Slashdot Mirror


UK Scientists Make Transistor One Atom Long, 10 Atoms Wide

Bibek Paudel points out a story about the latest step forward in the development of nano-scale circuits. Researchers from the University of Manchester have created some of the smallest transistors ever, measuring only one atom by 10 atoms. The transistors are made out of graphene, which has the potential to replace silicon in the never-ending hunt for smaller computer technology. From NewScientist: "There are other kinds of prototype transistors in this size range. But they usually need supercooling using liquid gas, says Novoselov. The new graphene devices work at room temperature. Such prototypes are typically made by building one atom at a time, or wiring up individual molecules. Those approaches are complex and impractical, Novoselov says. By contrast, the graphene transistors were made in the same way that silicon devices are, by etching them out of larger pieces of material. 'That's their big advantage,' he says."

186 comments

  1. Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 0

    This is a good step in getting faster and better computers... it is too bad it'll take about 10 years before it is anywhere near affordable! (think electric car technology)

    1. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      I applaud the attempt at a car analogy, but the hurdles to a practical electric car extend way beyond technology and even economics - it's almost all politics.

      =Smidge=

    2. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      eh. for whatever reason, it won't catch on.

    3. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by ericvids · · Score: 1

      Which leads one to think... what kind of politics would be involved to prevent this transistor technology from becoming affordable?

      Patents, perhaps?

      --
      Pet peeve: Profane people propagating perfunctory pedantry.
    4. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, how about programming more efficiently and not using such high level languages that any practical reality is abstracted out? Why is the onus of performance always on the hardware side? Why is there never an equivalent breakthrough in software? "New software technique uses less memory, fewer CPU cycles and less hard disk access to move mouse pointer"?

    5. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by bheer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh, no, the challenges to a *feasible* electric car are mostly technological. And no, boil-the-ocean schemes along the lines of "if only the government will mandate electric refill stations along the freeway" are not a political barrier, except in the minds of some activists. Any solution that requires massive up-front investments is a poor engineering solution.

      The real problem with an electric car is that *storing* electricity is a hard problem. And unless your electric car runs on rails, you will need to store electricity.

      Incidentally, cars aren't the only ones with this problems -- laptops and mobile phones have exactly the same problem.

      Now, recent advances in nanotech will help batteries improve, and we may even see practical capacitor-type storage devices. And when we get to that point, the electric car will be a reality.

    6. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by Bombula · · Score: 1

      So graphene is the future of computers? Maybe we can sequester all our carbon that way!

      --
      A-Bomb
    7. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      damn my lack of mod points.

      That is precisely what is wrong with the electric car. we have regenerative braking but we don't get the real benefit of it as batteries can't absorb the charge fast enough. We need to move beyond chemical storage for electricity. Once we have ultra Capacitors Solar cells, and Wind turbines can be more wildly used. As the energy can be stored.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As it often leads to code that is harder to maintain.

    9. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by somersault · · Score: 0

      Keep your wild ideas away from my solar cells and wind turbines (what are you gonna do, wait til it spins up and chop someone's head off?), otherwise you'll be creating a legal barrier for their adoption for being more widely used!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    10. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by somersault · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty poor excuse - if you just comment/document the software properly then it would be fine. A little extra time taken writing the program isn't much of a price to pay for the hours and hours of processor time and RAM/HD space saved by people using the application either..

      Any software that needs to access the hard disk just to move the mouse (after loading the driver of course) is doomed anyway, no matter how easy it is to maintain :P hehe

      --
      which is totally what she said
    11. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by Smidge204 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "feasible" is. How far do you drive in a single day? Depending on who you talk to, the average American commutes to and from work for an average distance of about 35 miles. An electric car with a 100 mile range between charges is far from infeasible. In fact, it was done but the project was scrapped under somewhat suspicious circumstances.

      Something that gets you to and from the store and wherever you work is my definition of practical, and that level of performance is clearly attainable for what some studies suggest are the average usage conditions in this country. So what's the problem here?
      =Smidge=

    12. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A little extra time taken writing the program isn't much of a price to pay for the hours and hours of processor time and RAM/HD space saved by people using the application either.. The ones paying the developers ten times more than a better CPU, an extra GB of memory, and an extra hundred GB of disk space would cost might disagree with that.
    13. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by somersault · · Score: 2, Interesting

      well, for the cases where performance matters (games, 3D rendering, CAD, simulation, etc), all it would take in that case is for one company to spend the extra money, and they will reap the benefits in better sales. Then the others would have no choice but to follow suit. Hopefully those type of companies actually do put some thought into performance of their code anyway.

      Having said that, I do agree that it's good to try and keep the purpose of code as clear as possible through sensible variable names and constructs, and a good compiler should be capable of optimising a lot of code anyway, but it's no excuse for just being lazy and using more resources than you actually need..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    14. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by somersault · · Score: 1

      while I'm being modded 'overrated' even though I hadn't been rated yet, I'd like to point out that it's spelled peregrine and not peragrin. Thankyou.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    15. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      thanks for the laugh, and yes you are right it is peregrine, but peregrine is taken in most locations on the web so for consistency I use peragrin.

      The google trail for peragrin leads to numerous forums where i visit.

      I do have a question though, if wind turbines start chopping off heads, will the mobs suddenly turn to green energy?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    16. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by somersault · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aye, I wasn't sure if it was just a typo or misheard phrase :p

      I'm guessing the mobs will only turn to green energy when the government legalises marijuana and electric VW camper vans.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    17. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by bheer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Note - I am not a car fanatic. I like cars that take me from A to B reliably, and with decent handling. The problem is, I bought a car so that I'd not have to worry about the distance between A and B.

      For work, I drive about 20 minutes - less than 20 miles. But the thing is, I'd like to use the same car for longer drives. The notion of having a commute-only car and a separate car for everything else is not very appealing to me. As for the EV1, I'd love to see a ROI analysis of the costs of putting up the fuel infrastructure for a car that only urban and suburban Americans could use 4 days a week (because they could be driving out/in on Fridays/Mondays).

      That said, you should look at the Tesla -- it's supposed to do 220 miles on a single charge. And if they can get their transmission issues sorted out, it's going to make electric cars not just eco-friendly, but *desirable*.

    18. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      I read somewhere here on slashdot the solution to the problems many have with long distance drives. Essentially it was have your car be electric, but have a space in the trunk or under the hood or even a small trailer that could hold a generator and a small tank of gas. You just plug the generator directly into your engine and when the batteries start to get low on power, the generator kicks on and charges them back up.

