Slashdot Mirror
IBM Reports Carbon Nanotube Chip Breakthrough
First time accepted submitter yawaramin writes "IBM has apparently made a breakthrough in arranging carbon nanotubes into the logic gates necessary to make a chip. This should help miniaturize and speed up processors beyond what today's silicon-based technologies are capable of. The article notes though that perfecting the carbon nanotube technology could take up the rest of this decade."
Maybe it is my insomnia, but I really dont get what you are trying to communicate...
Tomorrow is another day...
Can someone please provide a citation for the paper they published so I can read something with actual content?
"IBM has apparently made a breakthrough..." They either have or haven't made breakthrough. "Apparently" doesn't really cut it I'm sorry.
Most stories I see say that [insert favourite research here] will be ready for commercial production within five years. Finally, somebody's being honest and saying it won't be ready before the end of this decade.
one step closer to Captain Bradley
After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands. Friedrich Nietzsche
for the wife. Now she can vacuum and have some logic. Assuming the tube is large enough.
The IBM research paper is available at http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano.2012.189.html The paper is protected by a paywall.
The IBM press release is available at http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/39250.wss
I recommend reading the comments on the New York Times article. My favorite comment so far is:
MC - NYC
The Singularity edges closer...
Can't wait for marketing to get involved, changing high-density carbon nanotube transistors (CNTs) into carbon ultra-nanotube transistors.
IBM marketing will never approve a 4 letter acronym when a 3 letter acronym will suffice. ( Deadpan humor mode set on full. )
article text:
Carbon nanotubes have potential in the development of high-
speed and power-efficient logic applications1–7. However, for
such technologies to be viable, a high density of semiconduct-
ing nanotubes must be placed at precise locations on a sub-
strate. Here, we show that ion-exchange chemistry can be
used to fabricate arrays of individually positioned carbon nano-
tubes with a density as high as 1 3 109cm22—two orders of
magnitude higher than previous reports8,9. With this approach,
we assembled a high density of carbon-nanotube transistors in
a conventional semiconductor fabrication line and then electri-
cally tested more than 10,000 devices in a single chip. The
ability to characterize such large distributions of nanotube
devices is crucial for analysing transistor performance, yield
and semiconducting nanotube purity.
The precise placement of carbon nanotubes on a substrate typi-
cally involves one of three techniques: the direct growth of nano-
tubes on a substrate10,11, the transfer of nanotubes from a ‘growth’
substrate to a device substrate5,6, or the deposition of nanotubes
from solution onto a device substrate8,9,12–18. Because nanotubes
can be metallic or semiconducting, a further consideration for
high-performance digital logic is the degree to which metallic nano-
tubes can be eliminated. Although approaches for enriching sub-
strate-supported semiconducting nanotubes during or after
synthesis have been demonstrated19,20, currently the most effective
techniques involve processing the nanotubes in solution21.
One promising approach for placing solution-based nanotubes is
to selectively position them on a specific substrate by chemically
functionalizing the nanotubes or the substrate14–18. This typically
involves using a patterned surface (such as SiO2/HfO2) such that
nanotubes deposited from solution adhere only to one part of the
pattern (the HfO2, for example). Key metrics for determining
the efficacy of the deposition are the density of individually
placed nanotubes, which must exceed 1 × 1010cm22, with a pitch
smaller than 10 nm for high-performance logic6,7, and the selectiv-
ity, which is the degree to which adsorption takes place only on the
pattern of interest. In general, however, solution-based approaches
that result in high density exhibit poor selectivity14,16, and those
that offer high selectivity have low density17,18.
We have developed a selective placement method based on ion
exchange between a functional surface monolayer and surfactant-
wrapped carbon nanotubes in aqueous solution. Strong electrostatic
interaction between the surface monolayer and the nanotube surfac-
tant leads to the placement of individual nanotubes with excellent
selectivity and a density of 1 × 109cm22. Furthermore, the
approach is compatible with the most efficient solution-based sep-
aration schemes21, allowing wafer-scale integration using highly
purified carbon nanotubes.
Our nanotube placement using an ion-exchange technique
is illustrated in Fig. 1a. The surface monolayer is formed from
4-(N-hydroxycarboxamido)-1-methylpyridinium iodide (NMPI)
molecules, which were synthesized from commercially available
methyl isonicotinate (see Methods). The monolayer contains a
hydroxamic acid end group that is known to self-assemble on
metal oxide surfaces, but not on SiO2(refs17,18,22). We selectively
self-assembled NMPI on HfO2regions of a patterned SiO2/HfO2
surface. The functionalized surface was then placed in an aqueous
solution of carbon nanotubes. Solubility of the nanotubes was
achieved using an anionic surfactant (sodium dodecyl sulphate,
SDS). Excess surfactant in the solution was removed by dialysis.
