Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Getting Closer To Using Graphene For Electronics

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the better-than-my-plan-to-use-spaghetti dept.

tgrigsby writes "Students at Georgia Tech have developed a new 'templated growth' technique that allows fabrication of nanoribbons with smooth edges and high conductivity. Predicting the ability to produce features no more than 10 nanometers wide and with extremely low resistance, Yike Hu and John Hankinson may be developing the next generation of processor technology."

35 comments

  1. finally by leaen · · Score: 1

    So now it is just ten years to graphene computers?

    1. Re:finally by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      It will be here before you know it. Time speeeeeds up I'm sure.

    2. Re:finally by show+me+altoids · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is that the one in Atlanta Atlanta?

      --
      I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
    3. Re:finally by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

      More importantly; it can be used in porn applications.

    4. Re:finally by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      And fusion power plants, home hologram units, flying cars and jet packs.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  2. How to overclock? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2

    How to overclock?
    If the computer chips are made of graphene, will we have to use silicon pencils to do the overclocking trick?

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  3. ... posted from by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Department of Redundancy Department

  4. mynutswon? mentioned product contains graphene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sheesh. we know who the kings of censorship/manipulation are by now? we'll stick to product/baby placement as deemed appropriate. thanks again?

  5. Have we delayed the death of Moore's Law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This makes me think of the Michio Kaku "Moore's Law ending" discussion from yesterday.

    Have we pushed it farther into the future and averted the collapse of the economy and computers as we know it again?

    1. Re:Have we delayed the death of Moore's Law? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I thought he was referring to the change when we hit quantum computing, and if that is the case then.. no. I didn't RTFA or the comments of course.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  6. The real ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK! The real question is will we be able to run Linux?

    1. Re:The real ? by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      No, the real question is -- will anybody still be able to run Windows!

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  7. So now will the time line be... by Tideflat · · Score: 1

    So now will the time line for computers be vacuum tube -> transistors -> integrated circuits -> graphene?

    1. Re:So now will the time line be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Graphene does the same things Silicon does... at much MUCH faster (think >500ghz) clock speeds.

    2. Re:So now will the time line be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vacuum tube -> transistors -> integrated circuits -> graphene

      -> new-kle-arr war -> bashing rocks together

  8. yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    it buts right up against Interstate 75/85 (ok, not quite redundant)

    I went there but now live in the burbs near the Trader Joe's at the intersection of Roswell Road & Johnson Ferry (as opposed to the Trader Joe's at the intersection of Johnson Ferry & the OTHER Roswell Road). the two Roswell Roads actually intersect but I'm afraid to drive through that intersection as I'm convinced there's a singularity in the middle of it...

    don't underestimate our ability to be redundant down here!

    1. Re:yup by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I may have once eaten at that restaurant on Peachtree and Peachtree but time twisted so I'm not sure if I'm still waiting to do that.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  9. Melted Nanoribbons by Punko · · Score: 1

    Oh ho! Another source for Melted Nanoribbons! Can't wait to get them to Jita before the market crashes

    --
    If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    1. Re:Melted Nanoribbons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're only tradeable with avatar BPOs.

    2. Re:Melted Nanoribbons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jita IV - Moon 4 - Caldari Navy Assembly Plant Cya there :P

  10. Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought it was impossible to build a transistor from Graphene since it lacks a band-gap. No band-gap -> no transistor... no transistor -> no computing device.

    1. Re:Am I missing something? by mycroft822 · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to TFA: "We will not be following the model of using standard field-effect transistors (FETs), but will pursue devices that use ballistic conductors and quantum interference. We are headed straight into using the electron wave effects in graphene."

    2. Re:Am I missing something? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I've started upgrading my Gravy Gun Drop Rovers to use dissociative wave effects on the damnable University.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    3. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Graphene does not normally have a band gap but researchers are working several methods to create one. Theory predicts that narrow graphene ribbons will have a band gap which is inversely proportional to its width due to quantum confinement of the transverse electron modes, but they have to be really narrow (~10nm or even smaller) and have a certain edge orientation so it has been difficult to show experimentally. Also there are many people working on chemical modifications to induce a bandgap and several other ideas of how to potentially create a band gap. In addition to this work there is interest in creating fundamentally new types of transistors based on quantum interference which do not rely on a bandgap and graphene would be well suited for such a device. There is a cool theory paper about a quantum interference effect transistor made using only a 6 atom carbon ring! Unfortunatley at the moment we can't create such a device to test the theory. So while it is true that current graphene field effect transistors have dismal on/off ratios due to the lack of a band gap but there are a lot of smart people working to overcome these challenges so don't count it out yet.

  11. Yike is pronounced "yee kuh", not yike as in Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...just in case you were wondering...

  12. Valuable contribution to graphine by planckscale · · Score: 1

    If the US wants to vault ahead of other countries making the next generation of computers we should be taking a damn hard look at graphene and get low cost manufacturing functioning for this, what I believe, is the most exciting prospect in computer technology. I think this is the closest we'll ever get to a superconductor with quantum properties using extremely low power and temperatures and it's really ingenious how the scientists have been inventing technologies to explore graphene. I applaud the strides that have been made by these researchers; in my book they deserve the multi-million dollar contracts. Not the sports stars and celebrities...

    --
    Namaste
  13. Not according to IBM by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "IBM has revealed that graphene can't fully replace silicon inside CPUs, as a graphene transistor can't actually be completely switched off."

    1. Re:Not according to IBM by silverpig · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the link: "there is an important distinction between the graphene transistors that we demonstrated and the transistors used in a CPU. Unlike silicon, graphene does not have an energy gap, and therefore, graphene cannot be "switched off," resulting in a small on/off ratio." One of the issues with graphene is it doesn't have a band gap. You can create one if you can successfully dope it (unlikely), or if you can put it into a very narrow by relatively long shape (say 2 nm wide by 50 nm long). Once you have a band gap, you can turn it off completely.

    2. Re:Not according to IBM by silverpig · · Score: 2

      Oh also, they say they want to make transistors which use quantum interference to shut them off, not an electric field effect. In this case you don't need a band gap in the same way. You make a ballistic device (on), and then you apply some potential to the edges to mess up the quantum states so they interfere and the thing insulates. "This means that the way we will be doing graphene electronics will be different," he explained. "We will not be following the model of using standard field-effect transistors (FETs), but will pursue devices that use ballistic conductors and quantum interference. We are headed straight into using the electron wave effects in graphene."

  14. Graphene for electronics by tahyk · · Score: 2

    1st: This story is not new. They have paper out there about this techniques. (2010 Aug) http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v5/n10/full/nnano.2010.192.html 2nd: sub-10 nm ribbons have a bandgap due to quantum confinement. Their 4K measurement doesn't really proves it, so something is not kosher. Or at least this is why they say "metallic" nanoribbons. That techinque is not that useful for digital electronics. 3rd: There are other ways for doing sub-10 nm GNRs, which are actually semiconductors. This is what I do for living. I think it is still promising for future electronics. It is just my opinion, while there's no proof, neither con, nor pro. Others (IBM) might have different opinions about it, but this question is not decided yet.

  15. Re:Been hearing about this for years, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly! They (all those so called 'smart people', who just look down on the working guy because they had degrees and know stuff) need to stop wasting money on research and such and give to to the banks so they can make this country grate again!