Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nanoscale Crystals May Be The Future of Silicon

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the could-be-better-than-leds dept.

Science 99

Wire Tap writes: "With all the talk about how silicon is nearing its physical limits in computer systems, and other data processing applications, I found this article quite interesting. "[Brian] Korgel and chemical engineering professor Keith Johnston have found a method to make stable microscopic nanocrystals out of silicon that can emit light. And by toying with the size of the silicon nanostructures, they can change the color of the light that shines through. It can make essentially faster memory and generate less heat and radiate less power.""

cancel ×

99 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2110996)

hehe :-)

Re:fp! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2142185)

we care a lot about the garbage pail kids - they never lie
we care a lot about transformers 'cause there's more than meets the eye

Re:fp! (-1)

CmdrTaco on (468152) | more than 13 years ago | (#2157647)

hehe your ass, you shit packing faggot. Fucking scum like you make me want to hurl all over your dead sisters grave and dig her up to fist fuck and masturbate on. Yeah, I'm into that. But I'll make an exception for your mother who's still alive.

I love Katy! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2110997)

And Lum!

You can get BB here, wireless highspeed, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2113972)

this technology is PERFECT for people out in the middle of no where. www.xtratyme.com

Department of Redundancy Department (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2114605)

Korgel and chemical engineering professor Keith Johnston have found a method to make stable microscopic nanocrystals out of silicon that can emit light.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department (1)

Uttles (324447) | more than 13 years ago | (#2115883)

Good eye, someone mark this funny

Re:Department of Redundancy Department (0, Redundant)

Nihilanth (470467) | more than 13 years ago | (#2123822)

It would be innacurate to describe that statement as redundant. Since microscale and nanoscale are different by a significant figure or three, they cannot be held to be equivalent. Therefore, the statement was self-contradictory rather than redundant.

In the writing style of our times, however, "microscopic" (adj.) is commonly understood in non-technical terms to mean anything that is not visible by the naked eye, and although nanoscale and microscale are not equivalent, "Nanoscopic" is not a word that has acheived the recognizability of "microscopic" at this time. Of course, the most concise ways to say the above would have been "..to make stable nanocrystals.." or "to make stable nanoscopic crystals.."

But since you obviously understood the point they were trying to make, who cares?

Nanotechnology of Silicon (3, Interesting)

caesar-auf-nihil (513828) | more than 13 years ago | (#2115237)

Obviously, the semiconductor industry is especially interested in this are. IBM has done some work on "streching" the silicon domains in semiconductor devices to get them to behave differently. By doing this, they can get around some of the size limits that chip/device fabrication is currently running up against. I wish I could find the article I saw on this, but I think it was about a month ago.. What strikes me as really neat about this technology is the possibility for optical computing, rather than electron transport through semiconductors. With chemical and nanoscale design applied together, one could perhaps get different materials to emit different wavelenghts of light, opening up not just optical storage applications, but optical CPUs, memory, etc. I want to say that researchers have found some silicon/germanium crystals that do just this, based on the ratio of silicon to germanium. I think I read it in Science or Applied Physics Letters, but again, I'm not completely sure where I read this, but I know I've seen it somewhere. As a nitpicking aside, there is no such thing as microscopic nanocrystals. Nanocrystals are called such because one or more of their dimensions are on the nanoscale. For nanocrystalline silicon, all of its dimensions are nanoscale, and not microscale.

But can we eat them? (2, Funny)

swordboy (472941) | more than 13 years ago | (#2120874)

For some reason, rock candy comes to mind.

Re:But can we eat them? (1)

Bob McCown (8411) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142074)

As long as they get their crystals straight. "We've replaced all the components in Jim's computer with Freeze-dried folgers crystals. Lets see if he notices..."

Hmmm... (1)

Raymond Luxury Yacht (112037) | more than 13 years ago | (#2118157)

...well, if his screen turned blue and he couldn't work, he may not notice. He could be using Win98.

Re:But can we eat them? (1)

compwiz3688 (98919) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142111)

You can eat them, if you don't mind lighting up once in a while... Actually, that might be good: saves energy at night... ;)

fp troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2120876)

first post, bitches. BOOYA!

... my Crystaline ass they'll work (1)

akaina (472254) | more than 13 years ago | (#2125616)

OK, not to sound like a Troll, but gimme a break. Quit posting this garbage about nanoscale technology. Crystals aren't even REMOTELY the right way to go. I'm doing work at Rice in collaboration with Yale and a few other major universities. Whoever keeps posting this stuff needs to be informed.

Its all about the Big Bens (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 13 years ago | (#2125942)

Scientists at the University of Texas at Austin (UTA) are engaged in talks to either launch a start-up company or license the use of a breakthrough in nanocrystals that may lay the foundation for a new line of super small tech products.
So they used University money and equipment, and now there going to take the tech that was developed on the universtities dime, and start there own company? I can see it now, We developed this tech at your university, but if you want to use it, you got to pay us.
Or maybe I'm just grumpy from my morning drive.

