Slashdot Mirror
Circuits Better with Purer Nanotubes
Mark_Uplanguage writes "PhysicsWeb has an article on improving techniques for the use of carbon nanotubes in electronic circuits. From the article, 'Physicists in the US have developed a new method for making electronic circuits with carbon nanotubes. The technique involves dipping semiconductor chips into a purified solution of nanotubes, rather than the conventional method of growing the nanotubes directly onto the chips. The resulting devices are much better than those produced by other approaches.'"
what the hell does it mean though ?
p g
http://physicsweb.org/objects/news/9/8/2/050802.j
does any one have a link to an article that's more than just a blurb? What are the applications? How long before we can built Logic out of these chips? According to TFA, all they've managed to create so far is an FET...
and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
So, are you a dipper or do you cover them with sauce first? Science have proved that the dippers are using a superior technique...
chips: n. [British] Fried potatoes cut into thick rectangular strips. see fries [American].
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
... press releases about breakthroughs in nanotech especially in the carbon nanotube/semiconductor field. One should know that the US, EU, Korea and Japan throw an unprecendented amount of money into research in this field right now. And as the yanks have set the success metrics, it means all the researchers have to do is churn out press releases and file patents :-)
So, don't hold your breath re dipping, licking and roasting electronic circuits with CNT's.
These are not "purer nanotubes". They are more nanotubes and less other junk. Nanotubes grown on a surface will tend to also create other carbon molecules like ash, diamond crystalites, and even buckyballs. The purified stuff is simple this same mix of materials, but filtered to only have the tubes. They're still the same quality of tubes, just not dilluted w/ other crud.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
Not so. You can have macromolecules is solution without destroying them. For example, fullerene dissolves in toluene. The molecules don't break up, but they acquire a coating of toluene molecules on the surface which means that they act as part of the liquid instead of a solid. When the toluene is evaporated, the buckys are fine.
In fact, there's a good chance these nanotubes are bucky-derived so they might even be in a toluene solution in TFA (which I haven't read cos I don't care about chip manufacture, I was just reading for the '+5 Funny's).
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
(a) No, these transistors are no better. If you check the nature article, the contacts to the transistors are still lousy (technically, they are still schottky and not ohmic). And contact resistance is too high.
(b) No, they don't really get the nanotubes where they want as claimed in the article. The alignment using this technique is still worse (will require substantial effort to make it better).
(c) One of the bigger drawbacks which was conveniently ignored was the fact that they still cannnot control the number of tubes between the two contacts. So it can be 1 or 2 or 5 and so your current or other properties will vary that much. This technique doesn't make this problem any better.
(d) Last but not the least, no comment about the role of oxygen. All other researchers struggle due to hysteresis behavior, these devices look similar to them.