Germanium Diodes Mean Progress Toward Silicon-Chip Lasers
David Orenstein writes "Teams at Stanford and MIT have each reported getting
strong light signals from germanium-based diodes on silicon at room temperature. Engineers have long sought to do this because, with further refinement into lasers, such diodes would allow for optical interconnects on chips. Optical interconnects could operate much faster and with less power than electrical (metal) ones that are becoming bottlenecks on current chips."
Wow, plant-based electronics! This will surely usher in a new age of biological computers that will be able to . . .
What? It's not a geranium diode?
Uh, how 'bout that new version of Firefox? Pretty snazzy, eh.
The news is that they've found a way to grow 'em on silicon, which lends itself well to chip production.
I know for sure that I used Germanium diodes before and I'm pretty sure Germanium-based LED's have been developed before. Dunno what the news is.
They seem to have improved on Germanium LEDs by doping them differently to the point where the can look into using photons to transmit information around a silicon chip in place of electrons. I imagine they will look into building light pipes out of silicon, ie, little optical fibres.
OT: somebody should teach ascribe how to use the title tag.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Germanium semiconductors are old news(in fact, I have this vague impression that they might have gotten germanium working in fairly common use earlier than silicon); but, according to TFA, germanium-based light emitters built into silicon structures under more or less reasonable production and operation conditions, is what is new. This isn't about discrete components; but about structures built into larger silicon ICs.
Now, lets have that lead to jobs for the west, rather than simply giving the tech to China. All fo this American paid for RD, should require that the work stay in the west.
Do you really want to deny the West the advances in manufacturing that the Chinese have contributed?
It's a global economy now. Get used to it.
John
The promise of making a laser from indirect bandgap semiconductors, then gathering investors, then losing the investors' money goes back to the Sixties at least.
Some scientists showed off SiC blue LEDs in the '60s that shown brilliantly like laser light, but were not the read deal. The real blue room-temperature laser had to wait for Nakamura and a direct bandgap material.
Doping, adding nitrogen, and adding defects to the lattice to produce more light is nothing new. Look at your stop lights. It's working there, but don't count on these indirect materials suddenly turning into lasers. No need to hold your breath.
A quick scientific note. Photons have a lot of energy, but not much momentum. You get hot on a sunny day, but not blown over by the sun. Electrons fall almost directly down in the bandgap diagram to produce light. This makes direct-gap semiconductors useful for lasers. The trick one can use is to provide momentum-shifting impurities to the lattice of an indirect bandgap crystal. The electron creates a photon by dropping directly down, but some other mechanism shifts the electron momentum to create an overall diagonal transition. It's not efficient, but it works.
The real benefit is you wont have to worry about cross talk or other electromagnetic interference. The short haul of the board level optical interconnects means we can have very high speed chip to chip interconnects without worrying too much about trace routing or length. And LED's are quite efficient when it comes to turning to electrical power into light. Metal wires at high frequencies develop a high resistance which has to be overcome by using more energy.
Having said that you are entirely right in your main observation. The main problem for germanium has always been fabrication; no germanium ICs. This is because there is no germanium equivalent of planar technology. It has been known for a long time that if this could be overcome there would be a role for germanium. It's just that, as with so many apparently breakthrough technologies, making it happen turns out to be very hard.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
That's cool, but with modern chip designs using electron tunneling for some of the effects, it can't be used chip-wide. On the other hand, light can cross through light, so you would be able to avoid tediously long tracks currently required.
There may be some additional interest in the aerospace industry for this. Optical circuits on the chips aren't going to be so affected by radiation, and by having more real-estate available for redundant components and optimal placement, they can improve the resistance to radiation considerably.
Not sure how much heat this'll cut down on, as the transistors are the big heat-producers. On the other hand, better placement means more even heat production which means they should be able to push the designs a little bit further.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The Stanford team's abstract is at
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-17-12-10019
and the full paper is downloadable there
The MIT abstract is at
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ol/abstract.cfm?URI=ol-34-11-1738
but you have to pay to read the paper
The real benefit is you wont have to worry about cross talk or other electromagnetic interference. The short haul of the board level optical interconnects means we can have very high speed chip to chip interconnects without worrying too much about trace routing or length. And LED's are quite efficient when it comes to turning to electrical power into light. Metal wires at high frequencies develop a high resistance which has to be overcome by using more energy.
I'm not convinced. You can still get electromagnetic interference with light - look at TV remotes. Of course, if you use fibre optic cable it's not a problem, but that's akin to using coaxial cable to route electrical signals. While it would be possible to embed coaxial structures in PCBs to eliminate the possibility of cross-talk and noise, in practice this would be prohibitively expensive and the same result can be achieved with stripline and careful routing. The question is, what does an optical PCB look like? You'll still need copper for power distribution so the optical PCB will need to tolerate soldering temperatures. Do you have a layer of interwoven fibre optic cables? How do these interface with the components such that there is tolerance in the size and position of the terminals? Do you use mirrors and optical waveguides embedded in the substrate? If so how do you make this cost effective to manufacture? If you use fibre optics, you have a minimum bend radius, so you open up a whole new set of routing problems. While there are obviously clear benefits in theory, when it comes to actually implementing this as a cost effective PCB interconnect you'll have a whole set of new problems to deal with, and it's unlikely to be anywhere close in cost to gluing layers of copper and plastic together.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets