Circuits Better with Purer Nanotubes 113
Mark_Uplanguage writes "PhysicsWeb has an article on improving techniques for the use of carbon nanotubes in electronic circuits. From the article, 'Physicists in the US have developed a new method for making electronic circuits with carbon nanotubes. The technique involves dipping semiconductor chips into a purified solution of nanotubes, rather than the conventional method of growing the nanotubes directly onto the chips. The resulting devices are much better than those produced by other approaches.'"
Tubes (Score:1)
Re:Tubes (Score:2)
Re:Tubes (Score:1)
That's a neat graphic in the article... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://physicsweb.org/objects/news/9/8/2/050802.j
Re:That's a neat graphic in the article... (Score:2)
J.
Re:That's a neat graphic in the article... (Score:1)
Re:That's a neat graphic in the article... (Score:1)
Re:That's a neat graphic in the article... (Score:2)
Re:That's a neat graphic in the article... (Score:1)
I shall call it... (Score:1)
In Layman's Terms (Score:1, Funny)
It is like dunking your doughnut in coffee instead of waiting for the doughnut to naturally produce its own coffee flavour.
The more you know.
What they don't discuss (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What they don't discuss (Score:1)
Re:What they don't discuss (Score:2)
Re:What they don't discuss (Score:1)
Re:What they don't discuss (Score:1)
Re:What they don't discuss (Score:1)
What we do know, however, about the electron, is that
Re:What they don't discuss (Score:2)
Could you elaborate on that?
Any More? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Any More? (Score:2)
Re:Any More? (Score:1)
Re:Any More? (Score:2)
http://www.photon.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~maruyama/agall
Quantum scale ... (Score:1)
Re:Quantum scale ... (Score:3, Informative)
FYI, the timeline:
1943: Colossus
1946: ENIAC
1958: first IC
1971: first CPU
1975: Altair
Re:Quantum scale ... (Score:1)
That's not necessarily true. If they can make $$$ by mass-marketing it to us 'mere mortals', they'll do it.
By way of example, look at the sophisticated microprocessors that are marketed to us 'mere mortals'.
It's all about profit.
Re:Quantum scale ... (Score:3, Insightful)
A solution of nanotubes? No such beast! (Score:3, Insightful)
And if the nanotubes were in solution, they wouldn't be nanotubes any more.
Re:A solution of nanotubes? No such beast! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A solution of nanotubes? No such beast! (Score:4, Informative)
Not so. You can have macromolecules is solution without destroying them. For example, fullerene dissolves in toluene. The molecules don't break up, but they acquire a coating of toluene molecules on the surface which means that they act as part of the liquid instead of a solid. When the toluene is evaporated, the buckys are fine.
In fact, there's a good chance these nanotubes are bucky-derived so they might even be in a toluene solution in TFA (which I haven't read cos I don't care about chip manufacture, I was just reading for the '+5 Funny's).
J.
Re:A solution of nanotubes? No such beast! (Score:1)
Re:A solution of nanotubes? No such beast! (Score:2)
J.
are there any practical nanotube applications (Score:1, Insightful)
all i ever see are "may" or "might" or "could"
lots of hype/vapour but i havent heard or seen any applications of this technology that have made it to market
perhaps they will be released with Duke Nukem Forever as an addon
Re:are there any practical nanotube applications (Score:2)
Re:are there any practical nanotube applications (Score:2)
I thought smoke and soot had lots and lots of nanotubes and buckyballs in it already. The quantities being used for electronics are extremely small, and they aren't floating around in the air.
Interesting Chips Debate (Score:5, Funny)
So, are you a dipper or do you cover them with sauce first? Science have proved that the dippers are using a superior technique...
chips: n. [British] Fried potatoes cut into thick rectangular strips. see fries [American].
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:1)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:2)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:2)
It's called hyperthreading...
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:2)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:1)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:2)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:1)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:1)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:3, Informative)
Remember everyone, don't buy those frozen par-cooked ones. Cut 'em fresh, blanch them in 250-275 degree oil, drain, then fry at a higher temp (365 works for me). Oh yeah, and if you want 'em REAL good, fry them in some sort of animal fat. Otherwise use Peanut Oil and only that.
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:2)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:2)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:2)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:2)
Way OT question for sjwaste about french fries (Score:1)
I tend to cook around 3 pounds of potatoes at a time in small batches, using a kitchenaid french fry slicer [shop.com] (sorry- can't find it on ki
Re:Way OT question for sjwaste about french fries (Score:2)
I guess what's going wrong for you is that you're blanching at t
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:3, Funny)
Covering your chips in sauce is a very useful way to prevent chip theft when you live with someone who is allergic to tomatoes...
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:1)
Or "potatoes cut into thick rectangular strips and then fried". Cutting fried potatoes to make french fries would be kind of silly. :) (Incidentally, in French you use the same word as Americans do for chips, though it's pronounced like "sheeps". They also say "frites" (or "pommes frites"), which means the same thing as "fries" (or "frieds", I guess).)
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:1)
Good point about the poor dictionary definition.
Re:Interesting Chips Debate (Score:1)
What about Synergy (Score:3, Funny)
What about Packard Bell computers?
They were made with poor, used, and substandard parts with bad drivers, and yet the computers were still...
Maybe I agree after all.
I think that the demise of Packard Bell in North America is totally justified.
