Slashdot Mirror
First Transistors Made Entirely of 2-D Materials
ckwu (2886397) writes "Two independent research groups report the first transistors built entirely of two-dimensional electronic materials, making the devices some of the thinnest yet. The transistors, just a few atoms thick and hence transparent, are smaller than their silicon-based counterparts, which would allow for a super-high density of pixels in flexible, next-generation displays. The research teams, one at Argonne National Laboratory and the other at the University of California, Berkeley, used materials such as tungsten diselenide, graphene, and boron nitride to make all three components of a transistor: a semiconductor, a set of electrodes, and an insulating layer. Electrons travel in the devices 70 to 100 times faster than in amorphous silicon. Such a high electron mobility means the transistors switch faster, which dictates a display's refresh rate and is necessary for high-quality video, especially 3-D video."
It has a length, width, and depth. Calling it 2D is just "read me" headline-baiting which is getting more and more annoying on Slashdot lately. Here, let me correct it:
First Transistors Made of Extremely Thin Materials
"The transistors, just a few atoms thick and hence transparent,"
Sorry, but "a few atoms thick" still gives it all three axes in Cartesian space, no matter how small any given axis may be. Hell, even "one atom thick" qualifies as three-dimensional.
Pedant Headline Fail, eh?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I am impressed, but I was hoping to be stunned.
It is unwise to ascribe motive
Even an atomically thin material still has three dimensions. The depth, while incredibly slim, is still present.
So, lower energy consumption, faster clock rates, flexible electronics, nanoscale engineering, and you go for '3-D video' as your go to feature? What the hell is wrong with people?
...we respected the definition 2-D materials as set out in classical physics.
It will never sell! They should have said just a few atoms thin
Invaders must die
A few atoms thick still isn't 2D.
two-dimensional
adjective
having or appearing to have length and breadth but no depth.
According some of the definitions of two-dimensional that I am reading here, there is no such thing as two-dimensional outside of a few popular thought experiments in theoretical physics.
appearing to have - This is why it is not incorrect to call a sheet of paper two-dimensional.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Materials scientists use "two-dimensional" to describe graphene and similar materials. These are materials that consist of essentially a single molecular/atomic layer.
pig disgusting
The rise of the disposable video newspaper, and what I really want video wall paper.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
On a measurement level, they are 3 dimensional as nothing in our universe lacks having those 3 dimensions.
Of course, you could never discern that thickness without some highly specialized super sensitive devices.
Then there's the whole effective or design thing going on there. That map you look at when you get lost, it's considered 2d. Not because the ink and paper is composed of atoms and are actually 3d, but rather because the information and design of it's display is only on 2 dimensions. Ever see a 3 dimensional map? Sure, they exist, but you don't carry them around. If you really need 3d info of the terrain, you usually use a topographical map that displays info about the 3d, but in a 2d method.
Sure these new electronic components physically have a 3rd dimension, but it's not part of their functional design. They are laid out like the information on a piece of paper, something generally considered to be 2 dimensional.
So yes, technically your statement of them being 3d is factual, and yet it is completely worthless. Much like most Microsoft technical advice. To quote part of the old joke, "You are in a Helicopter.". If you want to read the whole joke, there are lots of copies of it, here's one: http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/microsoft-helicopter-joke-t3245996.html
"a material in which the atomic organization and bond strength along two-dimensions are similar and much stronger than along a third dimension" REF: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/1....
...that will never make it to market. Come on, where's my consumer OLEDs
I know very little about display tech, but is display refresh rate really dictated by transistor switching speed? In any event, solid-state amplifiers can extend well into the GHz range, and display refresh rate is sub-kHz. I think rise-times of existing transistors are measured in ns, not ms.
I understand that high framerates at many megapixels can be computationally expensive, but I wouldn't call that refresh rate. Are talking display tech or graphics card tech here?
Dear Earth,
Due to budget cuts related to the long and intense war with Satan, I am canceling one of the spacial dimensions. Thus, please re-engineer your technology for 2D instead of 3D.
My apologies for any inconveniences this may cause, but we must all make sacrifices to win this difficult war.
Sincerely,
-God
Table-ized A.I.
I never saw a spherical cow,
and nobody'll ever see one;
But I can tell you, anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one
(being non-existant, and all...)
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Would you Nerds stop arguing about dimensions...
Why not cut time instead ?
Time is money.
Lives I tell you!
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Electrons travel in the devices 70 to 100 times faster than in amorphous silicon.
It's a good thing that we make our transistors out of monocrystalline silicon then! Are you kidding me?! My grandmother can run down the corridor 100 faster than electrons in amorphous silicon.
2D does not refer to an "absence of a degree of freedom". Things denoted in "*number*D" or "*number*-D"format are referring to a number of spacetime dimensions. No one in any field of math, science, or engineering ever relates degrees of motion to "D"s. Sometimes it is abbreviated DOF, but never just *number*(-)D as that is reserved for dimensions.
The use of the term reflects the usage by materials scientists. The titles of both papers describe the materials as 2-D. It is an established term in the field.
Shut up. All of you.
I was like, "No they weren't - the first transistors were bulky as hell!"
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
I agree it is not 2D BUT I am thrilled at the progress in the technology.
So, they'll only cost two thirds the price?