SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
140nm node carbon nanotube array field-effect transistors have outperformed 90nm node silicon MOSFETs in a test:
Now, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) have given SWCNTs (Single-Walled Carbon NanoTubes) a new boost in their resurgence by using them to make a transistor that outperforms state-of-the-art silicon transistors.
[...] In research described in the journal Science Advances [open, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1601240] [DX], the UW-Madison researchers were able to achieve a current that is 1.9 times as fast as that seen in silicon transistors. The measure of how rapidly the current that can travel through the channel between a transistor's source and drain determines how fast the circuit is. The more current there is, the more quickly the gate of the next device in the circuit can be charged.
The key to getting the nanotubes to create such a fast transistor was a new process that employs polymers to sort between the metallic and semiconducting SWCNTs to create an ultra-high purity of solution. "We've identified specific conditions in which you can get rid of nearly all metallic nanotubes, [leaving] less than 0.01 percent metallic nanotubes [in a sample]," said Arnold.
The researchers had already tackled the problem of aligning and placing the nanotubes on a wafer two years ago when they developed a process they dubbed "floating evaporative self-assembly." That technique uses a hydrophobic substrate and partially submerges it in water. Then the SWCNTs are deposited on its surface and the substrate removed vertically from the water.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:44PM
Quick somebody startup a startup to sell carbon nanotube cellphones. Business failure when nanotube phones are even less popular than electric cars. And twice as gay.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:17PM
Nobody cares about what's in their SoC, as long as it's fast.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:38AM
Everybody cares about battery life. Nobody wants to use a power hungry Intel SoC when an ARM SoC is available instead.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:07PM
since we don't know how to make carbon nanotubes to arbitrary length, this advancement is only helping organizations with absurd amounts of money. so basically, this currently only helps the likes of the DoD and the NSA. Not exactly the types of groups that can be trusted to not abuse such power.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday September 08 2016, @12:59AM
The NASA investigated making "vacuum microelectronics" and other devices from carbon nanotubes, in the expectation that they would be resistant to radiation.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/5_18MANOHARA_paper.pdf [nasa.gov]
I would think that overly long nanotubes could be trimmed mechanically or with a laser. They could be destroyed by passing a heavy current through them.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:13PM
While I missed where it says 90 nm in TFA (read both, sorry), I'm wondering what it would look like if the article said "custom handcrafted carbon nanotube transistors outperforms general-purpose mass-manufactured transistor from 10 years ago".
Nice performance, good progress, but state-of-the-art (or production-ready) it ain't.
Can you scale it down to 7nm, so we don't lose in density? Faster is nice, but 1.9x 90nm perf by using 140nm parts isn't gonna get you lots of adoption
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:16PM
It's buried in the paper, or made clear in this Tom's Hardware article I never added: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/carbon-nanotube-transistor-cpu-fet,32638.html [tomshardware.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:07AM
Can you scale it down to 7nm, so we don't lose in density? Faster is nice, but 1.9x 90nm perf by using 140nm parts isn't gonna get you lots of adoption
I don't particularly care about the density if someone can make it legitimately faster than state-of-the-art (not 90nm) silicon. Every desktop I've owned has had more open space than hardware in it, and I'd gladly trade some of that if it brings more speed. You could keep using the smaller silicon chips for the stuff where space matters and use the new thing for where speed matters.
Of course, the problem is that's a pretty big "if" right now, so it's just an irrelevant what-if currently. Meh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:32PM
Density is (not only) a matter of silicon manufacturing efficiency.
It's also related to the fact that at Microprocessors work at frequencies that reach the threshold between transmission lines and waveguides, so you need to keep shrinking everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @08:36AM
Make something one atom thick, and along comes the critic saying "shrink it!"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:55PM
I hand-craft the most amazing buggies around, but the Amish market isn't enough to break even. I'd like to know if my tricks can be used to improve a Rolls, and hopefully down the road a Toyota.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday September 08 2016, @12:31AM
Conventional silicon chips often have manufacturing defects. Maybe the clean room suffered a speck of dust. So they test all the chips while they are still part of the wafer, before cutting them.
Provided your carbon nanotube chips weren't too complex, it would be economical to do the same. But more-complex chips would require greater purity as there is a higher probably of at least one bad transistor if you have more transistors.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]