The bandgap is determined by several factors such as the chirality (how it is rolled up) and the diametere I believe.

    12. Re:Heat and carbon nanotubes... by citanon · · Score: 1

      The problem here was that carbon nanotubes were exposed to an intense flash of light, which broke bonds and altered their atomic structure. When this happened, heat built up. Since the nanotubes were not arranged in any particular pattern, heat could not dissipate readily, resulting in combustion (presence of oxygen being a necessary ingredient in ANY type of combustion).

      Completely different process than what would happen in an integrated circuit. In that case, bonds are not broken. Instead, electrons travel ballistically (in an ideal case) down metal type carbon nanotubes, dissipating much less power than they would travelling down conventional materials. What heat there is gets channeled through the nanotubes into the underlying chip and gets dissipated the conventional way, through a heat spreader in the packaging.

      Trust me, carbon nanotubes make good materials for integrated circuits, if only we could figure out how to assemble them.

  11. Put more science stuff around! by ActionPlant · · Score: 3, Funny

    One step closer!

    We can rebuild him. We have the technology.

    So do these things have good tensile strength if you pack them in bundles? Because when they rebuild me, I want them to use nanotubes. They're definitely the "in" thing right now. Just imagine...legs that can literally "remember."

    Damon,

    --
    http://actionPlant.com
    1. Re:Put more science stuff around! by a+whoabot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obviously you're not familiar with Dr. Noe Huntley's articles... http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/physmob.ht m

    2. Re:Put more science stuff around! by ActionPlant · · Score: 1

      You know, you're obviously right. ;)

      Thanks for the link, though. Looks like some good reading.

      --
      http://actionPlant.com
    3. Re:Put more science stuff around! by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      Yikes, don't take this guy too seriously, he's considered crazy by many. Me personally: don't know, would like to learn more.

      Mods, don't mark me as informative for that, it was just a note of scarcely related interest.

    4. Re:Put more science stuff around! by twostar · · Score: 1

      brings a whole new meaning to muscle memory.

    5. Re:Put more science stuff around! by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "So do these things have good tensile strength if you pack them in bundles? Because when they rebuild me, I want them to use nanotubes. "

      That would be pretty cool, just make sure nobody takes a flash photograph of the 'new you'.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  12. Diamond substrate? by Stile+65 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It'll be interesting to see how they'll make carbon nanotubes work when they use diamond for a semiconductor (see article in Wired, referenced by another /. post, that I'm too lazy to find now).

    Also, it'd be neat if they could base some kind of flash memory technology on this stuff too. I know IBM/HP/etc. are coming out with the polymer memory, but this stuff would probably be able to hold a lot more - a nice HD's worth of data in an SD card, at least. Or am I completely off base? Could that even completely replace hard drives eventually?

    --
    I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    1. Re:Diamond substrate? by Saeger · · Score: 4, Informative
      The wired article: The New Diamond Age

      The inevitability of artificial, perfect diamond has DeBeers white in the face. It also provides more fuel for the The Law of Accelerating Returns (rather than "Moore's Law").

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    2. Re:Diamond substrate? by uglomera · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Diamond substrates and nanotubes face completely different challenges, and the issues with nanotubes will probably be resolved first. In that WIRED article, it was explained that it takes years to grow ONE diamond wafer, and they still haven't probably grown anything larger than 3-4 inch wafers. It will probably take several decades until they can serially produce 12" diamond wafers.

      Carbon nanotubes, on the other hand, need to have their type (metallic or semiconducor) and doping level (if semiconductor) controlled reliably, and also EDA tools extentions need to be written in order to incorporate them in critical paths on chip. This is a lot less work than learning to grow diamond wafers. At least De Beers will need to be brought to its knees before this will be reality. Imagine a war over diamonds...

    3. Re:Diamond substrate? by Stile+65 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They actually won't have 4-inch wafers for another few years - I think they're probably at about an inch squared right now. It won't take several decades to produce 12" wafers, though, because the size of the wafer they produce using CVD depends on the size of the seed. They are using the result from each session to grow larger wafers each time: Starting with a square, waferlike fragment, the Linares process will grow the diamond into a prismatic shape, with the top slightly wider than the base.

      Still, you're right - nanotubes will probably be feasible before mass-produced diamond ICs. The reason I brought up diamond/nanotubes is because they're both carbon - two very different forms of it - and I'm kind of interested in how the process of trying to get one onto the other would affect both of them.

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    4. Re:Diamond substrate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you're off-base. Let's take a 256 MB SD card... so that's 256 per whatever volume the card's memory takes up...

      10,000 times that is 2,560,000 MB, divide by 1024, so that's 2,500 GB, GB mind you...

      2.4 TB... in the palm of your hand... that's so good, it almost can't be true

    5. Re:Diamond substrate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law of accelerating returns is rubbish. Neither e^t nor e^e^t exhibit a singuarity. If technology moved at a pace of eg 1/(2005-t) then I'd be pooing my pants, but it SO isn't.

    6. Re:Diamond substrate? by citanon · · Score: 1

      Also, it'd be neat if they could base some kind of flash memory technology on this stuff too.

      Nantero

    7. Re:Diamond substrate? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It may not lead to a singularity, but starting from where we are it will rather quickly get to the point where changes come more quickly than we can follow. Even within any delimited sub-area of interest (due to interactions with things from the outside of the domain). And it doesn't stop there.

      Of course, one shouldn't take trend curves THAT seriously. They are a coarse abstraction from the underlying reality...but they do usually point in interesting directions to look. So don't obsess about the curve not actually reaching a singularity. One doesn't reach a real singularity and remain in the universe anyway.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Diamond substrate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That already happened over 100 years ago (Guass is widely rekoned to be the last person to fully understand the whole of maths, physics and general tech as they were in his time).