Re:Its all about the Big Bens (1)

essaunders (469150) | more than 13 years ago | (#2139366)

It was my impression that usually universities encourage this sort of venture. The students/researchers involved go off, get (more) venture money, but the university keeps a pretty big stake.. perhaps even holding IP rights. I believe many an engineering college has built up sizeable endowments this way.

Hate to sound like an ass, but... (2, Insightful)

Bob_the_Cannibal (265055) | more than 13 years ago | (#2126135)

People said that VLSI was too expensive at one time, and yet, here we are...

10 years ago, a processor like the AMD Tbird or Intel P4 would've been impossible, and if it were, it'd be too cost prohibitive to make... Give it time, and the price will unfailingly come down as research gives way to better, cheaper methods. Everything is expensive until it leaves the laboratory

-------------------

Down already? (4, Funny)

zer0vector (94679) | more than 13 years ago | (#2131586)

Perhaps computers built with these new crystals will be fast enough to resist the onslaught of Slashdot. I wouldn't really know since I can't read the article.

Re:Down already? (0, Offtopic)

Wire Tap (61370) | more than 13 years ago | (#2131590)

Awesome sig. Quantum Leap was a great show. Science without the contempt. Anyhow, the site seems to be working for me. Maybe it's your ISP.

This will revolutionize strip clubs (4, Troll)

Kara B. (315771) | more than 13 years ago | (#2131587)

5 words:

Light emitting silicon breast implants.

Brings a whole new meaning the "check out the headlights on that one."

Sacred mother of god, we're about to give you boys another reason to stare at a woman's chest while talking to her.

Re:This will revolutionize strip clubs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2110214)

Before you ask, I already have a boyfriend and he's more of a man than you'll ever be.

Oh Yea! I have seen your boyfriend on goatse.cx [goatse.cx]

What a find! I agree. You can do no better

hey!!! (1)

4n0nym0u$ C0w4rd (471100) | more than 13 years ago | (#2112452)

I resent that.....I'm an equal opportunity perv, I alternate the focus of my stare (occasionally even reaching I level :)). I also don't purposefully drop things and ask the lady to pick them up (thats so childish). No in the era of the mini-skirt (I love high-school) I am glad to pick up my own crap....and theirs too. Your idea of light-emitting implants is a solid one however and I encourage you to quickly patent it before some unscrupulous company comes along and steals it. I can think of several other features that might be usefull in implants: a space heater, modem jack, a movie projector, mp3 player, coin slot for purchase of beverages, etc...

Oi vey. (3, Funny)

Raymond Luxury Yacht (112037) | more than 13 years ago | (#2118471)

"Rudolph... You're FIRED!"

Re:Oi vey. (1)

Bob McCown (8411) | more than 13 years ago | (#2155409)

Damn, I wanted to be a dentist [campresolute.org] , but maybe I should become a plastic surgeon.

Re:This will revolutionize strip clubs (3, Funny)

rizzo242 (165630) | more than 13 years ago | (#2119580)

Light emitting silicon breast implants.

Wouldn't those be uncomfortable, considering how much harder silicon is than the silicone traditionally used in non-saline breast implants?

/me pulls the tongue out of his cheek...

Re:This will revolutionize strip clubs (1)

The Other Nate (137833) | more than 13 years ago | (#2131507)

Warning: Political Incorrectness ahead
Light emitting silicon breast implants

LESBI

This poses a marketing problem.
At least it's not LEZBO

Re:This will revolutionize strip clubs (1)

sacrilicious (316896) | more than 13 years ago | (#2135928)

Before you ask, I already have a boyfriend and he's more of a man than you'll ever be.

hey... that part about him being more of a man than me really hurt my feelings... I need a hug from someone... preferably someone with large headlights

Must... not... say... it.... (0, Redundant)

HiredMan (5546) | more than 13 years ago | (#2140455)

<Shatner>
Must... not... say.... it.... Must... be... strong.... Can't... stop... it...
</Shatner>

Imagine a Beowolf cluster of these!

Sorry... couldn't help it.... ;)

=tkk

Re:This will revolutionize strip clubs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2157651)

and if you take the first letters of each word, they spell "LESBI". go figure... (somehow i kept thinking laser......)

Re:This will revolutionize strip clubs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2142393)

Light Emitting Silicon Breast Implant Automation Nodule.

A Slashbot replies... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2157661)

Silicon != Silicone

Silicon is a semiconducting material used to make integrated circuits, and silicone is a gel used to make breast implants. They are different materials!

I think you will agree that, by correcting your error, I am far more intelligent than you. Slashdot needs more people (like myself) to pounce on this sort of factual inaccuracy which is ruining Slashdot.

Re:This will revolutionize strip clubs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2157756)

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to titty TV! sorry. it had to be said.

Re:This will revolutionize strip clubs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2157790)

Light emitting silicon breast implants.

Breast implants were made of silicone , not silicon. One is soft and gelled like flesh, the other is hard and crystalline like quartz.

I swear, if I hear another hootchie mama talking about silicon breast implants, I'm gonna pimp-slap her!

So all this time... (2, Offtopic)

Kara B. (315771) | more than 13 years ago | (#2157698)

Breast implants were made of silicone , not silicon.

