Slashdot Mirror


Law-Defying Transistor Smashes Industry 'Limit', Measures Just 1nm (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Stack: U.S. researchers have unveiled the world's smallest transistor reported to date, combining a new mix of materials, which makes even the tiniest silicon-based transistor appear big in comparison. The team, led by the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, designed the minuscule transistor with a working one-nanometer gate -- far surpassing any industry expectation for reducing transistor sizes. In the scientific study, MoS2 transistors with 1-nanometer gate lengths, published today in the journal Science, the researchers describe a prototype device which uses a novel semiconductor material known as transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs). The transistor structure uses a single-walled carbon nanotube as the gate electrode and molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) for the channel material, rather than silicon. "The semiconductor industry has long assumed that any gate below 5 nanometers wouldn't work, so anything below that was not even considered. This research shows that sub-5-nanometer gates should not be discounted. Industry has been squeezing every last bit of capability out of silicon. By changing the material from silicon to MoS2, we can make a transistor with a gate that is just 1 nanometer in length, and operate it like a switch," explained study lead Sujay Desai.

66 comments

  1. But at what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At what cost?

    1. Re:But at what cost? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In huge quantities, cost is just another engineering problem, which needs to be solved once.

    2. Re:But at what cost? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      At what cost?

      Letting the terrorist win... for the childern... in soviet russia.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    3. Re:But at what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luddites unite! We've almost won.

    4. Re:But at what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly 3.

    5. Re:But at what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... many Bothans died to bring us this transistor.

  2. Law defying? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Call Chuck Norris - he'll kick that transistor's ASS!

    On a more serious note, wouldn't devices with such small geometries need some really heavy shielding to prevent destruction by cosmic particles? Heck, I have to wonder if at that size even background radiation would be a risk factor.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Law defying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No.
      One of the most damaging effects of Radiation on solid state devices is permanent damage to the Silicon crystalline structure. (Usually, one just gets a SEU; a change in state corresponding to the Energy lost by particles passing through, which can be cleared by refreshing the device.) This can either lead to either less or more Resistance, or even a short or an open.
      These Transistors don't use Silicon, and in principle at least, should be far less susceptible to Radiation Effects and Radiation Damage.

      One thing not addressed with this Tech, and in fact is rarely addressed, is Molecular Creep. (Most of us know about this because of the "Tin Whiskers" Problem.) This means at the most basic level, permanent movement atom by atom, along the Electrical paths. Which means that over time, the MoS2 can migrate to where it's not wanted. But the Gate switching is at the tens of milliVolts level, so even that may not be an issue.

      A bigger significance is here, from Wikipedia:
      "The band gaps of TMDC monolayers are in the visible range (between 400 nm and 700 nm)."
      This is a game changer for Optics, all sorts of Optics.

    2. Re:Law defying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What law is this transistor defying? Moore's Law? Physical Laws? Societal Laws? Near as I can tell it's just clickbait. TFA just says it defies industry expectation in its body, yet has those mystery quotes in the title.

    3. Re:Law defying? by Lorens · · Score: 1

      Well, it's certainly not defying Moore's Law, it would seem that Moore's Law is alive and well!

    4. Re:Law defying? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No. Moore's law is dead and has been for some time.

    5. Re:Law defying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't defy any law it merely goes around the preexistent limits. Those developing silicon based transistors ran into a limit on how small a silicon based transistor could be manufactured. This new effort replaced silicon with another material and they were able to build a base prototype. Whether or not this proof of concept can actually be implemented is beside the point. What is noteworthy is there are people actually pushing the boundaries of our current technology and those efforts should be applauded not ridiculed by those to stupid to understand the topic under discussion. And it should also be noted that these scientists are being funded to move theoretical ideas off the whiteboard into real world. And it just happens that the majority of their funding is coming from the government.

  3. No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone already did the proof of concept single atom thickness transistor. It was here on /. but I'm too lazy to look it up.

  4. Wake me up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... when they actually have a working product. These lab projects don't quality as realizable, I remember the same promises were made about CPU's getting to 10+GHZ that never happened and CPU speeds hit a brick wall around 2006 because heat and leakage became too much which meant going much beyond 5Ghz became a pipe dream.

    1. Re:Wake me up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because it takes 21 years before the patents expire before an invention is finally implemented at scale.

    2. Re:Wake me up... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      ... when they actually have a working product.

      Slashdot is a site for nerds. If you are not interested in geeky news about scientific research, then please go elsewhere and read about Kim Kardashian or whatever.

      I remember the same promises were made ...

      No "promises" are being made.

  5. Why won't people get excited about my nanotube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I've been telling women for years that just because it's smaller than 5nm doesn't mean it won't do the trick.

  6. Ah, information processing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Good thing it deals with very low energy levels. Because progress in computing does not translate to progress in other fields. In ten years, jet airplanes will still be the same and take 6 hours to cross the Atlantic.

    1. Re:Ah, information processing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What if we could make the Atlantic smaller?