      That means U and I don't exist. Or if we exist, then it's in an AnTiW0RlD where reality differs depending on your standpoint. For example you think you're right and I think I'm right.

      Seriously though if we all tried to keep up with everything that there is to know then computers would be extremely unpopular and we would burn them all like the Luddites burned books. So its just as well really.

  13. Crud... by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was hoping we finally had vacuum tubes grown on a chip. Besides building Eniac on a chip (but without the power bill and air conditioning problems) we could have every vacuum tube guitar amp ever made on a chip - just need a clean power amp after it.

    Fooey.

    1. Re:Crud... by MJArrison · · Score: 1

      Actually, UPenn has already built ENIAC on a chip

    2. Re:Crud... by earthforce_1 · · Score: 4, Interesting


      Actually, the idea of building "integrated vaccum tubes" isn't as silly as it sounds. Transistors don't function above 200C, and microscopic tubes would allow us to build sensors and other circuits where transistors cannot go, at least without elaborate cooling. There has already been talk of using silicon vaccum tubes to power remote sensors in jet and aircraft engines, which must operate at extremely high temperatures.

      And I always thought they would find an idea home in robot spacecraft, where there is already a vaccum. They would also offer extreme resistance to the effects of hard radiation such as the Io belt around Jupiter, which tends to fry semiconductor electonics.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    3. Re:Crud... by Lithus · · Score: 1

      I was hoping we finally had vacuum tubes grown on a chip. Besides building Eniac on a chip (but without the power bill and air conditioning problems) we could have every vacuum tube guitar amp ever made on a chip - just need a clean power amp after it.

      As far as i know, the only advantage of vacuum tube audio amplifiers are that they create a smoother sound than a transistor based amp. What would be the point of this if you are simply going to run it through a transistor amp anyway?
      And as for the ENIAC on a chip idea, I believe that this has already been done, in silicon.

    4. Re:Crud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only is the sound richer, it also has a more bluish tint. In addition, tube amps provide the sound with a smooth chocolate flavour.

    5. Re:Crud... by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      I was hoping we finally had vacuum tubes grown on a chip. Besides building Eniac on a chip (but without the power bill and air conditioning problems) we could have every vacuum tube guitar amp ever made on a chip - just need a clean power amp after it.

      I do not believe that the characteristics of vacuum tubes that make them good for audio extend nicely into the micro-realm.

      It's much more likely that their different effects could be simulated by a properly adjustable tube, to sound like whatever you wanted.

      Cheers,
      Justin

    6. Re:Crud... by Snad · · Score: 1

      Besides building Eniac

      Forget Eniac, I want Orac on a chip...

    7. Re:Crud... by SHiFTY1000 · · Score: 1

      Hehe, actually the reason tube amps sound good is the lack of higher order harmonic distortion. A well designed tube amp will have predominantly second and third harmonics in the distortion spectrum, and almost no 4th, 5th,6th etc. These higher harmonics sound discordant and harsh.
      Transistor amps usually have a wide range of harmonic products, they almost never give you a breakdown, just the useless THD figure.

      A small amount (
      BTW, I use WW2 vintage transmitter tubes on a daily basis to listen to my CDs! Nothing like using tubes stamped RADAR for your hi-fi...

    8. Re:Crud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, wouldn't you need to have at least a triode, at a minimum, to make any kind of amp? That means a grid structure, (nevermind screen-grids, as in tetrodes, or beam-grids as in beam power pentodes) which I'm not sure will be possible. As far as I can see, they have a diode, which makes a dandy switch or memory bit, but you can't amplify squat with a diode.

  14. We are needing speed, not capacity. by ircShot_guN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least in a server environment, I don't see the requirement for many gigs of memory (on a single chip no less) without also having better technology to access it quickly.

    1. Re:We are needing speed, not capacity. by Jesus+2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess I don't follow your reasoning.

      First of all, I would just plain love to have many gigs of memory, even if it's only accessible at today's speeds. To be able, for example, to actually search through my immense email archive at a reasonable speed, without needing to constantly fault to disk? Even if I have a whole movie loaded into memory and playing? Terrific.

      Second of all, access speed will, of course, improve with time. It is almost a tautology - technology improves. Especially with associated technological leaps forward to drive the need for it, such as is the case with what's discussed in the article.

    2. Re:We are needing speed, not capacity. by grub · · Score: 2, Interesting


      At least in a server environment, I don't see the requirement for many gigs of memory (on a single chip no less) without also having better technology to access it quickly.

      Ok.. Now imagine those many gigs of memory on on-die with the CPU itself. Get's interesting, yes?

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    3. Re:We are needing speed, not capacity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "on on-die" "Get's" time for bed I think.

    4. Re:We are needing speed, not capacity. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      I don't see the requirement for many gigs of memory (on a single chip no less) without also having better technology to access it quickly.

      Maybe this technology could create a RAM chip with a capacity that matches or beats any hard drive at a similar price. If so, that would eliminate rotational and head seek latency for accessing your data, speeding up nonlocal accesses by orders of magnitude.

      The need for virtual memory and disk buffering would be essentially eliminated. It would precipitate a total rewrite of many of the data access algorithms and filesystems in use today, largely because this would be a better technology to access your data quickly.

      (If the memory technology isn't nonvolatile though, you just better have a good standby power supply :)

    5. Re:We are needing speed, not capacity. by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "At least in a server environment, I don't see the requirement for many gigs of memory (on a single chip no less) without also having better technology to access it quickly."