      I think it's a brilliant idea. Then when you use your car like you usually do (short drives in town) you don't use any gas. And when you need to go further you can do so. In fact, you don't even need to own the generator. Maybe Hertz or Enterprise could rent them out or something. And if you're going on really long trips, you can get a larger generator.

      I just like the idea of an electric vehicle because of the decoupling. Sure we use a lot of coal now, but it's easier to clean up the pollutants when they are in one place then when they are being spewed out every 20 feet on the road. Also, energy companies could change their energy source and drivers wouldn't even know or care. They could switch to geothermal, wind, solar, nuclear, fusion, whatever, and drivers wouldn't have to spend a dime on their car for it to happen.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    19. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      That's called a hybrid. Specifically, a series hybrid (Engine->Generator->Motor, opposed to parallel hybrid where the engine can power the wheels directly)

      You don't want to just toss a generator into your trunk because they are much less efficient than a purpose built car engine and typically have no pollution controls installed.
      =Smidge=

    20. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      That's certainly a valid point, but I think you are not in the majority with that preference.

      And that still doesn't make an all-electric car infeasible.
      =Smidge=

    21. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      It's not anymore a hybrid than an electric car. With an electric car you have a plug that goes into your wall socket and charges its batteries. But what do you do on long trips where you don't want to wait three hours for the batteries to charge? Easy, before you go you rent (or buy) a trailer that is designed specifically to be a generator that you can plug stuff into. The outlet looks just like a wall outlet. It's like bringing the wall with you if you will.

      So maybe in the trunk is a bad idea (which I agree with on grounds that if you are going on a long trip, you probably want that trunk space for luggage instead of a generator and 5 gallon tank of gas). So you use the trailer that could have a standard hitch to fit on any car. You buy one or rent it as needed and it will fit your car. Even if they aren't as efficient as a car engine is now, since you are only using it for long trips the reduction in gasoline usage will still be vast.

      And since we are putting these on special trailers we can have all the pollution controls built into them. Sure I suppose somebody will just throw a regular generator into a trailer, but if the world went to electric vehicles with gas generators only for long trips, we could handle the small amount of increased pollution from those few who refuse to get the pollution controlled generators.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    22. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by default+luser · · Score: 1

      That's certainly a valid point, but I think you are not in the majority with that preference.

      Sure he is.

      How many people do you know that specifically own a commuter car, in addition to a car for "everything else?" Sure, some families can pull this off, but most single people can't afford the second car, unless they're car nuts who can grab a cheap used car and keep it running nice.

      Now, think about it: how many people who actually sacrificed cargo/seating room and performance just to cut down their gas budget are going to be commuting ONLY 35 miles both ways? And then, how many of those commutes are going to just use up 35 miles of range? You have to add additional range to account for detours, traffic jams, acts of god, the need to go to the store or pick up the kids on the way home, etc. 100 miles range is not nearly enough for the average commuter to rest easy, when they find themselves stuck in a 2-hour backup, and Johnny calls and needs to be picked-up from school.

      And hell yes, traffic jams eat up more power than unhindered traffic, even for an electric vehicle with regenerative braking. Or do you honestly expcet people to TURN OFF the air conditioner in the summer heat, or turn off the heater in the icy depths of winter? Or turn off the wipers in a rainstorm? Or turn off their headlights at night? Or simply turn off the stereo? All of these suck down power on an electric vehicle, and are an utter necessity for a car to be successful in the USA. If you have to turn these on, your range can drop considerably, and this can happen even if the car isn't moving.

      It is much less stressful to own an efficient gasoline commuter car that has 3-times the range of the electric vehicle, and can be refueled at any station in 5 minutes. This is why the gasoline-electric hybrid has made inroads in the country, but electric-only has not. Eventually, plug-in hybrids and improvements in storage may pave the way for electric-only vehicles, but that day is not today.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    23. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      How many people have a CHOICE to own something other than a gasoline vehicle? Excluding a handful of DIY there are no options.

      Incidentally, I know quite a few people who own multiple vehicles. Specifically, a small car for "around the town" type of driving and daily use, and another vehicle for more serious work/recreation (typically something with towing capability and cargo storage, like a minivan or pickup). My anecdote cancels your anecdote, I guess.

      35 miles/day is the current national average. That's what it is. That's three days worth of commuting on a single charge using yesterday's battery technology (plain lead-acid). If you're willing to pay for it you can get some nice (patent encumbered) automotive grade NiMH batteries that would nearly double that.

      Also, don't forget the fact that an electric car stopped in traffic uses ZERO energy. Unlike a gasoline car which typically keeps the motor running even when not moving, an electric car can sit in traffic practically forever. Even if you add things like A/C and radio, those run off a separate accessory battery and not directly the main motor bank.

      Now, is an electric car for everyone? Of course not. But I still think you are selling them way short, since there were literally thousands of people on the waiting list to lease an EV1 for $500/mo despite very limited regional availability.
      =Smidge=

    24. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Isnt the key problem that, you need to get electricity from somewhere, and if you get it from the mains your burning oil anyway?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    25. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by pbhj · · Score: 1

      all it would take in that case is for one company to spend the extra money, and they will reap the benefits in better sales ... and maybe a free and uncorrupted market (eg by monopolies) that values performance over fashionable trademarks??

    26. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by dword · · Score: 1

      And you just gave me a great idea: let's try to turn marijuana into fuel! Then we could bitch to our governments about how easy it is to grow and if it was legalized, we wouldn't need oil and there would hardly be any pollution at all AND, the best of all, the drivers will be in a good mood and when accidents would happen, everyone would feel just great about it and drivers wouldn't resist arrests any more.

    27. Re:Cool, but call me when it is cheap. by somersault · · Score: 1

      It really depends. For OSes, people don't care about benchmarks and stuff (though thankfully Vista seems to be being rejected - I really hope it doesn't manage to scrape through to mainstream adoption). But for specific high performance apps, people really do care about the speed and interface, and if one application was twice as fast as the rest, with the same features, reliability and ease of use, the others would basically have to follow suit - admittedly only as long as the faster app was marketed well enough that people knew about it and tried it out.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  2. Orientation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    One question...
    How do you know it's one atom long and ten wide? maybe it's ten atoms long and one wide?

    1. Re:Orientation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know it's one atom long and ten wide? maybe it's ten atoms long and one wide?
      Don't ask, don't tell.

      Atoms only wish to have the same spatial orientation treatment as other particles.
    2. Re:Orientation? by transmorph · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the linked article:

      "The smallest dots that worked as transistors contained as few as five carbon rings - around 10 atoms or 1nm wide."

      Somehow that became 10 atoms wide and 1 atom long in the summary.