I've been feeling up my computer for no good reason?
That's depressing.
--Shoeboy

Re:So all this time... (1)

Saurentine (9540) | more than 13 years ago | (#2139919)

Slashdot big surprise of the day: Offtopic titty humor scores 8 "Funny" moderation points in two separate posts while the factual corrections score none of any sort! What a tremendously unexpected outcome! Facts mean nothing while breast humor scores big! Who would have ever guessed such a thing on Slashdot?

following the mission statement (1)

Shoeboy (16224) | more than 13 years ago | (#2140421)

Facts mean nothing while breast humor scores big! Who would have ever guessed such a thing on Slashdot?

See the logo at the top of the screen? The one that says "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters?"

I don't know about where you come from, but here on earth full, ripe breasts with prominent nipples sticking out like chocolate gum drops are stuff that matters. Few things more so.

Your friend,
--Shoeboy

Re:following the mission statement (1)

Saurentine (9540) | more than 13 years ago | (#2123466)

See the logo at the top of the screen? The one that says "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters?"

It's called sarcasm . Inject a bit of it into your brain and read my post again.

Or would you rather I smack you with a clue stick that looks curiously like a Louisville Slugger?

Sarcasm with a point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2142767)

It's called sarcasm . Inject a bit of it into your brain and read my post again.

I understand that you were using sarcasm, but you were using it to make a serious point. You were making a (valid) criticism that slashdot is, and has been for years, positively swarming with developmentally delayed emotional cripples with extremely juvenile senses of humor. This is despite that fact that the site and its readers pride themselves on their highbrow technical discussions.

I was defending the clownish and immature behavior, you were lampooning it.

HTH,
--Shoeboy

Re:So all this time... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2157531)

Before you ask, I already have a boyfriend and he's more of a man than you'll ever be.

No you don't.

I took a shit in the middle of this post.

Re:So all this time... (0, Offtopic)

Shoeboy (16224) | more than 13 years ago | (#2157542)

Hey,
Knock that shit off.
--Shoeboy

Is the US the most free country on Earth? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2131591)

Is the United States the most free country on the face of the Earth?

I read the earlier postings on that topic and that's what I want to say based on them and what I have been thinking about it.

By the way, I'm from the former Soviet Union and a visitor here, but I have been familiar with America and Americans for many years.

A few facts:

Americans themselves (overwhelming majority) believe that US is the freest country in the world, jealously guarding this notion (however vague it is for themselves) and generally confuse their feeling well and FREE in that country (and feeling well and feeling free are too very similar feelings, no?) with actual quantity and quality of freedom here.

Most of those Americans never travelled outside the country and every foreigner knows how curtailed, slanted and incoherent is information about the rest of the world from mass media in America (and mass media is the main source of information for the man in the street here). In other words, Americans, en masse, know very little about the world, except the worst things hapenning in the less fortunate countries, that trickle through the same mass media.

They also do not give a damn about what the world thinks about America and Americans.

Keeping with the logic, Americans are simply not qualified to judge their freedom in comparison with other world (which, again, is very diversified and has room for more freedom and less freedom(s) than in America).

And of course, US is not such free country because of numerous laws, rules and regulations.

From this point of view the freest countries are those with little government if at all, torn by civil wars, living in the stone age, uninhabited islands etc.

As for the fact that so many people strive to come and stay in the US is not an indicator of a freer society, but of a society where a "salary man", a man in the street has much more chance of dignified living through having a job, and even being kept afloat having none.

So, in a nutshell, America is a rich country with many opportunities for modest and hard working living, and even better opportunity for somebody that does not want to work at all.

That dynamism we see in America, lots of flashy ads, seeming freedom to buy anything you want (as long as you have money, but even if you don't, that's alright, just use your umpteenth credit card until you are ready to file bancruptcy); anybody having a car to hop in and go SOMEWHERE, doesn't really matter where, cool music and relaxed, hip, FREE speak on stupid talk shows, radio DJ music programs etc. etc.; that all creates a sense of freedom that does not necessarily have anything to do with freedom as such.

Where is real freedom?

Well, there is no absolute freedom and there will probably never be. But some time in the future, hopefully, people living a quality life, in quality environment, in more harmonic ties with the society will have more and more of it, more than the surrogate currently available in the US.

Vladimir

It's about damned time. . . (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 13 years ago | (#2132789)

I've been wondering when this 'new' technology would finally be released.

According to a number of sources I won't disclose, (thank you very much), you-know-who has been using crstl mtrix technology for years in computers and, more importantly, for power storage, (enough to drive not only computers but vehicles and other gear.)

Knowing the way this crap goes, we'll probably have to wait about 10 years for crstl mtrix technology to be 'developed' into something both useful and available to the public. And who knows to what level you-know-who will have advanced at that point.

Ahh! The bullshit parade. "Oooh! Look at the wonderful science news! None of this has anything to do with mass manipulation & slave-nation control! The power structures of the world really DO have the best interests of the public at heart! Ah, plug me into the Discovery channel, my sweet, sweet opiate would never lie to me, would they?"

Mind you, I still think Slashdot is really cool. Despite the idiot flamers and general naivete, this site allows for actual communication to take place. It allows for the possibility of information dissemination and comparison. And assholes like me to whisper periodically. . .