      That's because we don't have that much RAM to fill. I hate to think about how much less porn I'd have if not for JPEG.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:We are needing speed, not capacity. by Suidae · · Score: 1

      I (obviously) don't know much about CPU design, but it seems that we have about three major storage levels, processor cache, main memory and hard disk.

      If you could cram 100 gig of fast memory onto your CPU chip, would you need main memory or harddrives?

      Obviously the chips would have to be designed differently to take advantage of such a design, but it seems like not having to deal with multiple levels of slower and slower storage would be a really good thing for processors.

    7. Re:We are needing speed, not capacity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have moderated so I will post as AC. I hope I don't lose those moderations.

      Access time is inversly proportional to size. Every power of 2 that memory increases means one more layer of transistors needed to find what you are looking for. So while maybe they could fit 100 GB on the chip, they would still need a memory and cash as well. Also 100 GB in a ten years will be too small for a hard drive probably although it is hard to imagine now.

    8. Re:We are needing speed, not capacity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you did that, gamers wouldn't buy it, because it's not "upgradeable". :)

  15. Necessity? by agent+dero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, if you have 10,000 more the space, it all disappears when you power off right? Or when the power goes out?

    Also what about address space?

    How many bit CPUs will we need to address 1,280,000MB of RAM?

    Nonetheless cool, even though it seems either overkill or impractical

    --
    Error 407 - No creative sig found
    1. Re:Necessity? by Pyro226 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Shamelessly quoted from http://peripherals.about.com/cs/buildyourpc/a/aa03 1215a_2.htm

      To understand how 64-bit technology gives your computer more RAM memory, you need to do a little math. Don't worry, it's easy math. Your computer's processor uses 8-bit blocks of memory (called bytes) in powers of 2. A 32-bit processor can address up to 2^32 bytes of RAM, or 4294967296 bytes. That's 4 gigabytes (a gigabyte is 2^30 bytes).

      Theoretically, 64-bit processors can use 2^64 bytes of RAM, or 18446744073709551616 bytes. That's 17179869184 gigabytes, or 16777216 terabytes (units of 2^40 bytes).

      --
      This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
    2. Re:Necessity? by paul248 · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many bit CPUs will we need to address 1,280,000MB of RAM?

      41.

    3. Re:Necessity? by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Ok, if you have 10,000 more the space, it all disappears when you power off right?"

      Actually, no. The basic technology from the last story (can't find it now - slashdot's search seems disabled now) implied that the memory would not require constant charge, but would instead be based on van-der-waals effect on many nanotubes to make up one bit. It's not the most efficient method - it's just much more data-dense than current methods.

      Ryan Fenton

    4. Re:Necessity? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      the new 64bit technologies could handle that easily.

    5. Re:Necessity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How many bit CPUs will we need to address 1,280,000MB of RAM?
      That would be the base-2 logarithm of 1,280,000 million, which comes out to ~40.22, meaning that 1.28 TB of RAM could be addressed using 41 bits.
    6. Re:Necessity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ceiling(log(1,280,000MB)/log(2))

    7. Re:Necessity? by smokin_juan · · Score: 1

      I remember reading something at some point a long long time ago (therefore cant remember where) about a scheme to store bits according to the position of an atom (err, molecule?) inside of the naner-tube. a charge at one end of the tube would force the ball to the opposite end and vice-versa. the bit would be 1 or 0 depending on which end of the tube it was in. sounds pretty far fetched to me but that doesn't mean i didn't read it somewhere. none the less, with that sort of scheme your tube would hold memory with the absence of power, assuming you didn't shake it, ala etch-a-schetch!

    8. Re:Necessity? by megabeck42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its something to note that while many chips can have 64 bit pointers, the chip does not necessarily support 64 address lines. For example, from the Athlon 64 FX Datasheet found here, we know that the Athlon 64 FX has 40 physical address lines, Granted, that's still a Terrabyte of physical address space, but, its nowhere near the numbers you quote.

      Mind you, the originaly 68000 was like this, with only 24 physical address lines, as were the 80486SLC's with only 24 physical address lines, despite being 32bit internally. Oh, and I believe MIPS arches have 30 address lines because they do not support non word-aligned read/writes, but that may or may not be true.

      Oh, another thing, the Athlon 64 does clock in 64 or 128 bits per read/write cycle, so even if it uses the physical address lines for the high bits (most likely) its still not the full 64 bit address space.

      --
      fnord.
    9. Re:Necessity? by katz · · Score: 1

      Right, the concept was that a nanotube can change its orientation when a voltage is applied across it. The company working on this, nantero's, predicts that hundreds of gigabytes could be stored in this way. This scheme technically uses moving parts, albeit on a much smaller scale. Nantero claims that this could replace SRAM, DRAM and mass storage altogether.

    10. Re:Necessity? by tantrum · · Score: 1

      umm could we add in one more, just as a controller I mean? ;)

      we need 42 processors to take advantage of nanotube ram!

    11. Re:Necessity? by paul248 · · Score: 1

      Not 41 processors. I meant you'd need a 41-bit processor to address that much memory. As a previous poster stated, it's well within the reach of current 64-bit CPUs.

    12. Re:Necessity? by tantrum · · Score: 1

      I know...

      I just though that 42 seemed like a much better answer, to the utimate question of "how many bits our processors need to access more or less unlimited ram."

  16. Ummm...? by Elpacoloco · · Score: 1

    Why would I like my legs to remember? Controlling them is easy enough.

    1. Re:Ummm...? by ActionPlant · · Score: 1

      Elementary, my dear Watson - BACKUP!!

      --
      http://actionPlant.com
  17. Micro tube amps? SCHWEEET!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I always wanted a Marshall tube stack I could carry in my pocket!!!!!

