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."

9 of 35 comments (clear)

  1. 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
  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. 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!

  4. Re:finally by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

    More importantly; it can be used in porn applications.

  5. 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."

  6. 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."

  7. 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.