      I know, I know - this sort of thing would never happen on Slashdot...

    3. Re:Orientation? by joke_dst · · Score: 1

      Actually, the article actually says "one atom thick and ten atoms wide". "Wide" here means both width and length though.

      Making a honey-comb structure 1x10 atoms is a bit hard...

    4. Re:Orientation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, last I checked a carbon ring was at least 6 atoms of carbon. 5x6=30 30=!=10

      "supercooling with liquid gas," huh? Excuse me while I go heat up my lunch with some solid plasma.
      o.O

    5. Re:Orientation? by SilentBob0727 · · Score: 1

      The way I understand it, the longer dimension was typically the "long" dimension and the shorter one was considered the "wide" dimension. So I believe you, sir, are correct, and these so-called "scientists" are horribly, horribly wrong.

      --
      Life would be easier if I had the source code.
    6. Re:Orientation? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      At first it was 1 atom wide, 1 atom deep, and 10 atoms high, but it kept falling over into two dimensions.

      Since it can fall over and loses all thickness, they expect to layer an infinite amount onto a chip, which the marketing people are excited about.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    7. Re:Orientation? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I'm not a (bio)chemist, but I think five carbon rings placed side-by-side would, in fact, be about 10 atoms wide.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:Orientation? by Warbothong · · Score: 1

      Moore's law would say that in about 5 years we'll have transistors smaller than an atom, which would suggest some kind of splitting going on.

      Don't know about you but I wouldn't like to pay for the cooling system on it.

    9. Re:Orientation? by treeves · · Score: 1

      Yup, as long as "about 10" means 11.
      (I tried drawing it with ASCII but the lameness filter didn't like it)

      And aromatic carbon rings (rings containing conjugated double bonds) are generally 6 carbons (benzene structure) but 5 and greater are possible. Cycloalkanes (carbon rings with no double bonds) can be anywhere from 3 carbons up, but they're not interesting for electronics (and 3 and 4 carbon rings are not very stable due to the large angle strain of the bonds).

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    10. Re:Orientation? by CogDissident · · Score: 1

      They're referring to a 10x10x1 grid. So 100 square atoms, and 100 cubic atoms.

  3. Wait... by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shouldn't that be 10 Atoms long, One Atom wide?

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

      Exactly!

    2. Re:Wait... by lixee · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not in electrical engineering.

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    3. Re:Wait... by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

      Then again, I suppose it's what you do with it that counts...

    4. Re:Wait... by hardburn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Further, what exactly is a "liquid gas"?

      --
      Not a typewriter
    5. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm quite sure you will find, upon second thought, that it's 10 atoms *high*, if you look at it from a different angle.

    6. Re:Wait... by cibyr · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know you've been modded funny, but some people are probably wondering - when talking about transistors, "length" is how far electrons have to travel through the transistor, and "width" is the other dimension (effectively how many electrons can travel through the transistor at the same time). Resistance is proportional to length and inversely proportional to width.

      --
      It's not exactly rocket surgery.
    7. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You could think of it that way because you are a guy... but he article was submitted by a woman thinking "I am too fat"

    8. Re:Wait... by maxume · · Score: 1

      I'm sort of guessing here, but how often do you cross the width of a bridge?

      Pretty sure the same sort of thing is going on.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Wait... by iknowcss · · Score: 1

      What does that even mean?

      --
      Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
    10. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A moist poot.

    11. Re:Wait... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Informative

      'Liquid Gas' is sometimes used to describe a substance that is under pressure and a liquid, but is typically a gas under normal atmospheric conditions (1 atm, 25C or something similar)

      You will often see it in reference to Natural Gas, as 'Liquid Natural Gas' Since the term 'Natural Gas' is more of a formal name, than any descriptor of a chemical and its state.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    12. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when talking about transistors, "length" is how far electrons have to travel through the transistor, and "width" is the other dimension (effectively how many electrons can travel through the transistor at the same time).

      The cute thing about electrons is they obviously travel in two-dimensional space only.

      Resistance is proportional to length and inversely proportional to width.

      Then, I take it, width is proportional to height ...

    13. Re:Wait... by p3d0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It means "length" is the direction electrons flow, and "width" is perpendicular to that, even if that makes "length" smaller than "width".

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    14. Re:Wait... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I take it, width is proportional to height ... Where did that come from?

      Plus, if you read the article you'll see that it's the 'dot' containing at least 5 carbon nano rings (or something) that makes transistor that is 10 atoms (1 nanometer) wide, but the person doing the summary got r confused.
      --
      which is totally what she said
    15. Re:Wait... by wurp · · Score: 1

      Resistance is inversely proportional to the surface area orthogonal to the direction of current flow, which is presumably basically the square of the width.

    16. Re:Wait... by iknowcss · · Score: 1

      Oh. Thanks :D. Mod points for this man! He was actually informative.

      --
      Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
    17. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually answered the question without giving a smug 2 word answer like the Great Grand Parent.

    18. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it, width is proportional to height ... Where did that come from?

      That came from the "fun" part of the then GP.

      Plus, if you read the article

      Now I bothered to RTFA (I have no access to the real FA at Science Magazine, anyway, since I'm not at work), but I found it too leaves too much space for confusion.

      I, for one, demand everything in a three-dimensional space needs to have at least three dimensions, not two.

    19. Re:Wait... by somersault · · Score: 1

      What aboot a singularity/black hole? Eh? :P

      --
      which is totally what she said
    20. Re:Wait... by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Transistor current is proportional to Width/Length. A wider transistor produces a bigger current for the same input voltage (basically, an amplifier).

      Transistor load (capacitance) is determined by the area of the gate, or Width * Length.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    21. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What aboot a singularity/black hole? Eh? :P

      I think a singularity is not preferably defined as something having exactly three dimensions in space ... neither is it defined by having exactly one dimension in time.

      Anyway, I for one think the hole black, err, whole black hole thing definitely sucks. ;)

  4. Thick by theophylact · · Score: 1

    That's one atom thick, not one atom wide.

    1. Re:Thick by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      It's not thick, it's just a slow learner you insensitive clod!

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
  5. U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I submitted this in story form yesterday but also in recent news, Glasgow scientists have made a tiny switch that would make huge leaps in memory storage:

    Scientists at the University of Galsgow have claimed a breakthrough that enables them to store 500,000 gigabytes squeezed onto one square inch making way for some hilarious storage for things like cell phones and iPods. The scientists working on it divulged, "We have been able to assemble a functional nanocluster that incorporates two electron donating groups, and position them precisely 0.32 nm apart so that they can form a totally new type of molecular switching device. This is unprecedented and provides a route to produce new a molecule-based switch that can be easily manipulated using an electric field. By taking these nano-scale clusters, just a nanometer in size, and placing them onto a gold or carbon, we can control the switching ability. Not only is this a new type of switchable molecule, but by grafting the molecule on to metal (gold) or carbon means that we can potentially bridge the gap between traditional semiconductor devices and components for nanoscale plastic electronics. The key advantage of the molecule sized switch is information / transistor density in traditional semi-conductors. Molecule sized switches would lead to increasing data storage to say 4 Petabits per square inch. This breakthrough shows conceptually that this is possible (showing the bulk effect) but we are yet to solve the fabrication and addressing problems. The fact these switches work on carbon means that they could be embedded in plastic chips so silicon is not needed and the system becomes much more flexible both physically and technologically. Since these switches are little balls of metal oxide they are made of similar stuff to normal semi-conductors but are much easier to manipulate as discrete molecular units." You can read more about it in Nature's Nanotechnology publication. In related news, researchers have claimed to harness terahertz radiation using circuits.

    Another advancement in nanotechnology, thought I would post it here since it's probably not going to be used.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...making way for some hilarious storage for things like cell phones and iPods.

      What's so funny about it?

    2. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      500 gigs on your ipod? Most people i know can't fill 30 gig of music they like. Unless it was lossless...

    3. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by Kythe · · Score: 1

      we are yet to solve the fabrication and addressing problems


      So, unfortunately, this breakthrough does not enable them to store 500 terabytes in one square inch.

      Making things ridiculously small is a good first step, but without the ability to fabricate huge numbers of them side by side in an organized and connected fashion, it remains just that.

      I'm encouraged that lots is being done with carbon; it seems this area is receiving more and more focus, which will hopefully lead to solving some of the fabrication issues.
      --

      Kythe
    4. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 500 thousand gigs (500,000) not 500!

      Or to put it another way, half a Petabyte, which makes 500 gigabytes look stupidly tiny! I read this article a few days ago and it's not often I go "WOW" at something, but in this instance, I made an exception. Half a petabyte in one square inch. Thank about that for a moment...

    5. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

      "Hilarious" storage? What does that even mean?

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    6. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by ozbird · · Score: 1
      What's so funny about it?

      Obligatory Isaac Asimov quote:

      The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'
    7. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gigs = giggles, ov coarse

    8. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by EMeta · · Score: 1

      That's in the same units as Spaceballs' ridiculous and ludicrous speeds.

    9. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

      If you think pet-a-byte is somewhat funny, the next 10^3 level of storage should be hilarious. It may also be a twisted homage to "Spaceballs."

      --
      Invenio via vel creo
    10. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by cparker15 · · Score: 1

      You mean 500,000 GB, or ~488 TB of storage. "Hilarious" doesn't begin to describe that amount of storage space on something such as a PDA, smartphone, or portable music player. I would expect the music from a 500,000 GB iPod to leave plaid residue on your ears.

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

    11. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      500 gigs on your ipod? Most people i know can't fill 30 gig of music they like. Unless it was lossless... Psh, the slackers just aren't trying hard enough.
    12. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Note, however, that those are transistors, not flash cells, so the ramifications are actually much different than the iPod comparison. These aren't bulk storage, they're plain old flip-flops like those that make up the registers and cache in a CPU. You need to power them or they'll lose their data.

      In other words, imagine a CPU that has no cache at all... because it's got a few hundred GiB of main memory (I use that lower figure because it's more reachable; besides, the chip isn't a whole square inch and you'll want to devote a lot of it to other logic than memory). Main memory running at the same speed of the CPU. No fancy bus issues, no clock multipliers. In other words, no more von Neumann bottleneck; two layers of the modern memory hierarchy vanish in a puff of new technology. Among other things, this changes the way certain software is written; since you no longer have a cache thrashing penalty, you no longer need to worry about locality of reference, and suddenly you find radix sort performing better than quicksort and certain list fragmentation penalties go away.

      After that, consider the effects of have such huge amounts of high speed memory. A very complicated aspect of OS design is suddenly very simple, because you no longer really need to worry about swapping stuff out to disk. You can just use a huge page size and a fast and simple (but space inefficient) algorithm like the buddy system. You can also have a separate chunk of memory on the CPU die, say a modest 64 GiB, hooked into the system bus for devices to talk to, with a crossbar so the CPU can still access it at full speed, so certain I/O scheduling issues also become simpler.

    13. Re:U of Glasgow Made Similar Nano-Switch Progress by Nullav · · Score: 1

      Just imagine someone walking down the street with 500TiB of space in their pocket, using around 0.5% of it. I know someone's probably going to respond with a '640k' post, but I just can't help but look at that number and wonder if I'll even be alive when individuals start using all that (for more than OMGWTFHD video).

      It certainly made me laugh.

      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
  6. "which has the potential to replace silicon" by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    "which has the potential to replace silicon". Talk is cheap. Show me the stuff. Seriously, that phrase has been around for decades...

    1. Re:"which has the potential to replace silicon" by beav007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I got an early engineering version to test, but I can't figure out how to solder the damn thing to a PCB...

    2. Re:"which has the potential to replace silicon" by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      "which has the potential to replace silicon". Talk is cheap. Show me the stuff. Seriously, that phrase has been around for decades...


      If you're only interested in products and don't care about discoveries, then you're on the wrong site. Try amazon.com instead.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  7. Science or Magic by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, sometimes I feel the line between science and magic gets fuzzy. A transistor one atom by 10 atoms? That's on such a small scale that is so hard to comprehend that it'd almost be easier to hand-wave it and just say "it's magic."

    1. Re:Science or Magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hasn't it been said that any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?

    2. Re:Science or Magic by wpiman · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think it is interesting it is one atom long by ten atoms wide. Isn't the definition of the long side the one that is longer?

    3. Re:Science or Magic by UnHolier+than+ever · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Worst. Graphene being 1 atom wide? Graphene is a planar sheet with a honeycomb lattice. I fail to see how you can make a 1 atom wide honeycomb lattice. Unless what they mean is 1 atom thick, but then this is a 1 atom X 10 atoms X 10^6 atoms transistor. This isn't quite the same thing.

    4. Re:Science or Magic by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      This is just in: "Future Computers Powered By Magic"

      According to Mark Erlin of the University of Oxford future computers will be powered by magic. He thinks that we are now close on the threshold to what they call in technical terms "transphysical barrier to a multi-folded dimension" which is a complicated way to say "magic". "This is an amazing dicovery! This is probably the best thing since sliced bread!" says Erlin. "We have discovered this magic by studying very small transistors, no more than a few atoms large. We also found out that this magic works at room temperature, which was a complete suprise to us" says a very exited Erlin. "Who would have thought that we would come this far in computertechnology." Although the reactions from the scientific community are largely positive, sceptical elements have voiced their opinion. Mr Peter Oof from the organization of sceptical scientists Nurom indicated that these kind of thing are claimed on a regular basis. "How often have we heard about these kind of things? There is no magic bullet, just like there is no such thing as cold fusion". Erlin respons to the critisism with no worries. "Ofcourse people are sceptical, like all scientists should be. Yes, there is no such thing as cold fusion. But if you look at the testresults you can't have any other conclusion. If you don't believe me just try it yourself. And by the way, the magic bullet is planned to arrive in about 20 years. Together with you own flying car."

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    5. Re:Science or Magic by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      That's on such a small scale that is so hard to comprehend that it'd almost be easier to hand-wave it and just say "it's magic."
      Yeah, I probably created 150 of these before breakfast, but I just don't have the equipment to observe it.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:Science or Magic by lsolano · · Score: 0

      I think the same. How can anything be that small? THAT SMALL! Incredible brilliant people.

    7. Re:Science or Magic by RancidMilk · · Score: 0

      I think it is interesting it is one atom long by ten atoms wide. Isn't the definition of the long side the one that is longer? Heh... article buried as inaccurate.
    8. Re:Science or Magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 1 x 10 nm.
      That's about... err... ~10^1 atoms.

    9. Re:Science or Magic by ledow · · Score: 1

      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

      The recently-deceased Arthur C. Clarke.

    10. Re:Science or Magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In transistors, the current flows down the "long" side.

      If you had a car that was longer from side to side than from front to back, the "length" would still be bumper to bumper.

    11. Re:Science or Magic by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      Who cares? Either way, she's still going to ask, "Is it in yet?"

    12. Re:Science or Magic by Shaltenn · · Score: 1

      Single walled carbon nanotubes may be considered to be graphene cylinders; some have a hemispherical graphene cap (that includes 6 pentagons) at each end.

      From the same Wikipedia article you linked. 10x1 I guess would be considered a graphene cylinder. Such is the only explanation for the errata you mention.

      --
      If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
    13. Re:Science or Magic by bdcrazy · · Score: 1

      Any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced.

      --
      Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
    14. Re:Science or Magic by dargaud · · Score: 1

      I guess it refers to the length as the direction of propagation of the electron, and the width as to where the 'side' controls for the transistor are located. Yeah, I'm rusty in analog 'tronics, how can you tell ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    15. Re:Science or Magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see how

      That's why these guys get the headline while you moan on /.

    16. Re:Science or Magic by Kjella · · Score: 1

      It's just another case of an engineering discipline create a term that's almost but not entirely unlike the common definition. Just like when computer scientists decided that the kilobyte would work completely different than the kilogram, kilometer, kilowatt, kilopascal and all the other terms used in daily life and natural sciences. The overhead they've caused by confusing millions of people which have to be explained the difference, misleading marketing, discussions on how to fix it and all the bugs related to it is probably the second greatest mistake after creating the y2k problem. Most other WTFs we've been able to design away...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:Science or Magic by fuzzlost · · Score: 1

      Not if that atom happened to be Jumbonium.

    18. Re:Science or Magic by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      OO oo I learned about this recently- That's a logical falacy!!

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    19. Re:Science or Magic by Quato · · Score: 0

      Seriously, sometimes I feel the line between science and magic gets fuzzy. A transistor one atom by 10 atoms? That's on such a small scale that is so hard to comprehend that it'd almost be easier to hand-wave it and just say "it's magic."

      Call me old fashioned, but I think these things do run on magic. Being that they are using magic... I say.. They are witches... BURN THEM!

      Then again, I'm old fashioned.

    20. Re:Science or Magic by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Any sort of engineer, scientist, or technician should be using the units that make their math the easiest. For computer science, power-of-two units for storage is correct. If we CS people have to occasionally write KiB (pronounced "kay" or "kilobyte") every once and a while when talking to communication engineers, that's fine - but I could care less about confusing the general public by 2% on hard disk size.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    21. Re:Science or Magic by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      I could care less about confusing the general public by 2% on hard disk size. It was a 2% difference back when measuring floppy disks of KB vs KiB. But now that we are in the terabyte range it is up to 9%. That means you lose over 92GiB on a 1TB disk.
      • (1KiB - 1KB ) / 1KiB = ( 2**10 - 10**3 ) / 2**10 = 0.0234375
      • (1MiB - 1MB ) / 1KiB = ( 2**20 - 10**6 ) / 2**20 = 0.04632568359375
      • (1GiB - 1GB ) / 1KiB = ( 2**30 - 10**9 ) / 2**30 = 0.0686774253845215
      • (1TiB - 1TB ) / 1KiB = ( 2**40 - 10**12 ) / 2**40 = 0.0905052982270718
  8. Old news by HetMes · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pah! I discovered Miniaturization two years ago in Civilization II.

    1. Re:Old news by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Retrogaming, eh? (Civ II was released in 1996 and re-released in 2002)

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    2. Re:Old news by HetMes · · Score: 1

      Definitely! I'm visiting fora where the last post was at least 5 years ago :) Plus, I just don't like Civ 3 and Civ 4.

    3. Re:Old news by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 4, Funny
      I demand that you give me the secret of Miniaturization or we will crush your feeble civilization with our mighty armies immediately.

      You reject our generous offer? Very well, we will mobilize our armies for WAR. You will pay for your foolish pride!

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
  9. Power consumption? by EricR86 · · Score: 1

    A quick search said nothing about power consumption. If these transistors are really small, but leaky as hell with subthreshold leakage then what's the point? The chip might have to manage heat/power in such a way that there's a large portion of the die dedicated to it.

    Also, what "atom" size are we talking about here?

    1. Re:Power consumption? by Sinbios · · Score: 5, Funny

      Since the material in question is graphene, I'm going to take a wild guess and say... carbon.

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    2. Re:Power consumption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, what "atom" size are we talking about here?


      Quattuorvigintillionoctium - its atoms are about the size of a golfball.
    3. Re:Power consumption? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Here's the paper (PDF). I don't see anything about power consumption, but I only skimmed through.

  10. Liquid gas? by jomegat · · Score: 3, Funny

    So... is a liquid gas anything like a solid liquid? Or perhaps a case of flatulence gone wrong?

    --

    In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.

    1. Re:Liquid gas? by mikael · · Score: 1

      It's like a liquid lunch, just more bubbly.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Liquid gas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flatulence goes right?

    3. Re:Liquid gas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this is a case where trying to remove technical jargon (element names) just makes the sentence look stupid. If they had said "liquid helium" or "liquid nitrogen" that would have been a lot more clear. Certainly no less clear than "liquid gas," even if you don't know anything about chemistry.

    4. Re:Liquid gas? by Devv · · Score: 1

      Probably the best single-line comment I have ever seen on Slashdot. Funny/Informative/Insightful on one line.

      --
      +1 Agree -1 Disagree
  11. alas by clickclickdrone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course, this being the UK, we'll give the technology away or sell the company that owns it to an overseas one for 50p.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  12. I'm not impressed by cashdot · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Researchers from the University of Manchester have created some of the smallest transistors ever, measuring only one atom by 10 atoms. It's funny, how the word "create" is streched here. From what I read, there is no evidence that they actually build one of those. Rather, I seems that this transistor exists only in theory. Having done research in molecular electronics, I know how difficult, and in most cases probably outright impossible it is, to implemnent such a theoretical construct in reality. Nice sketch indeed, but how you are going to build it? Is it stable at higher* temperatures? How do isolate it from the substrate? How would build several of those?

    * temperatures above absolute zero that are economically achievable.

    1. Re:I'm not impressed by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      I read the article as saying that they have actually built one and that it works at room temperature.

  13. Etching is good, but it's only one part by Kythe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This technology (and other similar developments using graphene/carbon) seems very promising. And I'm glad they could solve one part of the fabrication process using steps that are already in use (etching).

    However, there remains another issue when using these devices to construct circuits: patterning. Right now, that's generally done with lithography, and though several ideas are being worked on, we simply cannot yet use lithography to pattern devices anywhere near this small.

    Don't get me wrong: it's good that such technology is out there waiting for us once the patterning tech catches up. But until that happens, this stuff will likely remain in the lab.

    --

    Kythe
    1. Re:Etching is good, but it's only one part by owndao · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm a bit confused about the statement that this switch was made with "processes already in use". I am not aware of any way this could be masked. We are probably looking at gamma rays to to work at that size. And a solvent/eroding method for the graphene? We are talking about structures smaller than most non-atomic molecules. I frankly doubt that they are using any process commonly used today except by extreme analogy. As the guy in TFA said "But working out how to manufacture graphene devices on a practical scale remains a challenge". I don't think we'll be seeing devices made this way any time soon. We'll probably have to design and create a nanite army of tools/robots or a high-speed atomic force microscopic printer to construct the simplest devices. Are you aware of other means?

      --
      Be as you would have the world become.
    2. Re:Etching is good, but it's only one part by Kythe · · Score: 1

      Are you aware of other means?


      Just about the only technology currently being developed that might fit the bill anytime soon would be metamaterial lensing.

      Photoresist, of course, would be a real problem (assuming, as you say, that masking is involved). Many (most?) photoresists are organic have somewhat complex molecular structure, so trying to use existing materials would be difficult, to say the least.
      --

      Kythe
  14. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't that be 10 Atoms long, One Atom wide? No
  15. The really impressive thing by InfinityWpi · · Score: 1

    Not only did they etch this out of a larger piece of material, but even the larger piece of material was too small to see with the naked eye.

    Of course, someday they'll find a material where a single atom is, like, an inch wide, and then we won't be impressed by atoms anymore...

    1. Re:The really impressive thing by gb · · Score: 1

      Not only did they etch this out of a larger piece of material, but even the larger piece of material was too small to see with the naked eye. The fact that the graphene flakes used are only a few microns across is the real problem. Most of the current graphene work is done on exfoliated flakes, which is just a fancy way of saying that they got a lump of graphite and peeled sheets of graphene off with sticky tape and sometimes get lucky and get one big enough and thin enough to be worth playing with.

      You can buy graphenen commerically - it's several trillion dollars per square inch though ! There are possible ways to make a wafer of graphene, but involves a SiC wafer, a very good vacuum and about 1600 degrees C and is still extremely tricky to do.

      On the other hand, graphene is dead interesting - not only does it have the highest known electron mobility and very low spin-orbit coupling, but the electrons follow a dirac wave-equation and not a Schroedinger equation, which means they behave massless relativistic particles. So you can do all kinds of exciting relativistic experiments "on a chip".
  16. OK, I'm picking at nits.... by glug101 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I realize this is trite, but shouldn't that be one molecule long and 10 molecules wide? Seeing as how I don't remember graphene on the periodic table... I suppose that since they are counting individual molecules and atoms, it's not a huge stretch to think that they might have these molecules lined up in such a way that they have a 1 atom by 10 atom geometry with the extra atoms in the molecule going into the 3rd dimension.

    Not trying to criticize too much, I'm just a stickler for units:)

    1. Re:OK, I'm picking at nits.... by iKitten · · Score: 1

      Orientation is a relative concept. I used to work in shipping. When you do have to orient for some reason, the longest side is always the length, followed by width and height in decreasing distance. Oh, and technically it is on the periodic table of elements. You're just looking in the wrong place. Graphene's just carbon graphite.

    2. Re:OK, I'm picking at nits.... by treeves · · Score: 1

      Graphite's just carbon too. Graphene is just a single sheet (1 atom thick) of graphite, or graphite is a bunch of graphene layers stacked on top of one another.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  17. There's such a thing as too small. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At this scale, the transistor could very easily be destroyed by a cosmic ray. Interesting experiment, but I have a hard time believing that this development can find many practical applications.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:There's such a thing as too small. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I can just see the case mods now.

      1: Dude, that is really cool that you put a window in your computer case, but why is there a dead cat in there?
      2: Oh, that? That was there when I broke the factory seal.

    2. Re:There's such a thing as too small. by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      Yeah but on the other hand, your CPU becomes a FANTASTIC cosmic ray detector! I wonder if we could harness that for the SETI-at-home project...

    3. Re:There's such a thing as too small. by Djinh · · Score: 1

      The one who says it cannot be done should never interrupt the one who is doing it

    4. Re:There's such a thing as too small. by Kythe · · Score: 1

      I suppose shielding is always an option.

      For that matter: how vulnerable is the graphene crystalline structure to radiation damage? Carbon bonds can be among the strongest in nature.

      --

      Kythe
    5. Re:There's such a thing as too small. by JustinOpinion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Eric Drexler's book "Nanosystems, he carefully analyzes questions like this regarding the possible failure modes of atomically-precise devices. The book goes through the math in detail. The short answer is that even with fairly pessimistic assumptions (e.g. that a single-atom defect created during manufacture or afterwards by cosmic rays or other radiation will completely destroy a particular functional sub-unit), you can still design highly robust devices.