  18. Nahhhhhhh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll just use Doomsday Cooling with Dual-Cascade Coolers. Might be a tad hard to carry it around in a mobile form though...

  19. More memory than anyone'll ever need? by Graabein · · Score: 4, Funny
    So, does this mean then that we can finally break that pesky Petabyte RAM barrier in personal computers?

    Not that I can see why anyone would ever need more than 640 TB anyways. Except people still using MS Windows and MS Office, of course. Sheesh!

    Ooops, wrong timeline. 'Scuse me while I duck back, er... forwards, to 2014 again.

    --
    And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
    1. Re:More memory than anyone'll ever need? by blair1q · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey. Just so long as it doesn't get into the swap file when I run the Deep Thought simulation of Earth. Again.

      (Got any cheese?)

  20. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    carbon nanotubes - chips that could hold approximately 10,000 times more data than those we have today

    How about carbon Megatubes that could hold (10x9)* (10x6) times the data of carbon nanotubes

    1. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean 4200 times the data of carbon nanotubes?

  21. Bob Dole's Response by horati0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "What the hell's this... some kinda nanotube?!"

    --
    The neutrality of this sig is disputed.
  22. Well actually the second Nanotube Transistor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While this might be a great accomplishment it is a bit hard to tell from what was written. This is not the first carbon Nanotube transistor, but it might be the first to be integrated on silicon. This is not really important unless they have solved the principle problem with such devices, which is creating an ohmic contact. If there is not an ohmic contact the switching frequency (GHz) is massively limited making them useless.

  23. Backup WHAT, sherlock? by Elpacoloco · · Score: 1

    My brain? In my leg? I'd rather back it up in a location less likely to be bumped, such as my body cavity.

    1. Re:Backup WHAT, sherlock? by ActionPlant · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm no the engineer. I don't question the guys when I'm on the operating table. If they think that's the best place, then so be it. It's not like there aren't other really important body parts in the vacinity. I, for one, will trust my re-creators.

      Damon,

      --
      http://actionPlant.com
    2. Re:Backup WHAT, sherlock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, it's not like it's a spinning hard disk. Solid-state - and probably better for restoring your personality to your clone if someone is determined to make sure cryogenic preservation of your brain is impossible...

      Oh wait, this is real life - never mind.

    3. Re:Backup WHAT, sherlock? by Saeger · · Score: 1

      Yes, backup your brain in your chest. Pure genius, Desty Nova!

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    4. Re:Backup WHAT, sherlock? by veg_all · · Score: 2, Funny

      Slashdot user? yes? That's good. Then there's little chance of any body cavity being, as you put it, "bumped."

      --
      grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
    5. Re:Backup WHAT, sherlock? by MichaelGCD · · Score: 1

      Shit for brains???

      --
      hate titty pee colon slash slash
  24. Re:Two weeks ago I saw occasion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, thanks for the thoroughly irrelevant post.

  25. Just like the teracubes by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Informative

    In 1995, there was alot of talk about a glass cube that can store a terabyte of data. This technology was expected to be around the market by 2005. Where is it now?

    Exactly. Like 90% of the great technical innovations they either don't make it for political reasons. Or heavily delayed for an eternity. Scary part is, Doom III will probably come out after this stuff.

    1. Re:Just like the teracubes by veg_all · · Score: 1

      Scary thing, DoomIII was written to be run on this stuff. Game today? Screw that. Engine tomorrow.

      --
      grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
    2. Re:Just like the teracubes by Martigan80 · · Score: 1

      part is, Doom III will probably come out after this stuff.

      Naw man you mean Duke Nukem.

      --
      This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
    3. Re:Just like the teracubes by hellraizr · · Score: 1

      according to EBGames doom3 is set to release on 4/14!! (hope thats true) here's the link

    4. Re:Just like the teracubes by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The problems with the glass cube related, I believe, to specifying a focus...you need to be quite accurate in three dimensions to get that kind of info out of a glass cube.

      The problems may have been economic, but I rather suspect that they were actually technical. (They were the last time I heard.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  26. Carbon-based...machines?? by skidoo2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's very interesting that as we get closer to being able to reproduce the capabilities of human intelligence, we consistently return to the basics of our 7th-grade Life Sciences classes (apologies for the American-centric illustration).

    Carbon, carbon, carbon....

    For (another) example, eyes are made of carbon.

  27. A good use for C02 by bishop32x · · Score: 3, Funny

    Finally a good use for all this stupid carbon! Get out of the atmosphere and into my computer!

    1. Re:A good use for C02 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you're going for +x Funny, but I can't resist.

      Given the size of the product, it is fair to assume the construction alone would produce many times more CO2 than the product consumes.

      Hell, at this size, wouldn't your average marketing dept create many thousands of times more CO2 in just a half hour brainstorming meeting.

      This is just one of the many reasons marketing departments the world over need to curbed in their access to breathable air.

    2. Re:A good use for C02 by ZeroZen · · Score: 1

      C02 is Carbon Dioxide. 1 Carbon. 2 Oxygen.

      Carbon, would be C.

    3. Re:A good use for C02 by bishop32x · · Score: 1
      CO2--->C + 02

      we already need 02

  28. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Because he can perform basic base-2 math? Any grade 5 student should know that today. Go away, kid.

  29. And don't forget these priceless gems... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    ...All your nanotubes are belong to us. ...In Sovia Russia, nanotubes make YOU compute! ...Look at the monkey! Look at the silly nanotube monkey! ...etc...

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  30. That post is not a troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...It is either funny in the extreme - in a self referential, ironic, and postmodern sort of way - or it's the stupidest fucking post, ever. Whoa...

