Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

HP breaks the 2 nanometer barrier 23

Posted by Hemos from the breaking-it-down-small dept.
Dodger47 writes "Interesting story from HP on their research in nanotechnology. They're using chemicals that line themselves up to form the wires of a circut board instead of using more traditional ways of pressing circuts, and using simple, small molocules to take over the role of transisters. Once again begging the question, "How small can you get? " Good size site, with a lot of interesting information about how you work at the nano level.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HP breaks the 2 nanometer barrier More

HP breaks the 2 nanometer barrier

Comments Filter:
  • Besides how small can you get? (Which i doubt will ever get smaller than 1 molecule), I wonder how long it will take for this to make it to market. Probably 10 or 15 years... A lot of tech sits in research labs forever, going through refinements prior to being shipped as an actual product. Witness protein based storage, etc...

    By the way, first! Maybe....
  • I recall K. Eric Drexler's comment that if we're lucky, we'll have nanotech in 15 to 20 years, and if we're unlucky, we'll have it in FIVE. That was about four years ago, IIRC. Looks like our luck's running out.
  • but it's still just Rotaxane, and it still only switches once.
  • Yes, it would be expensive for the established companies, but what about something like Cyrix that is clawing for marketshare? All that's needed is the threat of one company doing this, and the rest will automatically begin development to keep up.
  • This beats the days of watching Mr. Wizard all to hell!
    So are these guys gonna get together with the doctors who are studying the brain pathways?

    The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

  • Nice to see they were working on this in the Richard Feynman laboratory (or at least chose that to be the location of their photo-op). After all, Feynman birthed the notion of nanotechnology in his paper There's Plenty Of Room At The Bottom

    Plus, he was one cool-ass mofo.

  • Hoopla (Score:2)

    by ruff ( 83941 )

    Now, this looks like some *cool* stuff, but it should be noted that all they said that they can do is produce a "parallel array of wires" 2 nm wide. Now, I'd say that is a substantial breakthrough, but still a far cry from being able to produce a transistor at that level. Now, if they can "self-assemble" an n-p junction at the 2 nm level, well, I'd quit everything and buy stock in HP.

  • In every article on nanocomputing I've seen in the popular press, the focus is on how much smaller you can make the various electronic components. The problem is that we're hitting limits in lithographic techniques, followed at some remote ( 10 years ) by theoretical problems with the materials used to build transitors. Nano-transistors are not the answer.

    There are three alternatives, one easier, one better, and one much better. The first is rod-logic machines, which are analagous to the Analytical Engine (in the same way a Pentium III is analagous to fifties-era soldered transitors ), which don't require any theoretical breakthroughs (and for that matter, have already been proven in the mathematical sense), only decent nano-scale manufacturing. I say this is easier because technique breakthroughs (nano-manufacturing) are more likely to occur than theoritical (new transitor theory/materials), at least in the short-term. (After all, technique is limited by what can be, and theory is not...)

    The second alternative is nano-scale optical computing, which doesn't use electricity either. Optical computing is farther along than rod-logic in the lab, but it does have a problem similar to nano-electric computing (optical transitors). The benefits of optical computing should be understood by the /. audience; optical computing is the clear successor to electronic at any scale, and its benefits should only increase at the nano-scale.

    The third alternative, and the hardest, is the quantum computer, something that I'm equally sure that /.ers are familiar with. I mention this primarily to note that it will put any of the three above technologies to shame, no matter what scale its implementation happens to take place on.

    In summary, I wouldn't get too excited about nano-scale electronics. Better or cheaper (or both) computing is coming in about the same time-frame.

    -_Quinn
  • Here's another story [msnbc.com] about the HP guys that talk a little more about making the actual transistors.
  • What i wonder is, how small can they go before the less predictable reaches of physics come into play? As i recall, genetic algorithms often ended up using subtle defects and quirks of the individual chips to achieve their ends. I haven't taken any classes on how cicuits behave at nano sizes, but i think we have a lot more to get down than just the mechanics of making them. >from one fool to another thanks for reading
  • Also, "molocules"

    ---
  • And a good bongo-drum player....

    I have always thought the coolest geeks actualy had lives. Feynman was proof of that. (Contrast that insane idiot in PI)
    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
  • I recall at the beginning of the movie "Forbidden Planet" the narrator said that man didn't get to the moon until 2007. Fifteen years later, (in 69 for those who don't know when FP was in the theaters) we were there. 15 years for nanotechnology..? Try TWO.
  • No.. it already happened.. What I want to know is how long it takes to make it to the mainstream... MUCH longer than two, I'd think... There's still money to be made with .15 micron, .10 micron, etc... whatever the measurement is, it'd be DAMN expensive to make that large a leap at this point...


    For specialized applications and people with deep pockets, 3 to 5 years may be feasible... but for us? It's 10 to 15 years, at least
  • hehe. Judging by the number of posts that are pointing out spelling and technical errors I might as well join in.

    It does not "beg the question." It raises the question. Begging the question is a logical falacy.

Slashdot Top Deals

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Close