Nice, but how about process compatibility of this material? Many of the promising organic materials are a mess to process...
Btw.. nice site. But I think for many articles it is a bit of a stretch to assign them to chemistry categories. Solid State Physics = inorganic chemistry? I dont think so.
As you may have noted, organic electronics and related topics are currently very hip. The problem is that these materials are very very instable. Great opportunity for secondary results, when your first hand research does not succeed. Just find some device the shows a somewhat reproducable instability and declare it as memory device.
Most of the published devices have endurances (write-read cycles) in the one or two digit order. Their data retention is measured in minutes. Reading/writing is so slow that you would need really really massive parallelism to get on par with HD, CD or flash. It could not be any further from a real application.
1) Write bizarre story involving Linux and Badgers 2) Add "subtle" request to donate money (see rocket to the left) 3) Post story on Slashdot. 4) ?? !! 5) Profit?
Oh, and 100 posts have passed until someone noticed this big bold mistake. I guess many kids here are suffering from ADD. Better take care of this before starting a serious job..
Brits? Wasn't britain rather loosely accociated with the EU, than a member. At least that seems to be what public opionion, Blair, tabloid newpapers are trying to suggest..
What you are describing is the situation today. In the first half of the 20th century most of the research activity was centered in western europe. Up until the stupid Nazis started to disrupt the universities work..
for the past hundred years or more, the rest of the industrialized world looked to the United States for advanced research, innovative ideas and new technologies, if not new products
Get real - it has been a little over 50 years. Look where all the nobel laureates from the first half of the 20th century are coming from.
No its not, atleast not always. Some of us are pretty happy working by ourselves, thank-you-very-much.
I hate working in teams, and am pretty comfortable working on my own. In fact, morons like you who insist on teamwork are probably the same assholes who end up doing management in life.
Actually you sound really frustrated and should probably have more interaction with other people.
Ever done theoretical physics or pure math in your life? All the smart ones work alone, and thats how its meant to be.
Sorry, but even if you work on your own project it is very helpful to be able to exchange thoughts with other people.
Theoretical phyisics and pure math may indeed be one of the very few areas where you still could get along as lonely wolf, but certainly this does not apply to most other areas.
Discl: I am in one of these other areas, but I know several people in maths. And I can assure you that they do not work as loners..
I wonder where all you Americans get your team-work is good bullshit from.
Where do you get the idea that I am americian? Indeed the posting you replied to implies that I am not.
Here in germany, we have "Jugend Forscht" which seems to be remotely similar to the STS
Actually I believe that Jugend Forscht (JF) is a bit more sane than the STS. First of all, most projects in JF are team efforts, while the STS seems to be for single participants only. Also the topics in JF are more down to earth, people are rather doing stuff like interesting presentations of known effects and demonstrate good methodology. It is not about finding (hype breakthrough) in (hype science).
After all science is about team work and methodology and not about presentation. I think the STS concentrates too much on the later..
I think some of your explanations are a bit far fetched..
Boris Alexeev's work may yield this guy a visit from the NSA. With minimization of deterministic finite automata you have - as the article points out - a tool to reduce the memory and processing requirements of certain kinds of operations such as speech and optical character recognition - however, the article failed to point out another obvious application - signal processing with tons of applications in video and audio surveillance/recognition.
I do not see the connection here, his method is probably not applicable to stochastics processes.
In general it is not mentioned what he was exactly doing. Minimization of state machines and many directly releated topics (BDD SAT prover, formal verification etc) are a very active field of research so it is more than questionable he had a breakthrough idea.
Nonetheless, this is a very abtract topic and some new conjectures and proofs are certainly impressive.
Ryna Karnik's work applies directly to processor manufacturing - using a focused ion beam instead of photolithorgraphy to etch wafers. I read about a similar technique, but using electron beams in a sub-.03 micron process.
In fact FIB (focussed ion beam) was invented to manipulate nanosized structures. I am not aware of any transistor build by that and I see some problems there, but it is certainly not far off.
Please note that this is not a batch method and will not enable manufacturing of circuits. Also the resolution is not as good as can be achieved with other methods.
More impressive here is that she actually had access to a FIB machine. These cost millions to buy and tens of thousands to operate. I am only aware of few universities that have these available.
1) Most of the finalists had obviously a lot of help from outside and sometimes access to people and equipment mere mortals do not. For example a FIB machines as used by one of the finalists is only owned by a few chosen universities.
2) Many of them to be first or second generation immigrants (judging from name, style etc.) Again, this shows how lost the US would actually be without immigration.