Re:What about Synergy (Score:1)
Re:What about Synergy (Score:2)
One of the darkest moments of working for a major retail chain betweeen college and grad school was the realization that I had to sell the likes of packard bell computers. The single bright spot was the time I put packard bell tech support on hold.
What it means (Score:3, Interesting)
My group estimates that it will be 10 or more years before we see this technology impacting consumers around the world.
We all want much more powerful CPUs in a smaller package disapating little heat. But so far built only a few transistors using said technology - far from the density and complexity of a next generation CPU. The reliability of the process needs to be made very very high, orders of magnitude high, in order to make a next generation CPU using this technology... and those techniques are far, far away from being available today at any high volume chip fab facility.
Don't get me wrong - its an important scientific advance, but the manufacturing process still needs a lot of new science to make it happen in a way we'd like to see it.
Re:What it means (Score:1, Funny)
Primal_theory
Re:What it means (Score:2)
What are predictions based on?
I mean, 10 years with current R&D efforts or 10 yrs with massive inceased R&D?
nano being a buzzword, in many respects, but I guess the field is expanding quite rapidly, how hard is it to do predictions?
Re:What it means (Score:1)
Obviously, someone could make a full-court press and invest a few extra billion to make it (potentially) happen faster. But in general it isn't though of as being wise, as it could be a huge money sink that doesn't pay off the in
Re:What it means (Score:2)
It's pretty fucking hard.
But hey, predict something easy. When will the PS3 be released to the US market?
See what I mean?
Weird (Score:3, Interesting)
Suppose this works because there are hooks on the chip on which the nanotubes get stuck. How do you know that two opposing hooks attach to the correct same nanotube, and not to the wrong nanotube, or to two nanotubes with no connection at the other end at all.
I think this works nice in a lab where you only measure certain performance parameters from the use of nanotubes, but that a real chip will not work with this method.
Pure nanotubes work better: That is to be expected based on the properties of a nanotube (guessing here). I think an assembling method to place the nanotubes so you are sure they are at the correct place, is a better direction for this research than a huge chip dipping facility. If they want to do the last they will have to get a license from Pringles anyway, they have the best dipping shape for chips.
Re:Weird (Score:2)
Nobody sits there and "places transistors". They're made by the bulk and yes they do have a significant throwaway percentage.
If you walk away with 300 of 540 P4 dies on a 300mm wafer I think they call that a good day [it's probably higher than that I imagine].
Tom
Re:Weird (Score:2)
And yes, a certain percentage breaks in the proces, and a manufacturer even rates it fabs according to how much breaks (with
Re:Weird (Score:2)
This is basically going backwards. Provided your coating is even you should get the tubes in ever "nook and cranny".
Tom
Re:Weird (Score:2)
Look at the linked article (Score:1)
I'm not pretending to have a very good grasp on how this all works, but it seems like these guys have developed some pretty precise control over where the nanotubes get placed by using DNA. Kinda takes 'organic computing' to a whole different level, doesn't it.
One of a dozen daily.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Clarification... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Clarification... (Score:1)
Whoever modded this guy informative doesn't know squat.
Re:Clarification... (Score:2)
Re:Clarification... (Score:1)
Re:Clarification... (Score:2)
All solid-state matter will contain some defects, but "purity" refers to composition, not structure.
Carbon is a semiconductor (Score:3, Interesting)
Carbon is NOT a semiconductor (Score:2)
Carbon is either a good conductor (nanotubes, fullerenes, graphite) or a good insulator (diamond).
Re:Carbon is NOT a semiconductor (Score:2, Informative)
is a semimetal at room temperature (has nearly zero
temperature coefficient of conductivity); at lower temperature
it is a semiconductor, at higher temperature it is a conductor.
The high temperature behavior is similar to a semiconductor
'going intrinsic' (Germanium does this at an inconveniently
low temperature, Silicon goes to several hundred Celsius
first).
No one used graphite semiconductors much because the
lattice is VERY strong in one dimensio
Re:Carbon is a semiconductor (Score:1)
What is new in here ? (Score:4, Interesting)
(a) No, these transistors are no better. If you check the nature article, the contacts to the transistors are still lousy (technically, they are still schottky and not ohmic). And contact resistance is too high.
(b) No, they don't really get the nanotubes where they want as claimed in the article. The alignment using this technique is still worse (will require substantial effort to make it better).
(c) One of the bigger drawbacks which was conveniently ignored was the fact that they still cannnot control the number of tubes between the two contacts. So it can be 1 or 2 or 5 and so your current or other properties will vary that much. This technique doesn't make this problem any better.
(d) Last but not the least, no comment about the role of oxygen. All other researchers struggle due to hysteresis behavior, these devices look similar to them.
Re:What is new in here ? (Score:2)
Submissions to
The situation with nanotube wiring can be summed up very simply -- how the fuck are you going to lay them down and connect millions (or billions) of them? If the topic cannot answer that then it is unlikely to be of interest to
Diamond Age? (Score:1)
Whatever happened to all the hype a few years back (a WIRED cover-story comes to mind) about how we would be seeing chips formed from synthetic diamond rather than using silicon
Haven't heard much of anything on the 'diamond age' since
Re:Diamond Age? (Score:2)
More interested in Biological Nanotubes (Score:1)
But, hey, nanotubes are good - provided they don't fall apart and clog your bloodstream, right?