    2. Re:Ah, information processing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....I never thought of that. If you make the plane longer you could simply board it in New York and walk across the plane and walk out in London.

    3. Re: Ah, information processing... by jhoger · · Score: 2

      Telepresence with VR and whatnot is way faster than a plane trip.

    4. Re: Ah, information processing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, try VR food and air, tell me how that goes.

  7. 5nm Limits? Phooey by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This..
    >The semiconductor industry has long assumed that any gate below 5 nanometers wouldn't work, so anything below that was not even considered.

    This is simply false.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  8. what's this about effective channel length by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the paper's abstract: "Simulations show an effective channel length of ~3.9 nm in the Off state". what does this mean? that the gate, in it's off state, needs 4nm or it will start interfering with nearby gates?

    1. Re:what's this about effective channel length by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 4, Informative

      from the paper's abstract: "Simulations show an effective channel length of ~3.9 nm in the Off state". what does this mean? that the gate, in it's off state, needs 4nm or it will start interfering with nearby gates?

      The word Gate is not referring to a logic gate (which is what it sounds like you're inferring), but to the Gate terminal of the transistor. When the correct polarity of voltage is applied to the Gate, the field effect causes a channel of charge carriers to form between 2 other terminals, the Source and Drain, allowing current to flow between them. The channel length refers to the distance between the Source and Drain terminals.

      The channel length (as well as other parameters like the width, charge carrier mobility, etc.) determines how much current can flow between the Drain and Source when a given voltage is applied (i.e. resistance). By applying higher voltage to the Gate, you are narrowing the "effective" channel length (lowering the resistance).

      When you switch transistors on and off, you are basically charging and discharging capacitors, which takes time. How much time is determined by the time constant, RC (resistance x capacitance). So, shorter channel length = lower resistance = smaller time constant = faster charge/discharge = higher speeds. That's why we make transistors smaller to make computers faster.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    2. Re:what's this about effective channel length by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Channel length is a physical measurement and it does not change with applied bias. The "effective" is in contrast with "drawn". Ldrawn is the dimension as measured on the masks; Leff is the dimensions between the actual edges of the diffusion.

    3. Re:what's this about effective channel length by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's why we make transistors smaller to make computers faster

      It's not the only reason. We make them smaller, because fitting 5bn transistors that are each the size of, say, a small horse onto a die 2cm across would require tremendous compression, of white dwarf density. They would be extremely dangerous, and probably quite costly, all for no obvious benefit.

    4. Re:what's this about effective channel length by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Channel length is a physical measurement and it does not change with applied bias.

      This is only true with "long" channel MOSFETS. Once you get down below a certain size, you get "short channel effects" including the narrowing of the inverted channel region with increased bias, called channel length modulation.

      Otherwise this sentence from the abstract, which is what the OP was referring to, makes no sense:

      Simulations show an effective channel length of ~3.9 nm in the Off state and ~1 nm in the On state

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  9. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Best news in a long time.

  10. Simulation by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is great news! The information density with these 1 nanometer transistors should be such that I can simulate simulate the universe with enough accuracy for sentient beings to eventually come into existence. Eventually they will advance sufficiently enough to question whether or not they are in a simulation, and they will begin efforts to test how accurate my simulation is in order to determine its existence. Then, just when they discover that the simulation is flawed in some way, and thus detectable, I'll pull the plug and start a fresh simulation.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Simulation by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'll pull the plug and start a fresh simulation.

      I think that is highly un

    2. Re:Simulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

    3. Re:Simulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Douglas.

    4. Re:Simulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simulations all the way down...

    5. Re:Simulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the simulation, you will have to make the laws of the universe such that the smallest transistors are significantly larger than 1nm to prevent ontological recursion.

  11. Let me play by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2

    Let me use it to make and play the world's smallest electric violin.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  12. Excellent by c · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... Apple should be able to knock at least another 2-3mm of thickness off the iPhone with these things.

    --
    Log in or piss off.
    1. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But they have to remove the screen, which is becoming the limiting factor!

    2. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Courage!

  13. Just use smaller electrons, maybe? by shess · · Score: 1

    Muon-catalyzed transistors!

    1. Re:Just use smaller electrons, maybe? by GuB-42 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Audiophile gear had this for years!
      Muons, which are more massive than elections, give more bass presence and smoother transitions.

    2. Re: Just use smaller electrons, maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Screw that. Just use positrons.
      They'll zip right through, peoples heads will be flying. And arms. And the rest of them.

  14. Higher clock speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Will this result in higher possible clock speeds?

  15. Stupid comments galore by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

    For what at least looks like a possible solution to the ever-present electronic challenges of shrinking geometry, yielding the usual benefits of speed, size and density, I'm seeing some really ridiculous comments. Recall that the first transistor "...was about the size of the palm of a hand, with a depth of two matchbooks stacked on top of each other." Basic technological breakthroughs do not automagically turn into "thinner iPhones" or other crapola for a while, but they do break new ground.