The anion of NMPI (that is, iodide) is exchanged with the
anionic surfactant wrapped around the nanotubes, leading to a
strong coulombic attraction between the negatively ch
Ars also has a piece on this, here.
-- Cheers!
of interconnected tubes
I just want to know what the specs are, like power consumption, clock speed, and FLOPs
So the internet may turn out be a bunch of interconnected tubes after all?
Actually, no. Micro-architecture could continue to evolve without die shrinks (likely toward a proliferation of specialized units) and software could also evolve. Probably both for a decade or so, before the shrink stall becomes a fed stall. A feature of Moore's Law rarely expressed is that software lags architecture, and architecture lags die size.
I realized a long time ago that if I could gain a 50% speed increase by rewriting a critical application loop in assembly language, it generally wasn't worth the bother. The next processor architecture would mess up you clever clock-count calculations. The effort was almost always better invested in satisfying feature demand as PCs became more capable. Not only does the architectures improve, but so does the cleverness of your compiler (not including your hand-polished asm). If the software people actually knew that die shrinks were a thing of the past, it would make sense to be more aggressive in the choice of algorithms and execution regimes. They might even be well paid to indulge in premature optimizations postponed, since this would become the main avenue to sustaining performance gains.
There might be more pressure to bet on the right horse, which could thin the herd. Competence gradients tend to have this effect.
What, all of it? I've got a lot on my plate already you know.
Do you have any evidence of IBM doing this? Ever?
Do you have any evidence of IBM doing this? Ever?
You mean, IBM betting on the right horse? Never.
Manning was a corporal. And corporals never amount to anything.
Can you name the converse? They were granted nearly 3000 patents in year 2000 alone, perhaps you can name 10 of them used by IBM to actually make and sell things? Just 10 out of those 3000 patents would do.
I chose 2000 because its a round number and 12 years is long enough for them to get a product out the door. Lets take their star patent the one they marketed with the announcement of getting most patents, the micro inductor on silicon one.
I'm guessing from a patent search its this one, although it seems to pop up as 1999,2000,2002, with minor variations.
http://www.google.com/patents/US5884990
Let identify what the invention is there. Perhaps it's coils on silicon? That way of fabricating the microcoil looks clever? Nope, that's Texas Instruments from 1973
www.google.com/patents/US3881244
So what did they invent there? Buggered if I know, seems to be laying them out in a loop so they occupy smaller space on the die?
"I am not about to search for IBMs patents and then tell you where there are used"
If you're not prepared to search patents, just search Slashdot
http://slashdot.org/story/10/11/25/0416208/coder-accuses-ibm-of-patenting-his-work
Man creates heapcheck lib to guard against heap overflow attacks, IBM patents his work IN AN OS. As if bundling in the OS actually constitutes an inventive step.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/10/1450255/ibm-snags-patent-on-half-day-off-of-work-notifications
IBM patents 'portion of a day' busy notifications. (seriously USPTO, seriously?)
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/09/12/30/166220/uspto-awards-lol-patent-to-ibm
IBM patents LOLs, seriously???
They're a troll, they patent derivations of others inventions and keep re-patenting them with minor tweaks, they are the worlds biggest patent troll. A cleverly marketed on, I'll give you that, but a troll nevertheless.
If all software were made as clunky and bloated as typical M$ software, we would not have smart phones that last longer than one hour, we would not have lightning fast search engines.
If we would use lead to make A380s, one aircraft could fly every other week; propelled by Saturn V engines. But who cares ? In the future we will have nuclear engines and we can actually have Lead Planes For Everyone !!!!
The Logic Of American Waste.
Thank you!
I don't know how many times I've wanted to read a paper mentioned here that's essentially unavailable.
I think your method of cut/paste the text strikes a good compromise between giving out the information and preventing unauthorized copy. The information is available to motivated readers, but can't easily dilute the journal's copyright. A truly interested reader could then pay for the actual article from the Journal.
Keep up the good work, whoever you are.
Is all that babble about the 'singularity' serious, or just ironic posturing?
Does MR. 'MC', who posted "The Singluarlity edges closer...", really believe that IBM's efforts are a step towards greater-than-human superintelligence? Or is it like so much zombie-preparation: ironic overemphasis of the dangers for comic effect (with the secondary effect of assuaging real fears about the future-unknown in these somewhat-more-than-usually uncertain times)?
...that'll take another few decades to realize. They're really awesome about tooting their own horns. Execution? Not so much.
Perhaps not, but I CERTAINLY remember what happened to the Peanut in order to satisfy the Displaywriter people. Semantically there is little difference to me who the gatekeepers who restrict development actually call themselves... when the result is suppression of the fruits of applied technology.
http://xkcd.com/678/