  31. Glass cubes are cool and all by quintessent · · Score: 1

    ...but I'll bet they couldn't justify spending gazillions to do the research when magnetic media keeps progressing so well. Lacie sells a half terrabyte drive now. Stack two of those, encase it in glass, and you've got yourself a terrabyte glass cube.

  32. Maybe I'm stupid... by Bif+Powell · · Score: 1

    ...but doesn't Moore's law specifically say that the density of transistors on a processor...not really anything about memory...more importantly we're not even talking about transistors at this point, so...Moore's just doesn't apply...just saying.

    1. Re:Maybe I'm stupid... by darqchild · · Score: 1

      it's not just reserved for processors, it's the "most cost effective density of transistors on a chip"

      --
      What? Me? Worry?
  33. I'm missing the humor, please fill in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does this reference to, I obviously missed whatever Bob Dole said about something else to understand the joke.

  34. ooo, so that was longhorn about! by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have been hearing about that thing about this new m$ os that will be fast and you will be able to open more apps, now i see how!!, just take windoze, an old version obviously, XP would be still to heavy, say, NT 3.51, and run it in a machine with about 50 Gb of ddr, and if you add it proper fast scsi disks so it can swap out all the time, and there you go!, you just got unix like performance on a windowish os!!!, ups, well we still has to get ride of that bsod, we'r working on it guys :)

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:ooo, so that was longhorn about! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      l0l!!1! probably too slow for 3.51, better go back to winnt 1.0!!! harharhar!! better make it 100 TB of DDR for swapping, i mean we are talking about m$ here!!1 lol!!!1!!

    2. Re:ooo, so that was longhorn about! by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 0

      >>100 TB of DDR for swapping

      What's the point man?, you mean something like creating a ramdisk and then mkswaping on it?, i think it would be better to just use that as ram.
      But running the hole os from a ramdisk, well, that woudl really improve.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  35. Uses for Carbon Nanotubes? by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And people these days think that Fossil Fuels are the result of a few million years of pressure and heat transforming Dead Trees.

    In fact all these "fossil fuels" we keep burning are the decomposition of a once well-known and essentially pervasive vastly superior technology. Technology which we're only now beginning to open the doors to.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:Uses for Carbon Nanotubes? by waferhead · · Score: 1

      Are you trolling or do you have a link to something specific?

  36. My prediction... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Or even maybe implant it in your body.

    My prediction is that the first high-tech consumer product implants will be cell phones. But this does raise interesting questions about producing reasonably sized implant electronics for blind and deaf people, as well as other human systems failures.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:My prediction... by abradsn · · Score: 1

      We prefer to think of them as advantages. For example, we blind people don't need to look at anything ugly. Also deaf people don't hear dumb people speak. It sounds almost like a blissful marriage doesnt it?

    2. Re:My prediction... by inode_buddha · · Score: 1
      Heh, thanks for speaking up for me - I'm deaf. Oh, the irony in that last sentence. As to the parent poster regarding implants, I was a canidate for cochlear implants last year. (Denied due to high difficulty surgery/marginal benefits).

      More on-topic, it'd be cool to have huge memories from this tech, but it'd make more difference to me if we could access main memory faster. Currently the system bus speed seems to be the bottleneck, so we just throw more memory at it and leave chunks of programs in there. We also use branch-prediction, etc.

      Another cool idea: I remember well how the birds sounded in the morning; maybe the memory is sweeter than the drabness of the reality? This all makes me wonder if anyone has tried to map the extent and size of human (organic) memory and its speed. How would one do this? Any way to duplicate similar functionality?

      --
      C|N>K
    3. Re:My prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Also deaf people don't hear dumb people speak.

      Or hear great music, the kind that makes your hairs stand on end. :-(

    4. Re:My prediction... by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      More on-topic, it'd be cool to have huge memories from this tech, but it'd make more difference to me if we could access main memory faster. Currently the system bus speed seems to be the bottleneck, so we just throw more memory at it and leave chunks of programs in there. We also use branch-prediction, etc.

      I always wanted my video, RAM, and CPU to all be integrated into one big chip.

      Another cool idea: I remember well how the birds sounded in the morning; maybe the memory is sweeter than the drabness of the reality?

      For me, it's a few hundred crows yelling and a couple of big dogs barking. Perhaps in a few more years the ringing will finally get loud enough to drown them out. :)

    5. Re:My prediction... by inode_buddha · · Score: 1
      Don't know about video, but I could definitely see having RAM and CPU together. Hopefully at a large fraction of the CPU clock. So maybe if you had a 1 gHz CPU and could access main memory at 733 mHz, you wouldn't need as much RAM in the first place. At least, that's what I'd hope for.

      for me, s /ringing/silence

      --
      C|N>K
  37. 1500 degrees? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Damn, this puts space heaters to shame. Just how much power would these chips consume? And when you run them, could you recycle the water to cool them back to the water heater in your home?

    Seriously, when does the power requirements out weigh the need for this kind of processing power?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  38. And The Race Is On by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Funny
    And the race is on to see which arrives first:

    1: Vastly more memory at much cheaper prices.
    -or-
    2: Such draconian DRM/DMCA/**AA lawsuits/Product Activation woes/SCO lawsuits/stupid Congressional actions and the like such that there is nothing left to put in said memory.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  39. Rule of thumb - don't quote fools. by willy_me · · Score: 3, Informative
    You're assuming that a 64bit cpu will use a 64 bit wide address for memory access. Actually, most don't. I belive 42bits is the common size.

    For a RISC cpu, each word contains an instruction. The address is embeded inside that instruction. With 64bits, this leaves you with a 22bit command and a 42 bit address. The maximum memory addressed is then 2^42 bytes - or four terabytes.