-Fantastic Lad; Loud AND Annoying!

Quit Slashdot Today! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2133972)

As we all know, slashdot sucks. And I mean it really, really sucks ass. And not just a tight, narrow fourteen-year-old's ass, but an ass as big as Hemos' [goatse.cx] .

You can do something about it. Just read this [washington.edu] page to see the alternatives.

smaller and smaller (1)

ender1598 (266355) | more than 13 years ago | (#2133973)

So now they'll be making screens so small we need a microscope to see them. How will you ever play an adequate game of Quake on that??

This could be really incredible (3, Interesting)

OxideBoy (322403) | more than 13 years ago | (#2157593)

The screeens wouldn't necessarily be smaller, but just think of the mind-blowing monitors that could be made with this. Have some of the incandescent traffic lights in your town been replaced by LEDs? Notice how bright they are? Now imagine if you could make a monitor that bright with nanocrystals with supertunable pixels the size of, well, nanocrystals. The resolution and color gradients are mindboggling. Think 32-bit color is neat? Wait 'til you see 1024-bit color on a monitor that uses half the power of your current one. (I'm just making those numbers up, but it's very likely the actual properties could be that revolutionary.)

Please note, though, that this has nothing to do with making faster Si-based MOSFETs (i.e. smaller transistors). If you're interested in that, look here [darpa.mil] , here (great story) [eetimes.com] , or here [iastate.edu] to see just a handful of the ideas people have. With all of these things in development, don't expect anything to overtake Si as the dominant technology for a long, long time (~10 years, maybe even). ;-)

Re:smaller and smaller (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 13 years ago | (#2157625)

So now they'll be making screens so small we need a microscope to see them. How will you ever play an adequate game of Quake on that??

Oh that's easy to answer! Consider the mytical devices that project images directly to your retina? This comes closer if not soon hitting the mark. Then you can have completely visually immersive VR. If you thought Quake3 was good on your screen, how about actually being there?

less heat (1)

gavlil (255585) | more than 13 years ago | (#2133981)

just imagine the overclocking capabilites :-)
seriously though data speed is one thing that is becoming less important but power efficency is something that we really should start to worry about. Afetr all: a 6 litre V8 can be burnt off by a snail when theres not a petrol station in site.

Better notebook screens (2)

wiredog (43288) | more than 13 years ago | (#2133989)

It does bring up the possibility of a screen that is the size of a paperback book with, say, 600 dots per inch. A readable e-book. Or a notebook computer with a 15 inch screen and 4096 X 4096 resolution that doesn't need a backlight. The questions that need to be answered: How much light do these emit? How many can you pack in a square cm? How much power do they draw?

Re:Better notebook screens (5, Funny)

atrowe (209484) | more than 13 years ago | (#2157634)

This technology isn't currently suited for display applications. The cost of production is still too high so that it would be highly cost prohibitive to produce a 15 inch laptop display.

My company (which shall remain unnamed) has been working on this technology for processing and routing applications. It isn't intended to replace LCD displays, but to replace traditional silicon processors.

Light processors have been in the planning and development stages for years now, and once the technology is perfected, will offer lower power consumption and less heat production as opposed to the standard silicon-on-insulator microprocessors that are in use today. The light emitting properties of these chips could also be used in optical routers and fiber switching/repeating applications, however we have yet to overcome the problem of interfacing the dylithium crystal matrix with the carbon nanotube fibres used in high speed optical cable. Hopefully the new flux capacitors in development at IBM's "Deep Space Nine" research facility in Oregon will solve this problem nicely, but it looks like these advancements are still several years off.

Re:Better notebook screens (1)

eric2hill (33085) | more than 13 years ago | (#2132032)

On a more serious note, several years ago I heard of a promising technology where a silicon chip was put through a normal manufacturing process, then dipped in one additional solution that "polished" the traces into light-carrying troughs. Supposedly the process was able to make optical chips (at lower speeds...) from standard silicon processes.

Anyone heard of this?

Argh! Too many SF terms per paragraph! (1)

OctavianMH (61823) | more than 13 years ago | (#2137381)

I never thought I would see the words "dylithium crystal matrix", "Deep Space Nine" and "Flux Capacitors" together in the same post...welcome to the 21st Century everyone, for real, this time! cheers

Re:Argh! Too many SF terms per paragraph! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2133557)

this looks like I am watching a bad rerun of "Back to the Future"!

Re:Better notebook screens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2163318)

But won't the flux capacitors overcharge unless you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow?