Simple scaling laws that should be known by any engineer tell why bipeds of that size are not a good idea to begin with.
With increasing size the time constant of motion changes (froude number) making larger robots inherently slower. Also other laws indicate that the influence of gravition grows larger, make the robot difficult to control and prone to damage.
There are reasons why nature has not created bipeds of that size.
was pointing out that 90% light loss is simply not true. You are quite correct that light is loss from the electronics, ITO, etc, but 90% is an exaggeration at best.
I have to admit I saw that figure on an IBM slide which was from the 90ies, one would guess things have improved from back then.
Ok this article quotes the old number and the improvements:
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/423/tanas e. html
From 1997.. shame on me.
We're talking about "Field Effect Transistors" here right? Now this is an honest question because I don't know the answer: How were people speculating on FETs in the 20's when the transistor hadn't been invented yet? Were these theoretical predictions?
There are several patents by J. Lilienfeld and others on thin film field effect transistors dating back the 20ies. Unfortunately no way to manufacture them back then..
Again though, organic FETs also have the lifetime problem. Standard CMOS FETs run circles around pentacene-based FETs in terms of life time.
Sure, the lifetime is horrible. No chance to drive OLEDs with OFETs in the near future, most of the papers on this topic are quite useless because they ignore material degradation and Vth shift.
But the same problem applies to a-Si TFTs. Achieving long lifetimes in LCD displays is already not straight forward, but the situation gets much worse with current driving for OLEDs.
The lab I make OLEDs in has produced the most efficient OLEDs ever published (and PLEDs for that matter), but they just can't complete in terms of lifetime for LCDs.
And which if the zillion record claiming papers would that be? (try a search on "high efficient" on the AIP website:) )
The strange thing is that if you made the screen from LEDs, with a miniature lens on each pixel so the light goes mostly where it is wanted, the efficiency would be more than double that of the LCD plus backlight!
There are several problems: First you'd need a technology to attach several million LED dies to a backplanes with less than say 1 in 1e7 failures. Actually there is a company (Alien Technology) that developed techniques to things like this with fluidic self assembly, but I doubt they get even order of magnitude close to the desired failure rates.
The second problem is the price. Single LED dies still cost several cents. Multiply this with 2.2million for a 1024x768 display.
The problem with using LEDs simplistically is that without the lens, the light output is Lambertian, so a lot of it goes where it is not wanted, straying into adjacent pixels that are supposed to be dark for a start.
I do not think this is a problem, it is certainly not a problem with OLED displays.
Uhm.. where exactly are you criticising my statement? It seems to be well in line with what I was claiming. You forgot to mentionthat also quite some light is lost due to the TFT circuitry, the filler material and the light spreader. But anyways.. the killer is the polarization, 50% intrinsic light loss is not too convincing..
The sticking point for current OLED technology is lifetime. An LCD display can function for years while the best OLED would be lucky to useable after a year or two.
Yes, but people have claimed the same about silicon FETS from 1924 until well into the 60ies...
The point is that you can OLEDs to form the display directly. By doing that you hardly lose any light and you even save power depending on the number of lit pixels.
Thats quite inaccurate. Although a lot of oxygene is existent even in state-of-the-art Silicon wafer it is only of minor importance to lifetime problems. The main problems with silicon devices were related to sodium,potassium and problems with gate insulator growth (dangling bonds, impurity driving etc..).
For organic devices the sitation is different. Most of the lifetime problems seem to stem from ionic purities which interact with water. The main problem is therefore moisture. Oxygene does mainly play a role in the degradation of contacts.
Yes, but in a TFT display you lose close to 90% of your light to the TFT and Liquid Crystal panel. So if your backlights efficiency is 60 lumen/W the total display efficiency is more like 6 lumen/W, even neglecting the the power consumption for the panel..
Well, the fact that these displays are thin does also mean that there is little material involved. And most of it is probably encapsulating material like some commonly used plastic... so it is probably not more damaging to the environemtn than a plastic grocery bag.
Unfortunately, the carbon compounds will be heavily doped with the same sort of toxic metals and other compounds that cause problems when disposing of traditional electronics
No, they are not. Doping with metal atoms is the last thing you'd want in these circuits.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice, but how about process compatibility of this material? Many of the promising organic materials are a mess to process...
Btw.. nice site. But I think for many articles it is a bit of a stretch to assign them to chemistry categories. Solid State Physics = inorganic chemistry? I dont think so.
Yet Another Organic Storage Device..