      The most obvious way is to build in some level of redundancy. Naively you can have dozens of redundant sub-units, and use things like "majority voting" to pull out the signal from the noise. In practice there are more elegant ways to do this (e.g. error correction). Many modern chips do indeed have some redundancies so that even with manufacturing defects, the chip still runs (perhaps with some reduction in functionality). Organizing the chip so that failsafe-checks occur during operation is certainly possible.

      Again, check out the book for more details. The point is that these questions have been thought about and they are not insurmountable. The rate of defects generated from spurious environmental damage (e.g. cosmic rays) is low enough that it can be overcome with fairly straightforward engineering.

    6. Re:There's such a thing as too small. by Gotung · · Score: 1

      Not just cosmic rays, normal good old nuclear decay becomes an issue. Sure the half-life on carbon is very, very long, but it does decay. And just one carbon atom decaying in a microprocessor made up of these means a broken computer.

    7. Re:There's such a thing as too small. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a big fan of Drexler, but must warn people that isn't popular science. It is a VERY technical book filled with mathematical calculations. If that doesn't scare you off, go ahead and buy it. It describes some pretty cool concepts.

  18. From TFS by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

    By contrast, the graphene transistors were made in the same way that silicon devices are, by etching them out of larger pieces of material. They did actually build them, and they did it using the same kinds of techniques that current transistors use.

    The new graphene devices work at room temperature They work at room temperature.

    If you want something to worry about, worry about power usage and heat dissapation.
  19. Re:Wait... (car analogy) by krnpimpsta · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't that be 10 Atoms long, One Atom wide? I didn't RTFA, but it could be 10 atoms long, 1 atom wide, depending on what the functional orientation is.

    Car Analogy:
    Say a car A is 10 feet bumper to bumper, and 6 feet side to side. We say that car A is 10 feet long and 6 feet wide.
    Now say car B is only 3 feet bumper to bumper (Steve Urkel's car?) and 6 feet wide. Would you say this car is 6 feet "long" just because its width happens to be the longest dimension? IMO, we would call this car "3 feet long and 6 feet wide."
    --

    New webcomic updated on Sundays: HERE

  20. Proper terminology by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Funny

    UK Scientists Make Transistor One Atom Long, 10 Atoms Wide

    They're in the UK, so I believe the proper term for them is "boffins".

    1. Re:Proper terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're in the UK, so I believe the proper term for them is "boffins".

      I used to think I was a sysprog until my new boss started issuing a 'boffin rota' for oncall. Now I get urges to wear a lab-coat with a pocket full of pens and wave a sliderule about...

  21. Room temperature? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked, the internal temperature of my processors were at least twice as high as room temperature.

    1. Re:Room temperature? by wurp · · Score: 1

      Your processors run at over 310 degrees Celsius?

      The only sane way to calculate "multiples" of temperature is in kelvins, and room temperature is about 293 kelvins. Double would mean 586 kelvins, which is about 316 degrees Celsius.

      Whenever e.g. the rate of chemical reactions are proportional to the temperature, it always means the temperature in kelvins.

    2. Re:Room temperature? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Sorry for not having a degree in alchemy dude!

      Most of the population on this planet assumes celcius when talking about room temperature, meaning that my processors are always at least at 42 degrees.

    3. Re:Room temperature? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Ok I made a typo on celsius, sue me...

      And btw room temperature is 21 celsius, so it's 294.15 kelvins, not 293. :p

    4. Re:Room temperature? by wurp · · Score: 1

      I used approximations to point out your error without bogging down in details. Apparently it didn't work.

      The problem with the information you gave doesn't require a degree in "alchemy" to see - you didn't say degrees C or F; or kelvins; for the temperature, and double room temperature in degrees C is very different than double room temperature in degrees F or in kelvins.

    5. Re:Room temperature? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      And you didn't bother to actually understand what I said in one of my replies: the whole world uses celsius when talking about "room temperature" (apart from americans and british).

      Some units are implied in day-to-day conversations. If someone tells you he's 20, you'll understand he implied 20-years old, you won't start asking them "20 days old? 20 minutes old? 20 years old according to the chinese calendar?"

    6. Re:Room temperature? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Sorry for not having a degree in alchemy dude!

      Most of the population on this planet assumes celcius when talking about room temperature, meaning that my processors are always at least at 42 degrees.

      That's fine, but then don't go calling it "twice the temperature", 'cause it isn't, no matter how you slice it. And it's "Celsius", by the way - two esses, not two cees.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    7. Re:Room temperature? by wurp · · Score: 1

      And that has nothing to do with the fact that "double" is nonsense when applied to temperature unless you're talking about kelvins. (Moreso, obviously, when one omits the units one is measuring with.)

      I'm done with this lame conversation.

    8. Re:Room temperature? by Yvan256 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Because of course "twice the temperature" is too complicated for your huge brain if we omit the measurement unit even though 99% of the world understood what I said.

      You only wanted to show off with your knowledge and you failed, you ended up looking like an idiot.

  22. meh by sootman · · Score: 3, Funny

    call me when they make one that's 1x4x9.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  23. Okay.... by Chas · · Score: 1

    Now if they can scale it up to a factor of a few billion/trillion, and mass produce it, they'll replace silicon.... *Holds breath* . .. ... *THUD!*

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  24. Magic cannot exist in our culture by clonan · · Score: 1

    Tell me, if you saw an animal (say horse or even pig) sprout wings and fly would you think it was magic?

    You you immediately conclude that there is a mystical force outside your ability to comprehend that made that animal grow wings?

    Or would you conclude that the animal was genetically engineered or that it was actually a robot of some sort or even that you imagined it?

    My point is simply this, the idea that advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic ONLY applies to pre-industrial/technological societies.

    This is a little sad, like losing some innocence but I suppose that is the price of society growing up...I can only hope that we are in the early-mid teen years right now and that we will "grow out" of this phase.

    1. Re:Magic cannot exist in our culture by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      When I pass by the farms on my way home from work today, and I see barnyard critters sprout wings and fly...

      First, I'm going to open my windows to make sure my engine isn't fumigating me.

      Then, yeah, I'm going to have to go with magic. That is probably more realistic than a farmer that can make robotic/cybernetic animals.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    2. Re:Magic cannot exist in our culture by clonan · · Score: 1

      See, your first impulse is to check for a drug / chemical reason.

      If I couldn't figure out how it COULD happen I might eventually go to magic, but that is a long way away and very unlikely.