Re:Better notebook screens (1)

Foss (248146) | more than 13 years ago | (#2157652)

the different colours depend on them changing size, so I'm not sure how feasible this would be.. There's bound to be quite a size difference between a red screen and a blue screen, and let's face it if you're using windows e-book edition, a blue screen is going to be pretty common. ;)

Great, Except..... (4, Insightful)

rdslater596 (472943) | more than 13 years ago | (#2135005)

Not to be a total wanker on the parade but this is money down the drain. Why?
1. Becuase this technology has (currently) no way of being controlled to a point of being put in circuit. To put these crystals in a chip they have to be formed basically on the chip via some lithography method. So until technology devlops a way to put these cyrstals in a specific place this is all a bunch of cool but useless. 2.
2. "Researchers heat a mix of an organic solvent called hexane and a hydrocarbon ligand known as octanol to 450 degrees Celsius inside a titanium chamber." Yeah, this is gonna go over great in the fab community. Now we have to redesign our lithgoraphy to take place indide a titanium chamber at 450 C.
3. Price to performace. A lot of people make claims about new technology but when it comes down to it the reason we have our current tech is becuase its cheap(Comparitively) to put 20 million tranistors on a chip. This new techonolgy is several decades behind and probably will cost A LOT more. There are a lot of techonolgies better than Si transitors but the reason we use it is beacuse in the end comapnies sell a product, not get Tenure at a university. Technology breakthroughs from universities are exteremly importatnt but when they go off claiming to revolutionize commercial industry they are only fluffing there own feathers. Wait until a real company starts inversting in it and not some sucker venture capitalist.

Re:Great, Except..... (5, Insightful)

shattered42 (470964) | more than 13 years ago | (#2110217)

You make a great few points... except they're all wrong. Allow me to prevent the flamebait mod that's coming down the pike...

1) Five years ago we had no method of slapping transistors on a chip on the .13 micron scale. Does that mean today we can't do it and it's not commercially viable??? Somehow I think not...

2) The "fab" community (at least the ones who aren't into a certain British rawk group) will do whatever they damn well have to in order to produce what the market wants. They'll piss upwind in January while licking a metal signpost if it'll make them millions (billions?) in profit.

3)When is new technology every not "decades behind" current technology??? current technology is current cuz it was started a decade ago. Cost comes down over time (which is why my Apple IIGS won't sell for the thousand that was paid for it), as cheaper means of production are discovered.

Next time consider that perhaps the tech we have today isn't the pinnacle of existance and we might (believe it or not) be able to improve on it. It's going to take cash flow, a few wrong turns, and lots of people pissing on the parade, but it will happen.

Re:Great, Except..... (1)

the_ph0x` (170740) | more than 13 years ago | (#2133872)

I totally agree, I would like to add a few more things to think about to this list.

First, if we were to just throw our hands up in the air and say 'Damn, this costs too much!' every time we try something new we might as well still be living in caves or under rocks. Life is nothing but trial and error until we get it right, and that my friends costs money, time and creative juices. And if we cant make sacrifices then we will never advance.

Second, the statement "When is new technology every not "decades behind" current technology??? current technology is current cuz it was started a decade ago." is very true. Do you think our technology springs from the great mystical fountain of all-knowing located in the back of Grace-Land? No, it's slowly developed over time. Hence back to the hard work and whatnot. Technology is not instant gratification.

.ph0x

Re:Great, Except..... (1)

rdslater596 (472943) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142513)

Well maybe I came off too harsh in my first post. I get irritated when people claim to have breakthrough technology and all they have is breakthrough research ;). I agree that this research needs to be pursued, but my point was not to hold your breath that anything is going to come out of it and point out some reasons why. Please allow a bit of clarification: First, this technology is a LONG way off and still in its infancy. Current projects have a big advantage over this in that they already have $$ and time behind them. SO this will have to play catchup. It may very well do it and if it makes my life better than I be happy. Second, in the development some unforseen problem could junk the whole project. Now it is a good idea to develop this and try and overcome the problems that come up. Alternate solutions are always good. Never quit the project becuase of what might happen. But something always happens And yes I realize that future technology is always decades behind. What I meant to clarify is that the existing infrastructure for what is used currently is a huge inertial barrier to change. Given that Si may bottom out on us in a few years that may overcome some barriers. If this technology only provides an incremental upgrade it probably will be left on a shelf somewhere unless there is nothing else. Whether or not thats good, we may never know. For a big switch in tech you need a big improvment to over come price and difficulty (usually). Understand that I am all for research and new ideas but I guess I am tempered by all the hurdles I know new stuff has to pass to become 'mainstream.' Sometimes it kills really cool ideas, but it happens.

Re:Great, Except..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2147058)

Damn! And here I was pissing downwind in July licking a plastic scrotum. Oh well...serves me right I guess...

Re:Great, Except..... (1)

Jason Cain (17031) | more than 13 years ago | (#2143789)

According to the article, these nanocrystals are not made using a lithography process. Lithography is used to define a pattern in a thin film. This process involves heating a mixture of materials together to form the nanocrystals, which are then harvested from the mixture, so lithography doesn't come into play at all.

The problem is then to find some way to attach these nanocrystals to a chip to make them do something interesting. There is a lot of work being done on self-assembly of nanocrystals, and this is one application where that knowledge could really pay off.

-Jason

Status quo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2147045)

1) Current litho technology exposes a pattern onto a photo resist layer, which is developed to expose the underlying layer which is then etched away. I see no reason why these same techniques wouldn't work with nano crystals. Its a matter of resist and etch chemistry.

2) High temperatures and special containment vessels are the norm in fabs. You don't need litho under these conditions, you only need the deposition step under these conditions. Its very similar to current Plasma Vapor Deposition and CVD processes, high temperatures, nasty chemical/plasma mixtures all inside very specialized reaction chambers. Nothing new there.