As you may have noted, organic electronics and related topics are currently very hip. The problem is that these materials are very very instable. Great opportunity for secondary results, when your first hand research does not succeed. Just find some device the shows a somewhat reproducable instability and declare it as memory device.
Most of the published devices have endurances (write-read cycles) in the one or two digit order. Their data retention is measured in minutes. Reading/writing is so slow that you would need really really massive parallelism to get on par with HD, CD or flash. It could not be any further from a real application.
How can this be "informative"? It is total bull**.. game cardridges are not screen printed.
Try some IC-fabrication 101 textbook.
Incidentally they are, as they are in real financial trouble right now.
1) Write bizarre story involving Linux and Badgers
2) Add "subtle" request to donate money (see rocket to the left)
3) Post story on Slashdot.
4) ?? !!
5) Profit?
I wonder how it works out..
Oh, and 100 posts have passed until someone noticed this big bold mistake. I guess many kids here are suffering from ADD. Better take care of this before starting a serious job..
Brits? Wasn't britain rather loosely accociated with the EU, than a member. At least that seems to be what public opionion, Blair, tabloid newpapers are trying to suggest..
What you are describing is the situation today. In the first half of the 20th century most of the research activity was centered in western europe. Up until the stupid Nazis started to disrupt the universities work..
for the past hundred years or more, the rest of the industrialized world looked to the United States for advanced research, innovative ideas and new technologies, if not new products
Get real - it has been a little over 50 years. Look where all the nobel laureates from the first half of the 20th century are coming from.
No its not, atleast not always. Some of us are pretty happy working by ourselves, thank-you-very-much.
I hate working in teams, and am pretty comfortable working on my own. In fact, morons like you who insist on teamwork are probably the same assholes who end up doing management in life.
Actually you sound really frustrated and should probably have more interaction with other people.
Ever done theoretical physics or pure math in your life? All the smart ones work alone, and thats how its meant to be.
Sorry, but even if you work on your own project it is very helpful to be able to exchange thoughts with other people.
Theoretical phyisics and pure math may indeed be one of the very few areas where you still could get along as lonely wolf, but certainly this does not apply to most other areas.
Discl: I am in one of these other areas, but I know several people in maths. And I can assure you that they do not work as loners..
I wonder where all you Americans get your team-work is good bullshit from.
Where do you get the idea that I am americian? Indeed the posting you replied to implies that I am not.
Here in germany, we have "Jugend Forscht" which seems to be remotely similar to the STS
Actually I believe that Jugend Forscht (JF) is a bit more sane than the STS. First of all, most projects in JF are team efforts, while the STS seems to be for single participants only. Also the topics in JF are more down to earth, people are rather doing stuff like interesting presentations of known effects and demonstrate good methodology. It is not about finding (hype breakthrough) in (hype science).
After all science is about team work and methodology and not about presentation. I think the STS concentrates too much on the later..
I think some of your explanations are a bit far fetched..
Boris Alexeev's work may yield this guy a visit from the NSA. With minimization of deterministic finite automata you have - as the article points out - a tool to reduce the memory and processing requirements of certain kinds of operations such as speech and optical character recognition - however, the article failed to point out another obvious application - signal processing with tons of applications in video and audio surveillance/recognition.
I do not see the connection here, his method is probably not applicable to stochastics processes.
In general it is not mentioned what he was exactly doing. Minimization of state machines and many directly releated topics (BDD SAT prover, formal verification etc) are a very active field of research so it is more than questionable he had a breakthrough idea.
Nonetheless, this is a very abtract topic and some new conjectures and proofs are certainly impressive.
Ryna Karnik's work applies directly to processor manufacturing - using a focused ion beam instead of photolithorgraphy to etch wafers. I read about a similar technique, but using electron beams in a sub-.03 micron process.
In fact FIB (focussed ion beam) was invented to manipulate nanosized structures. I am not aware of any transistor build by that and I see some problems there, but it is certainly not far off.
Please note that this is not a batch method and will not enable manufacturing of circuits. Also the resolution is not as good as can be achieved with other methods.
More impressive here is that she actually had access to a FIB machine. These cost millions to buy and tens of thousands to operate. I am only aware of few universities that have these available.
1) Most of the finalists had obviously a lot of help from outside and sometimes access to people and equipment mere mortals do not. For example a FIB machines as used by one of the finalists is only owned by a few chosen universities.
2) Many of them to be first or second generation immigrants (judging from name, style etc.) Again, this shows how lost the US would actually be without immigration.
Simple scaling laws that should be known by any engineer tell why bipeds of that size are not a good idea to begin with.