    1. Re:Stupid comments galore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid comments?
      "we can make a transistor with a gate that is just 1 nanometer in length, and operate it like a switch,"
      Operate a transistor as a switch? That is revolutionary.

    2. Re:Stupid comments galore by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      Considering that the previous limit was - theoretically - 5nm, yeah. Any 5X improvement usually qualifies as such.

    3. Re:Stupid comments galore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoosh. The GP's point was that transistors have operated like switches since they were first invented.

  16. 1nm Gate Size by mentil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1nm is the gate length, not the size of the entire transistor. Typically-quoted transistor sizes are actually the process nodes, which are half of the distance between the same feature in neighboring transistors, so they're not comparable to a measurement of an individual transistor. That said, I seem to recall a story from over 10 years ago, about someone creating a single 1nm transistor. The trick, now as then, is to use lithography to create billions of them connected to one another to form integrated circuits, and the main limitation in size reductions has been lithography tech rather than transistor tech.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:1nm Gate Size by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Wow, 1nm means using gamma waves. I see the issue now.

    2. Re: 1nm Gate Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wondered when someone would fire the magic bullet.
      It's fine and dandy that they can make bits work in labs etc,but let's see how they reckon to actually make them for the mass market,I've not heard of any major break through in lithographic limits lately.
      It still looks like it will have to be hugely powerful uv,or possibly something akin to the uk's diamound light..

    3. Re:1nm Gate Size by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "the process nodes, which are half of the distance between the same feature in neighboring transistors"

      Somewhat besides the point, but a) these days the process node bears of causal relationship with any physical dimension in the device; b) even back in the day it would correspond to a feature size and never a half-pitch.

    4. Re: 1nm Gate Size by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      not heard of any major break through in lithographic limits lately

      Could it be done with electrons?

    5. Re:1nm Gate Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. This is a discrete transistor design which seems to preclude any integrated circuit application.

    6. Re: 1nm Gate Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. There's already a process where an electron beam traces out the circuitry instead of blanketing the whole wafer with light and using a mask. It's very slow though so is only used for small scale prototype fabrication. I once read DARPA wanted a system with 1000 electron beams working together to get the logical 1000x speed increase, but even that's nowhere near the speed of current light based processes. Personally I can't see a reason why masks wouldn't work with electron beams for the best of both worlds.

    7. Re:1nm Gate Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also keep yields high. There is a lot of devils in the details.

    8. Re:1nm Gate Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cylindrical gate design does not lend itself to planar lithographic implementation.

  17. How long does it last? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With normal transisitors, they degrade over time as electrons/atoms get knocked off the C/B/E. For big transistors, this degradation or wear is no big deal but how long can miniturization go on for before this does become a problem?

    1. Re:How long does it last? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      You can run at lower current. Given the smaller cross section this has to happen anyway as there is less room for electrons to flow.

  18. I use moly disulfide in my grease gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My tractor manual recommends a grease lube that contains molybdenum disulfide, who knew it would be good for 1nm transistors?

    1. Re:I use moly disulfide in my grease gun by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      I was noticing that also, struck me as interesting, but I'm to u-educated about the exact nature of molybdenum disulfide to know why.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  19. Atomic Level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is this IBM vs US Lab?
    Electron driving down a single lane that's very narrow might hop over to the next lane & go the other way.
    Transistors depend on type of materials.
    *Some transistors are slow to wake up (type of materials)
    *Some transistors are fast to wake up (type of materials)
    *Fat old transistors can switch on fast due to High wattage & materials warn.
    *Feed the old fat transistor slowly with wattage and it will wake up slowww.

  20. Multiple patterning EUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm amazed they can do 14 nm stuff. That is using old fashioned 193 nm light, with immersion lithography, which is a handy cheat, and triple patterning. It seems quite insane. nvidia leaked slides several years ago, which said future nodes show no cost savings per transistor. There is a reduction in power consumption, which is nice. How will they make smaller stuff? Multiple patterning EUV?

  21. But will it break in 5 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The industry is secretly hoping for a must-use technology that will break in 5 years. Does this accomplish that business goal?

  22. Curses! Foiled again!! by mileshigh · · Score: 1

    The industry is secretly hoping for a must-use technology that will break in 5 years. Does this accomplish that business goal?

    That's an ancient dream. According to an old-time engineer who was an early transistor user in the early 60s, that was the industry's goal back then: purposefully only slightly longer life than vacuum tubes.

    He told me a story of meeting strong criticism from the semiconductor vendor when they found out his company was dipping transistors in paint to color-code parts that they (the customer) tested as better or worse. Device quality/performance was very uneven back then. The vendor's opposition to dipping didn't quite hold water. Turned out that the hollow metal packages weren't airtight as to allow in oxygen that would eventually degrade them. Dipping in paint sealed them. Foiled again!!

  23. Breakin' The Law???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If you break the law, you ass is going to prison!