3) The cost issue is always an issue and cost decreases as technology matures.

Like, wow man (2, Funny)

pogofish (514289) | more than 13 years ago | (#2135103)

Nanoscale crystals for really small new age healers.

Will silicon era ever end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2135243)

If you would of asked me this question 5 years ago my answer would of been yes. I would of gone on to say that eventually due to the laws of physics scientists can only push silicon so far and will eventually have to find new types of chips, biochips for example.

But every week now there seems to be another article of scientists breaking and extending technology's "limits". Silicon chips included. I'm now convinced there is no real end for silicon chips or any techonology for that matter, that whatever the current "limit" may be, its only the limit of our imganiations and ingenuity.

Re:Will silicon era ever end? (1)

akaina (472254) | more than 13 years ago | (#2118090)

People spin their findings every day. Believe me, Silicon CAN only go so far. I know it sounds repetative, but it's true. Here's some numbers for you. Even Intel has admitted that the limits of conventional transistors are limited to 2.8 microns before things get so small that atoms start interfearing with each other and stuff begins to break down. Granted we're still a few years off of that. Even so, fabrication line costs go up exponentially as they approach this limit and by the year 2015, fab lines are expected to cost upwards of 100 BILLION dollars. That's not an exaderation either. MOLECULAR COMPUTERS are the way to go. Keep your eyes open. Don't be confused with all the other garbage about photonic laser surfaces or chromosome storage or any of that other (to use the words of Richard Feynmen) "Low level boloney". True control happens when you have individual current/voltage control over a single molecule, which has recently been done. It's called the Nanocell. Contact me for more information about related links. Ignore the hype, -Akaina

Re:Will silicon era ever end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2140378)

Hehe, tell 'em like it is, Ryan. Good luck in school this semester. m [purdue.edu]

Synthesis is not the hardest step (5, Informative)

pausz (218832) | more than 13 years ago | (#2135624)

This process doesn't seem new to me, because it looks surprisingly like the one a French group has invented a few years back. (Do a search for Fievet, and Polyol process). I think Fievet even has some patents on the synthesis procedure.

There are actually many physical methods to make nanocrystals of inorganic materials: ball milling, synthesis in a cavitation field, spray pyrolysis. There are also many other (wet) chemical techniques, of which this is one: water/oil microemulsions, polymer solutions.

The problem with the physical methods is the particle agglomeration, as was indicated in the article. However, the chemical synthesis methods also have problems, since you're stuck with a templating agent that surrounds your nanocrystals. This may be hindering any practical use of the nanocrystals... But you can't burn off the templating agent, because then the particles will agglomerate again.

Corresponding problem (1)

evilMoogle (304970) | more than 13 years ago | (#2138102)

Wouldn't using optic crystals lead to the corresponding problem of needing big-ass photoreceptor/converters? Seems like it would just be a big waste for a processor.

Back to the Future (1)

Phronesis (175966) | more than 13 years ago | (#2138792)

For years, we kept hearing about gallium arsenide being the semiconductor of the future but seeing precious few devices that use it extensively (it's great for microwave transistors and you all have it in your cell phones, but who'se seen a GaAs microprocessor?). This led to the standing joke in the condensed-matter physics community that "Gallium arsenide is the material of the future and always will be."

My guess is that the same is true of nanocrystals.

Re:Back to the Future (3, Interesting)

caesar-auf-nihil (513828) | more than 13 years ago | (#2117811)

Actually, Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) semiconductors AND CPUs have been made - the older Cray Supercomputers at the NSA are nothing but GaAs computer architechure. The biggest problem with these devices was the heat output. To cool these systems, Cray had to put a recirculating ethylene glycol system into the computer, which ran the ethylene glycol OVER the computer chips and circuit boards to cool them. Since ethylene glycol is an electrical insulator there was no worry about short circuit with this system, provided it was kept absolutely dry. Filters were put into the recirculating unit to ensure dryness. It was such a neat visual effect, that Cray put in windows on the side of the casing so you could see the liquid cascade over the chips and boards and fall over the edge like a waterfall.

Re:Back to the Future (1)

WaxParadigm (311909) | more than 13 years ago | (#2145284)

I believe Vitesse Semiconductor company makes GaAs chips, almost exclusively...and pretty cool chips at that. OC-192 fabric and hopfully the full chipset to go along with it.

They do pretty well. I've been to their fab in Colorado Springs...pretty neat. But i really wouldn't want to work there...too unsettling to be working in a building that is storing thousands of gallons of acid.

- and all the workers say, "I'm melting"

There is one important compenent missing (5, Interesting)

anshil (302405) | more than 13 years ago | (#2139033)

When talking about light memories and light computers etc. we must face the fact that one basic light component is missing:

The Light Transistor

We can store light (the light flipflop), we can transport light effictivly, overlay it and all that, but we've no light controlled light amplifier.

Currently we've to take the way around through electricity. Receive the light, transform it to an electrical signal, amplify the signal electrically and retransform the signal to light. This way we loose all the benefits light would have.

Until we find a way to amplify light, directly controlled by light there will be no light computers, and light memories will stay in labratory only.