With increasing size the time constant of motion changes (froude number) making larger robots inherently slower. Also other laws indicate that the influence of gravition grows larger, make the robot difficult to control and prone to damage.
There are reasons why nature has not created bipeds of that size.
was pointing out that 90% light loss is simply not true. You are quite correct that light is loss from the electronics, ITO, etc, but 90% is an exaggeration at best.
s e. html
:) )
I have to admit I saw that figure on an IBM slide which was from the 90ies, one would guess things have improved from back then.
Ok this article quotes the old number and the improvements:
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/423/tana
From 1997.. shame on me.
We're talking about "Field Effect Transistors" here right? Now this is an honest question because I don't know the answer: How were people speculating on FETs in the 20's when the transistor hadn't been invented yet? Were these theoretical predictions?
There are several patents by J. Lilienfeld and others on thin film field effect transistors dating back the 20ies. Unfortunately no way to manufacture them back then..
Again though, organic FETs also have the lifetime problem. Standard CMOS FETs run circles around pentacene-based FETs in terms of life time.
Sure, the lifetime is horrible. No chance to drive OLEDs with OFETs in the near future, most of the papers on this topic are quite useless because they ignore material degradation and Vth shift.
But the same problem applies to a-Si TFTs. Achieving long lifetimes in LCD displays is already not straight forward, but the situation gets much worse with current driving for OLEDs.
The lab I make OLEDs in has produced the most efficient OLEDs ever published (and PLEDs for that matter), but they just can't complete in terms of lifetime for LCDs.
And which if the zillion record claiming papers would that be? (try a search on "high efficient" on the AIP website
The strange thing is that if you made the screen from LEDs, with a miniature lens on each pixel so the light goes mostly where it is wanted, the efficiency would be more than double that of the LCD plus backlight!
There are several problems: First you'd need a technology to attach several million LED dies to a backplanes with less than say 1 in 1e7 failures. Actually there is a company (Alien Technology) that developed techniques to things like this with fluidic self assembly, but I doubt they get even order of magnitude close to the desired failure rates.
The second problem is the price. Single LED dies still cost several cents. Multiply this with 2.2million for a 1024x768 display.
The problem with using LEDs simplistically is that without the lens, the light output is Lambertian, so a lot of it goes where it is not wanted, straying into adjacent pixels that are supposed to be dark for a start.
I do not think this is a problem, it is certainly not a problem with OLED displays.
That just isn't true.
Uhm.. where exactly are you criticising my statement? It seems to be well in line with what I was claiming. You forgot to mentionthat also quite some light is lost due to the TFT circuitry, the filler material and the light spreader. But anyways.. the killer is the polarization, 50% intrinsic light loss is not too convincing..
The sticking point for current OLED technology is lifetime. An LCD display can function for years while the best OLED would be lucky to useable after a year or two.
Yes, but people have claimed the same about silicon FETS from 1924 until well into the 60ies...
The point is that you can OLEDs to form the display directly. By doing that you hardly lose any light and you even save power depending on the number of lit pixels.
Thats quite inaccurate. Although a lot of
oxygene is existent even in state-of-the-art Silicon wafer it is only of minor importance to lifetime problems. The main problems with silicon devices were related to sodium,potassium and problems with gate insulator growth (dangling bonds, impurity driving etc..).
For organic devices the sitation is different. Most of the lifetime problems seem to stem from ionic purities which interact with water. The main problem is therefore moisture. Oxygene does mainly play a role in the degradation of contacts.
Yes, but in a TFT display you lose close to 90% of your light to the TFT and Liquid Crystal panel. So if your backlights efficiency is 60 lumen/W the total display efficiency is more like 6 lumen/W, even neglecting the the power consumption for the panel..
"Moewe" is german for seagull...
Sure, just like the 65nm Prescott is not much cooler than its predecessor, the Nortwood?
Well, the fact that these displays are thin does also mean that there is little material involved. And most of it is probably encapsulating material like some commonly used plastic... so it is probably not more damaging to the environemtn than a plastic grocery bag.
Unfortunately, the carbon compounds will be heavily doped with the same sort of toxic metals and other compounds that cause problems when disposing of traditional electronics
No, they are not. Doping with metal atoms is the last thing you'd want in these circuits.
it does probably only work on NT based systems. 95/98/ME are DOS based - I doubt the kernel will ever allow any elegant implementation of colinux.
I also do not understand your disappointment of 2000? IMO its the best windows version out there - really stable and still quite lean.