      Magic can't exist because that is not what most people assume is the cause. For instance, there was a huge number of UFO sightings over air bases in the 50's. These are essentially all because Jets were just invented and they radically changed the shape, speed and general power of planes well beyond what people expected.

      My question is why did people assume it was spacecraft RATHER than witchcraft? The answer is that technological societies generally assume there are technological solutions to problems.

    3. Re:Magic cannot exist in our culture by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      See, your first impulse is to check for a drug / chemical reason.

      If I couldn't figure out how it COULD happen I might eventually go to magic, but that is a long way away and very unlikely.


      Oh very true, in fact, I can't think of a situation where I would call something magic, unless it did indeed violate physical laws I knew to be true. Perhaps that would be a better definition of magic. Something that requires a violation of proven physical laws.

      I'd actually like to discuss the social aspect of magic a bit more as well. One very interesting thing about our social beliefs is that they often are tied into the literature that our society produces.

      Consider Tolkien's interpretation of 'magic' in his works. There was very little attempt at an explanation for what was occuring, or in other words, the mechanism behind the phenomena. Tolkien didn't try to explain his magic to the audience, it simply was. In fact, I think that any attempt to explain it would result in it not actually being 'magic' but rather an explainable physical phenomena that wasn't accessable to normal humans.

      Now, contrast that with a lot of what occurs in current fantasy literature. You will have human characters involved/practicing magic. Often when this occurs, the author will explain the mechanisms involved. eg "Shelly drew upon the energy reserve to increase the density of the air in front of her to deflect the arrow's flight." In this case, the capability of Shelly to manipulate the energy isn't explained (probably because that is more detail than the current reader needs), but the mechanism and effects is explained to a much greater detail, and in terms that are designed to meet a certain level of technical scrutiny.

      It involves the concept of magic, but in the explanation it becomes a bit less magic, and more mundane.

      Oddly enough, JK Rowling's Harry Potter series may be much more traditional in its description of magic as something that just could/should not exist in the 'real' world. Little to no attempt is made to explain the magic, even though it is practiced as a regular, everyday thing.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    4. Re:Magic cannot exist in our culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I see pigs flying, science is going to be the last thing on my mind. (So many promises...)

  25. Nobody move! by stoofa · · Score: 1

    I dropped it on the carpet.

  26. 1 hidden comment by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

    I cannot imagine an application that a single mini transistor is required, where a big one can't do the trick. Will kids have transistor radios dropped into their ears?

    1. Re:1 hidden comment by SilentBob0727 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And I can't think of a single application where a CMOS transistor is required, where a vacuum tube wouldn't do the trick.

      --
      Life would be easier if I had the source code.
    2. Re:1 hidden comment by What+Would+NPH+Do · · Score: 1

      Since no one plans to have any application that only uses one of these mini transistors, your bad attempt at making a point rather fails. The point is that with the transistors being even smaller you can pack a few magnitudes more of them into your application versus the bigger ones.

    3. Re:1 hidden comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Captain Obvious.

    4. Re:1 hidden comment by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      Um... I think you mean a MOS transistor.

      A CMOS logic circuit needs at least two transistors.

    5. Re:1 hidden comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My pleasure Ensign Sarcasm.

    6. Re:1 hidden comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we will, how do you think we are going to communicate when your generation dies and gives us the reins? By cell phones? Soooo Archaic.

    7. Re:1 hidden comment by SilentBob0727 · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      Life would be easier if I had the source code.
  27. Re:Beowulf by somersault · · Score: 1

    Do you even know what a Beowulf cluster is?

    --
    which is totally what she said
  28. think step up transformers by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    Not the autobot kind either. There are currently a kind of step up transformer in many cars now. Ever use/see a 110 volt outlet/power point in a car? That is a converter from 12V CD to 110V AC. Why can't there be a step up up DC transformer? A little DC current goes in and a lot more comes out the other side which characters the main batteries. This exists on land for AC, granted the size is huge, but first make a working model, then shrink it to a more portable size.

    1. Re:think step up transformers by SilentBob0727 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      DC Transformers can't exist because transformers rely on the principle of electromagnetic induction, which requires a constantly changing magnetic field, which is a property DC does not exhibit by virtue of being constant.

      Step-up DC transformers would require an inverter (to convert to AC), followed by an AC transformer, followed a full-wave rectifier (to convert back to DC). Want to calculate the minimum efficiency lost on each step? Yeah, me neither.

      --
      Life would be easier if I had the source code.
    2. Re:think step up transformers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i thought dc -> dc methods (step up, step down, etc.) were just 'converters' because you intrinsically don't need a transformer. why would you stick a transformer in the way?

  29. WARNING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    *** WARNING ***

    Link in parent is malicious. Do not click.

  30. Re:Nothing to see here... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Of course there's nothing to see! It's 1 x 10 atoms, you can't see that with your bare eyes!

  31. In future news... by purpleque · · Score: 1

    The first Mars colony ship, a joint effort between the US and the UK space agencies, crashed into the sun last week. Investigators have concluded that the navigation system failed due a unit conversion error between US and UK computer component manufacturing. The US manufactured their components with transistors that were 10 atoms long and one atom wide, while the Europeans components used one atom long and 10 atoms wide transistors.

  32. Moore's Law by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Next thing you know we're going to be needing small atoms to keep Moore's Law humming along.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  33. Nanotech is great stuff. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Nanotech is great stuff. The further we advance in nano-tech is better the chanses we don't mess up the timeline because we can go back in time acedently drop our future PDA's and the technology is so small there is no chance in hell that people would be able to figure out the tech and make their own. Thus saving the timeline. Timetravelers rejoice, long are the days of the spinning wheel bicicle.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  34. It's a question of units by smithmc · · Score: 1

    Seriously, sometimes I feel the line between science and magic gets fuzzy. A transistor one atom by 10 atoms? That's on such a small scale that is so hard to comprehend that it'd almost be easier to hand-wave it and just say "it's magic."

    To get a real feel for it, you need to put it in different terms, namely: How many of these will fit in the Library of Congress?

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  35. No Joke. This is History. This is Change. by xA40D · · Score: 1

    And I've built a quantum interface 10 chars long and three wide and can operate in just three dimensions;

    I'm currently working on the psychology of GSVs;

    I'll need to add a fourth dimension to get volume, but it works.

    --
    Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
  36. Radio Shack .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... has got them. Neatly packaged, one to a cardboard card.

    These things are a bitch to solder.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  37. 1 atom x 10 atoms? by MessedRocker · · Score: 1

    That's the PICO scale! Looks like nanotechnology has some competition