If one day someone would discover in example some crystal that if shined upon from the side, will change it's up/down transperncy then nothing will stop the light computer, without that all other light components are for funny experiments only.

Re:There is one important compenent missing (3, Informative)

pausz (218832) | more than 13 years ago | (#2116385)

Many people have investigated ways to incorporate or directly synthesise nanocrystals inside zeolites. Zeolites are large, open aluminosilicate structures that may act as a good framework for this. They contain cages that can control the size of the nanocrystals. Also, the cages are at fixed distance, and connected by pores (tunnels). The good thing is that you can make a wide variety of zeolites that have different geometries.

There was a very big interest in putting Cadmium sulfide inside zeolites. But it's not all that simple to get the crystals in place, and plugging the holes with sulfur is a big problem. Also, IF this works, no one knows how to incorporate these devices into something useful.

Re:There is one important compenent missing (1)

Fluid Truth (100316) | more than 13 years ago | (#2121413)

Isn't that exactly what a laser is? After all, laser stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

Granted, that doesn't necessarily help us put it on a chip, but that doesn't mean we won't find a way. (Also, I don't know how well we can control the output via the input. That may also limit its abilities.)

Uh... (2)

cr0sh (43134) | more than 13 years ago | (#2133020)

but we've no light controlled light amplifier

Of course we do! It is called a L.A.S.E.R.

L)ight A)mplification (by) S)timulated E)mission (of) R)adiation

We have LASERs that are "pumped" (ie, stimulated) via other LASERs. Indeed, a simple ruby rod laser uses a light source (the flash tube) to pump the ruby rod into lasing.

Granted, none of these devices are the size for an optical computer - but they aren't vaporware, either...

Heat, Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2139270)

"generate less heat and radiate less power..."

Power goes to heat, actually. These two are equivalent. Well, a little bit of power goes to EM radiation, but in a RAM chip that's miniscule.

Electron spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2140352)

this is where electron spin comes into play?

Links to more info on nanocrystalline tech (2, Informative)

Goldenhawk (242867) | more than 13 years ago | (#2140432)

This link [smalltimes.com] from July 24th on the same site is actually a good description of some further applications of nanoscale crystals, ranging from lasing to solar cells to bone implants.

If I have to read one more post... (1, Offtopic)

Compulawyer (318018) | more than 13 years ago | (#2140486)

saying "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these..." I think I will scream.

On the other hand, if properly configured....

Little Billy Crystals (2, Funny)

SilLumTao (134743) | more than 13 years ago | (#2140676)

I don't see how millions of little Billy Crystals can help make my computer any faster... funnier maybe, but not faster.

gray goo (0)

DrkShadow (72055) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142274)

Kinda off topic, but one must think...

Gray goo... nano machines tearing apart things and rebuilding stuff.. old, junked computers..

Could there be some way to feed gray goo sort of stuff old computers, and it sit there and break it down and sort out the individual elements? Could be a good source of silicon, lead, iron, plastics, and many other things that computers are made from (granted I don't think plastic is an element, but still... customizeable gray goo), while recycling at the same time.

-Andrew

(well, at least nobody can patent this process now..)

Re:gray goo (2)

Compulawyer (318018) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142825)

Actually, someone CAN get a patent for this...

In order to get a patent, you have to enable someone of ordinary skill in the area to actually BUILD your invention. You haven't provided enough detail for how your "gray goo" works to enable someone skilled in the Gray Goo art to practice your "invention." If someone else comes up with the specifics, they will be able to patent the process.

Re:gray goo (1)

Nihilanth (470467) | more than 13 years ago | (#2143575)

If you had this "gray goo" and a way to give it instructions, it wouldn't even need a computer to dissasemble. It would ostensibly be able to use everything from sand to air molocules. All it would need would be matter of "some kind". Grass, dirt, hair, excrement, etc. Since we're talking about a "goo" of nanoscopic robots that would be able to rearrange matter at the atomic level, the "input" wouldn't matter all that much. Of course, it might be useful to use a smaller amount of "goo" to configure itself as new circuit pathways etc. in the existing computer.

Of course, i'm just waiting for this "grey goo" to get a glitch, converting the entire planet to more "grey goo".

Re:gray goo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2133475)

What an idiot.

Re:gray goo (0)

DrkShadow (72055) | more than 13 years ago | (#2157776)

that's kinda my point.. only use old computers to diassemble them to their bases so you wouldn't have to re.. "make" all the kinda of materials you'd need to reconstruct newer computers. the gray goo, though.. the thing where you produce a bunch of self-reproducing nano robots, that just make more and more, etc... It's been mentioned on slashdot a few times. I was just thinking rather than that sorta goo, why not give it a bit of control? maybe only allow it to disassemble certain things, then throw them in a glass jar which it'll leave alone.