    The advantage of doing it this way is that the entire memory space can be addressed in a single instruction - no complex addressing schemes are required. Simple is good.

    You don't belive me - check the literature on the G5, located here. (See page 7)

    1. Re:Rule of thumb - don't quote fools. by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I don't see why they can't use 64 bit addresses. 32 bit machines seem to get by with it just fine.

      For people who aren't familiar with computer architecture, I present a quick summary. If you are, skip to the last paragraph.

      There are other ways of working around the instruction word problem to use the full 64 bits. I don't know if these are done in CPUs used in PCs, even 32-bit ones, but I'll briefly describe how the MIPS deals with 32-bit addresses with 32-bit words since the MIPS is what I know from my computer archetecture course:

      Data memory accesses (standard loads and stores, lw and sw in ASM) are done by base address + offset. The base address is held in a 32-bit register, the offset is a 16-bit immediate field (sign extended to get 32-bits). The assumption is that you're probably not going to have much need to access memory more than 32K in either direction that much, and if you do, you can do some extra adds before the load/store. To get the base address into a register typically requires two instructions, one for the upper 16 bits and one for the lower 16 bits (lui followed by addi or ori or xori).

      All memory access is done through a load or store word (byte, half-word, etc.) instruction. Thus we only have to deal with the instructions themselves.

      MIPS (and I think most machines) has two types of goto-like instructions: branches and jumps. Branches are done conditionally and locally, jumps are unconditional and possibly long distance. Note that here I'm talking word addresses, not byte addresses. Instructions are word aligned, so storing the byte address wastes 2 bits.

      The condition in the branches requires extra bits. For instance, there is a bne command that compares two registers and branches to the specified address if they are equal. The "specified address" is actually the sum of the current instruction (30-bits) and the 16-bit immediate. Thus the program can branch 32,768 instructions (131,072 bytes) in either direction.

      For jumps, 26 bits of the instruction are used for the jump address. It is assumed that the program will be not jumping beyond the nearest multiple of 2^26 words. The high-order 4 bits of the current instruction are appended to the 26-bit immediate to get the resulting jump address.

      In the case that these don't work, there are still ways of getting around it. With three instructions, it is possible to load a full 32-bit address (via lui and ori as above) into a register then jump to that address directly.

      Now, these are all more annoying than having enough space in the instruction for the full address I'll agree, but to me the tradeoff of reducing address space for a slightly simpler time at programming isn't worth it. Now, maybe I'm just being silly here, after all, even I'll admit we probably won't see over 4TB memories in the same machine as these processors, but can someone explain why this tradeoff was really made?

    2. Re:Rule of thumb - don't quote fools. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the CPUs use 64-bit pointers when storing addresses, everything should be fine.

      There are fairly few literal addresses in most code, anyhow, most things like branches are relative, and most data addresses are generated by dynamic allocations. I'm not sure about the G5, but at least the Alpha uses full 64-bit pointers, it's just that they seldom need to be written out fully.

      Current 64-bit CPU implementations don't use a 64-bit address bus, so they don't support that much physical memory, but that is a non-issue in terms of future expandability.

    3. Re:Rule of thumb - don't quote fools. by jejones · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but...while RISC processors lack the many addressing modes of CISC processors, they all tend to have register + displacement addressing. That displacement, as you say, is necessarily less than 64 bits, but the register is not limited in that respect, so while it potentially takes an instruction or two setup to get to an arbitrary location in a 64-=bit address space, you can get there.

    4. Re:Rule of thumb - don't quote fools. by slyfox · · Score: 1

      For a RISC cpu, each word contains an instruction. The address is embeded inside that instruction. With 64bits, this leaves you with a 22bit command and a 42 bit address. The maximum memory addressed is then 2^42 bytes - or four terabytes... You don't belive me - check the literature on the G5...

      Wrong! The PowerPC G5 (like all other 64-bit RISC chips) use 32-bit instructions. These instructions don't directly encode addresses (addresses are mostly held in registers).

      True, some implementations of 64-bit chips only support 42-bits or so of physical address space, but they still support the full 64-bits of virtual address space. Since the user-level software isn't affected by the physical address space (user-level code only deals with virtual addresses), the same software can run on future systems with larger physical address space without any changes.

  40. So when... by ThusandSuch · · Score: 3, Funny

    does the 150,000 Gig iPod come out?

  41. Great for storing all those fingerprints by otprof · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just in time! They are going to need some serious capacity to store HQ images of fingerprints belonging to millions of the world's terrorists.

  42. So how long? by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    until they can encode the human genome in something close to the size of the human genome?

    1. Re:So how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      never.

      When you compete with God, how can you seriously expect to win?

  43. Other research in this area by nissin · · Score: 5, Interesting
    First off, congratulations to all involved on this achievement. They barely beat the research group I am a part of at Caltech, which is working on the same sort of thing. Our chip is in fab right now, returning in a month or so.

    Information on the Caltech research can be found here.

  44. Dubya said by $exyNerdie · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    And Dubya said (in a future state of union address):

    "Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nucular, chemical, biological weapons and nanotubes that can hold thousands of liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure.

    These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

    This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. .....

  45. Nanotube Transistors by xtrucial · · Score: 1

    Nanotube Transistors. What is that all about? Is it good or is it whack?

  46. um...wtf? by Elpacoloco · · Score: 1

    "Without the second system, you could only twitch."

    Um? Hello? I move by "twitching" the right muscle at the right time. No quantum physics needed.

  47. Bad Acronym by Dorf+on+Perl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just thought I'd point out that CNT makes a horrible acronym. No wonder materials engineers can't get dates, going on about all the really tight CNTs they're growing in the lab...