-DrkShadow

somewhat old hat (2, Interesting)

peter_gzowski (465076) | more than 13 years ago | (#2145239)

I don't think this work is all that new. People have been producing nanocrystals for 10 years or so (check out work by Alivisatos, Bawendi, others). The trick is to get the size distribution narrow, and then to get them into something that's more processible, like a semiconducting polymer, then you can follow simpler fabrication techniques to place them on circuit (and not have perform lithography in a titanium chamber at 450 degrees). It's true that these sorts of silicon nanocrystals would be better suited to biomedical applications, as the goodnanocrystals out there are made of toxic chemicals like CdS and CdSe, hence the line, "Putting cadmium into people doesn't sound so great,". But the article doesn't say anything about size distribution, or whether they've made electroluminescent structures, or just gotten photoluminescence. I just think it should be taken with a grain of salt.

One Please (1)

ioman1 (474363) | more than 13 years ago | (#2145285)

This is awsome. I will take one Quantum computer please... hehe

From a chem. process standpoint (1)

Topgun1 (261377) | more than 13 years ago | (#2147198)

Let me preface this first by saying I haven't looked at the process itself (simply telling you heat x and y up to 450 degrees Celsius say jack about the PROCESS or CONTROL systems they plan to use), but here's the problems I see with it.

Alright. From a chemical engineering standpoint, this is going to be really tough. When you design a chemical plant, you can figure out process streams or simulate the process using programs such as Hysys. Great. But you can be rest assured that those conditions will last all of two minutes out of the year. If you are lucky.

Now, in this case, they are using a batch process (as opposed to a steady state (continuous) or semi-batch process). This helps in that the environment variables (i.e. Q, pressure, temp, cheese to mayonaise ratios, etc.) can be fixed easier. However, I would like to see how they are planning on keeping the variance between batches to a minimum, and do it effectively and efficiently (more stress put on effectively and efficiently).

This, in turn, is dependent on exactly how close they need to get to the previous batch to be effective. For example, if they have to be .1 standard deviations in order to get a good product, then, well, congrats on the idea, but until you can find a way to produce it, it does no one any good. This, by the way, is why you have lot numbers on paint, carpet, etc.; there is always some variance.

Alright. I'll get off my soapbox now.

Vaporware to Reality... (1)

BigNumber (457893) | more than 13 years ago | (#2155514)

Someone should do a research project to see the average amount of time that passes between when a new technology is mentioned on /. and when a product actually comes out. I expect that /. is pretty far ahead of the curve. I'm guessing somewhere in the 5 year range.

Forget display screens (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2157359)

Two words: optical processing Having the ability to control the wavelength of light that passes through leads to a virtual unlimited array of data representation. No limiting electrical states, you could process data based on light wavelength and with a virtually unlimited value of wavelengths to choose from, the processing power of a chip based on those crystals would be insane.

Longer LCD lifespans? (2, Interesting)

Alcimedes (398213) | more than 13 years ago | (#2157545)

Korgel and Johnston are also exploring ways that nanocrystals can be used to create a new generation of computer and television screens with the full rainbow of natural colors and possibly come up with new biomedical techniques. That would rule. My understanding is that blue dyes in LCD's are a big problem, way shorter life span than the reds and greens. This sounds like it could be used to solve this problem, and bring the possibility of a nice 60" LCD into my future. :)

Re:Longer LCD lifespans? (2)

gnovos (447128) | more than 13 years ago | (#2124926)

I was under the impression that the blue dye in LCD's only had a shorter lifespan on Windows machines, due to thier, ahem, constant use... *cough* BSOD *cough* :)

Re:Longer LCD lifespans? (3, Interesting)

Nihilanth (470467) | more than 13 years ago | (#2143884)

Why stop there? Imagine a bucket of "display paint" that you could apply to an entire room (walls and ceiling), and then connect to some kind of output device that would let you configure the output parameters.

Re:Longer LCD lifespans? (1)

The Larch (115962) | more than 13 years ago | (#2157527)

Why stop at "display paint"? Imagine a solution that you could inject directly into your eyeballs to provide three-dimensional displays or overlays at arbitrary resolutions.

Better yet, could these nanocrystals be fashioned into a powder that you could snort up your nose? This could even let you experience colors outside the normal human visual spectrum!

This Sounds All Fine and Dandy.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2157604)

But will it help me with my impotency?

Macro-scale properties of new nanotech substances? (2)

Myco (473173) | more than 13 years ago | (#2157632)

Often when I read about an amazing new substance that's been developed on nanotech scale, I wonder what these things will look like on a macro-scale. If they use these new silicon nanocrystals to make an awesome new display, will it have some other cool properties? For example, could they be made into a thin, flexible display? Or maybe those stupid cellophane-roll displays they had in Red Planet (ugh)?

http://www.nanophase.com/ (1)

Kalabajoui (232671) | more than 13 years ago | (#2121439)

The above link leads to a company that has been working with creating nanoscale materials in industrial quantities. I read an artical about their company years ago that went on to describe how their process would revolutionize engineering grade materials. Ordinary metals and materials made with nanoscale granularity had substantialy different physical properties than their microscale counterparts. For instance, copper forged with nanoscale granularity was as strong as steel, and some ceramics were flexible enough to be molded.

Re:Macro-scale properties of new nanotech substanc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2157278)

Hi, Luke.

Here is another interesting article (1)

smnoel (236322) | more than 13 years ago | (#2158404)

Dow Corning [yahoo.com]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?