  48. Holy blood soaked shit!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's amazing!!!1 I'm so turned on by this.

  49. About 40. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every address wire you add doubles the number of addressable bytes.

    2^40 == 1,099,511,627,776 Bytes
    or 1,048,576 MB

    Check my math.

  50. Is this different from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I seem to remember that Nantero had a 10Gb working prototype for NRAM. Is this significantly different from what they are doing?
    http://www.nantero.com

  51. These aren't nanotube transistors. by erp6502 · · Score: 3, Informative
    TFA states that what they've created is a matrix of silicon islands connected by molybdenum MOS transistors to automate batch testing of carbon nanotubes (about 2000 at a time). Yes, they look for I/V curves, but the CNTs are being tested as two-terminal devices (e.g. diodes) not three-terminal devices (e.g. transistors).

    At least, they're not laying claim to it (though you can bet they would like to). Their more modest (!) goal is to characterize the fabrication process in hopes of achieving higher yields of semiconducting (vs. metallic) CNTs.

    There will definitely be a few problems with productization; molybdenum's not something you want to get anywhere near a commercial fab, and that big blob of CNT growth catalyst is a bit of a disaster. But this looks like a very nice bit of engineering.

  52. clean power amp? by CreateWindowEx · · Score: 2, Funny
    The whole point of vacuum tube guitar amps is that the whole signal path is tube--e.g., both preamp and power stage. Most of the nice crunch of a say a Fender Bassman is in the power stages. Furthermore, the interaction between the power amp and the speaker is also important, which is why you typically record a guitar amp with a microphone, not a direct box.

    A low-voltage 12AX7 stuffed into a digital stomp box (with a window and an LED that makes it "glow") does not give you "real vintage tube-amp sound", no matter what the "pros" at Guitar Center might tell you!

    Next up, the Babbage Analytical Engine on a single chip. No need to carry those bulky logarithm tables around anymore, just a really teeny oil can...

  53. Not really a functional nanotube circuit by retro128 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Reading the article, it looks like what they did was build a chip that can detect the types of nanotubes growing on it - conductive or semiconductive, with the nanotube actually being grown on the chip itself.

    This research is a nanotube manufacturing method, not nanotube circuit fabrication.

    --
    -R
  54. Re:Get up to date man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  55. First ever my ass by MyFourthAccount · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Magnified view of carbon nanotube grown on silicon MOS circuitry.

    You should see the stuff that's been growing on MY circuitry. I've got enough prior art stacked up here to .... Oh, never mind.

  56. nantero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how does this news relate to this company
    www.nantero.com
    which is hoping to market large nanotube-based memory

  57. Moore's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that's the name of Intel's business model.

    1. Re:Moore's Law by fitten · · Score: 1

      It is a business model... but some folks for some reason take it to be something of a physical constant or a physical law, like the speed of light or gravity.

      Moore's Law is about the pace of advancement of transistor size with what the market will bear in buying upgrades/new machines. It has almost nothing to do with how rapidly photolithography size reductions can be developed or implemented.

  58. What are you excited about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ain't my father's old typewriter uses carbon? What's so exciting about it?

  59. IBM already shown it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't IBM show this last year ? No they didn't integrate it with silicon, but they already made the inverter out of it. So I would say IBM and Berkeley are head to head. I will still invest in intel !!

    -a

  60. Key to low cost == Bulk chemical processes by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm surprised that the Berkeley people grew the tubes on the semiconducting substrate (and skeptical that this is the way to go). Unless I am misreading the article (always a possibility), they have created a very expensive way to evaluate only thousands or millions of tubes per manufacturing cycle. I would think that the real key to low-cost nanotube circuits is to use bulk chemical processes.

    Using bulk chemical processes, one might grow a big batch of nanotubes, harvest them, sort them by size (centrifuge), chemically modify them to have certain electronic properties (i.e., attach functional groups to the surfaces or tube ends), and sort them electrochemically (perhaps with eletrophoresis). I can envision any number of interesting bulk chemical processes that simultaneously modify, test, or sort nanotubes. These bulk processes would yield batches of trillions or quadrillions of near-uniform, high-quality semiconducting nanotubes with each cycle of the process.

    And instead of using lithographic techniques (printing an accurate pattern of circuits on a wafer), I would expect nanotube circuits to be chemically deposited using self-organizing chemical films. These self-structured films can have feature dimensions far smaller than anything semiconductor maker can fabricate. The only need for lithography is at the edges -- creating an interface between the macroscopic off-chip interconnects and the nanoscopic fields of nanotube memory zones.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Key to low cost == Bulk chemical processes by citanon · · Score: 1

      You can sort nanotubes electrochemically, but currently the enrichment factor (1.2 or something in that neighborhood) is not great enough where you can assume your sample to be pure metal type or pure semi-conductor type. I do expect that electrochemical methods to improve rather quickly, but since the really sexy devices depend on individual nanotubes, it would always be wise to figure out exactly what types you're dealing with in an experiment.

      Self organizing films are interesting as an assembly process, but testing out ideas for gate designs and such still more conveniently done lithographically. What Hongjie Dai's group does is that they pattern a chip full of repeating units of test circuitry, then deposit catalysts on to the correct sites so that, when nanotubes are grown by CVD, they end up exactly where you need them to be to test them. Then, out of the chip full of nonworking devices, you find the few that work, and run tests on them.

      Finally, self assembly maybe cheaper, but not necessarily smaller, since these days one can get 5 nm ebeam lithography if one has a good setup and expert people. Typical single walled carbon nanotubes are half a nanometer to a nanometer in diameter, and neighboring devices have to be separated by at least 2 nanometers to prevent interference from electrons tunneling from one device to another. This means that self assembled devices can not be significantly smaller than a lithographically constructed device for laboratory testing purposes, though commercial fabs may have much more trouble producing 5 nm patterned wafers on a large scale.

  61. Not really integrated CNT transistors... by Mister+Attack · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...not in any computationally useful sense, anyway. Now, I'm not knocking this research, because it's a great way to make a bunch of nanotubes and examine them quickly (much faster than the usual process of making nanotubes, decorating a surface with them, hoping some of them line up with the traces you've deposited, etc.) -- but the fact remains that this is still basically an aleatoric process. You grow a bunch of nanotubes, and you know that some of them are going to be your nice metallic armchair nanotubes, some are going to be your nice semiconducting zigzags, and some are going to be junk. We don't have any way of controlling what type of nanotube we want to grow yet, nor do we have any way of getting yields high enough to make a traditional microprocessor. Right now, maybe 10 percent of the "transistors" you make out of molecules actually act like transistors. Since your Athlon is junk if even a few of its transistors or interconnects go bye-bye, and even Teramac didn't try to run with 90 percent of its transistors failed, it is clear that nanotubes for desktop-type computation are way out on the horizon.

  62. Some questions. by emil · · Score: 1
    • Why can't the production of metalic vs. semiconducting nanotubes be controlled?
    • Are the metallic nanotubes at all useful?
    • Why are the semiconducting nanotubes useful?
    • Do the semiconducting nanotubes need uniform impurity concentrations (doping) to be useful as memory storage devices?
    • The major benefit of this device is that it can identify semiconducting nanotubes in an automated manner. Does this hardware actually do anything with the nanotubes once they are classified? If not, what potentially can be done?
  63. you also forgot: by BinLadenMyHero · · Score: 1

    will it give us better pr0n?

  64. Boomers by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the anime AD Police and Knight Sabers, from Bubblegum Crisis, that have to battle these "Boomers" that are worker androids that occasionally go berserk. They we developed using some sort of artificial muscle with strands of some super fiber. Could be that these super fibers are carbon nanotubes.

    GO KNIGHT SABERS!

  65. Okay, how do you do it? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    pvt_medic (715692), I'm guessing you have found a way to game the Slashdot system. Your sig hints this, and there is no other way that comment could get a Troll rating.

    1. Re:Okay, how do you do it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sig hints this

      He put that sig there AFTER the rating, because it was funny.

      there is no other way that comment could get a Troll rating.

      The way it works is this: Underrated and overrated don't show up as reasons for a rating. So if you get (simplest example) 1 troll rating, and 5 underrated ratings, your score will show up as "Score 5; Troll". In his case (currently) he has 3 troll ratings, 1 interesting rating, and 5 underrated ratings. The 5 underrateds are the most prevalent, but underrateds aren't used, so the next most common is troll.

      Incidentally, underrated and overrated aren't sent to metamoderation, so if you're trying to moderate spam up, or moderate an opinion you don't like down, these are the ways to do it without getting punished.

  66. finally! a useful innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just imagine, with that small a computer, you wouldn't need a pornbuddy anymore! (for those of you who aren't up on the term, check out Coupling on the BBC)

  67. WetWare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea of a computer/network implanted in a human is a scary thing. How long umtil a software audit by law enforcement includes both the software in the implant, along with "native" software? I.E. "your" thoughts/feelings?..I hear "Sting" singing.."..Every thing you say..every thing you do.."

  68. You think that nanotubes on silicon amazing... by vrone · · Score: 1

    What's more impressive is Berkeley *working together* with Stanford. Incredible! I thought it would never happen in my lifetime. :)

  69. Showing your age... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come the motherboard icon for "Technology/IT" is so old? Nothing screams technology like an ISA bus.

  70. What about Nantero? by luwain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This article has the researchers at Berkeley claiming to be the "first ever" to report success in integrating nanotubes with integrated circuits. What about that company Nantero which claims a propriety nanotube memory chip design ( NRAM ), developed by Dr. Thomas Rueckes (who got his PhD in chemistry from Harvard).They have venture capital ( from Charles River Ventures, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, Stata Venture Partners, and Harris & Harris group). Their web page (www.nantero.com) claims, " Dr. Rueckes' pioneering design takes advantage of these unique properties while cleverly integrating nanotubes with traditional semiconductor technologies for immediate manufacturability." This makes it sound like they may have a product "real soon now". Are the guys at Berkeley not aware of the work done by these "Harvard guys"? Is this an "East Coast" vs. "West Coast" rivalry? or is it just academics not being aware of what's going on commercially? or is Nantero trying to "pull a fast one" and really aren't as far along in developing "NRAM" as they imply?

  71. Progress? by a10t2 · · Score: 1

    So computers are going to keep getting bigger instead of getting better... big surprise there.

  72. speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "chips that could hold approximately 10,000 times more data than those we have today"

    Are these things going to be hard drive speed or faster?

  73. How many levels of recursion can we go with this? by Torgen · · Score: 1

    ...on the next episode of "Lifestyles of the Easily Amused."

  74. From Mork and Mindy by HiggsBison · · Score: 1

    Mork: Give me an "N"
    Orson: "N"
    Give me an "A"
    "A"
    Give me an "N"
    "N"
    Give me an "O"
    "O"
    What do you get?
    "Nanu"
    No, you get Nano... Orsun!

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
  75. star trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Researchers say the development brings them a significant step closer to using carbon nanotubes for memory chips that can hold orders of magnitude more data than current silicon chips - 10,000 times greater, according to some estimates - or for sensors sensitive enough to detect traces of explosives or biochemical agents at the molecular level.

    Well there's another step closer to the tricorder and sensors on star trek :) Gene Roddenberry certainly was a visionary.