Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

First Transistors Made Entirely of 2-D Materials

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 months ago | from the powered-by-scotch-tape dept.

Hardware 137

ckwu (2886397) writes "Two independent research groups report the first transistors built entirely of two-dimensional electronic materials, making the devices some of the thinnest yet. The transistors, just a few atoms thick and hence transparent, are smaller than their silicon-based counterparts, which would allow for a super-high density of pixels in flexible, next-generation displays. The research teams, one at Argonne National Laboratory and the other at the University of California, Berkeley, used materials such as tungsten diselenide, graphene, and boron nitride to make all three components of a transistor: a semiconductor, a set of electrodes, and an insulating layer. Electrons travel in the devices 70 to 100 times faster than in amorphous silicon. Such a high electron mobility means the transistors switch faster, which dictates a display's refresh rate and is necessary for high-quality video, especially 3-D video."

cancel ×

137 comments

getting real sick of this (5, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 3 months ago | (#46941025)

It has a length, width, and depth. Calling it 2D is just "read me" headline-baiting which is getting more and more annoying on Slashdot lately. Here, let me correct it:
First Transistors Made of Extremely Thin Materials

Re:getting real sick of this (1, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#46941059)

Cross-posted w/ you, but yeah, agreed - headline fail, big-time. This doesn't even count the fact that the electrons passing through said transistor still occupy three dimensions as well.

Re:getting real sick of this (2, Interesting)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 3 months ago | (#46942025)

Electrons are actually considered points by physicists. If they do have a size it is not currently known.

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 3 months ago | (#46942641)

That does not mean they do not occupy three-dimensional space.

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#46943305)

2 dimension objects can occupy 3d space and still be 2 dimensional.

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 3 months ago | (#46943345)

An intersection of a 3 dimensional plane of existence and an additional 1D one would result in a point. If string theorists are correct, the 1D plane is the vibration level of the particle somewhat similar to how time affects 3D objects despite being a separate dimension. So theoretically, it could be expressed as a 1D object in a 3D area if it's based in a 1D plane.

Or something like that. I suck at particle physics.

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

RavenousRhesus (2683045) | about 3 months ago | (#46942967)

No, electrons are actually considered subatomic particles by physicists.

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 3 months ago | (#46943311)

That is 100% true. They are considered a paradox where they're large enough to exist but infinitely small besides that. So their width would be expressed simply as >0. You know what bugs me is that apparently some scientists have decided, without what I consider to be a logical basis, that the singularity at the center of a black hole is not also infinitely small. It is slightly larger than the width of a neutron or quark or something like that. I don't think that's how it works.

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

jasonmantey (832164) | about 3 months ago | (#46942319)

Mentioned above - but electrons are not localized in a semiconductor. Many atoms share the electron - so if few enough atoms (in z direction) share the electron, the electron is 'confined' to 2 dimensions.

Re:getting real sick of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941135)

I see the pedants are alive and well on Slashdot.

Re: getting real sick of this (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941797)

The pedants are not actually "on" slashdot. Nobody is "on" slashdot. In fact it is hard to define what "on" even means in this context. What a silly person you are, to use words that suggest otherwise.

Re: getting real sick of this (2)

OakDragon (885217) | about 3 months ago | (#46942191)

The pedants are not actually "on" slashdot...

The pedants ARE Slashdot! :)

Re: getting real sick of this (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 3 months ago | (#46942655)

Do you complain to magazine/newspaper editors that their headline puns aren't exactly the most appropriate ones?

Re: getting real sick of this (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 3 months ago | (#46943267)

Do you complain to magazine/newspaper editors that their headline puns aren't exactly the most appropriate ones?

I do. I also send a rant off to Cisco every time I see a new Cisco commercial on TV.

Re: getting real sick of this (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 3 months ago | (#46942723)

I get high reading funny comments of people bitching at each other.

Believe me, I'm on Slashdot right now.

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 3 months ago | (#46941815)

Flatland 2: Sphereland starring Martin Sheen and Kristen Bell.

snrk.
look it up yourself if you think I'm lying.

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 3 months ago | (#46942219)

Flatland 2: Sphereland starring Martin Sheen and Kristen Bell.

snrk. look it up yourself if you think I'm lying.

Saving my money for "Flatland 3 : Tesseractland".

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

suutar (1860506) | about 3 months ago | (#46943151)

An entirely different meaning for "the goggles - they do nothing"

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

scubamage (727538) | about 3 months ago | (#46941167)

Exactly what I was going to say. Just because it's 1 atom thick doesn't mean it's 2 dimensional.

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

jasonmantey (832164) | about 3 months ago | (#46942341)

It's 2 dimensional to the electrons in the transistor - not 2 dimensional in material physical dimensions. Electrons in a semiconductor occupy a large area shared between many atoms (non localized).

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

scubamage (727538) | about 3 months ago | (#46942835)

I'm really interested in this - could you dummy down the second statement? I get that electrons are flowing through a semiconducter towards the transistor, but I'm not sure I follow the "occupy a large area shared between many atoms (non localized)"? Are you referring to electrons flowing from atom to atom via their bonds? Not trying to be pedantic, I just really want to understand what you're saying (and I'm nowhere near an EE, lol).

Re: getting real sick of this (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941191)

Not the Cartesian thickness, the 2D refers to the absence of a degree of freedom: If the electrons are constrained to have no motion possible along the radial axis, that axis is considered removed from their freedom. Hence, 2D transistors

Re: getting real sick of this (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#46941723)

Thing is, the electrons are still able to move in 3-dimensional space, since they orbit the nucleus, and that orbital plane can be in any direction.

Re: getting real sick of this (3, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 3 months ago | (#46941841)

since they orbit the nucleus

No, they don't do that.

Electrons exist as standing waves when coupled within an atom.

Re: getting real sick of this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46942941)

Physics troll

Re: getting real sick of this (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#46943309)

An orbiting wave.

Re: getting real sick of this (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941861)

Technically, electrons do not 'orbit' the nucleus in any conventional sense of the word. We say they are in 'orbitals' (a poor choice of a term from a less enlightened time), but in reality they are better said to be in fuzzy 'clouds' where their locations are strictly probabilistic as determined by quantum mechanics.

Not informative at all... (1)

RavenousRhesus (2683045) | about 3 months ago | (#46942937)

2D does not refer to an "absence of a degree of freedom". Things denoted in "*number*D" or "*number*-D"format are referring to a number of spacetime dimensions. No one in any field of math, science, or engineering ever relates degrees of motion to "D"s. Sometimes it is abbreviated DOF, but never just *number*(-)D as that is reserved for dimensions.

Re: getting real sick of this (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#46943123)

I originally thought this meant a type of transistor that did not use layers. Hoever it turns out this isn't true either, there are several layers to these transistors. Very thin layers of course, but there is a definite third axis that is vital to the operation.

Re:getting real sick of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941203)

I'm getting really sick of idiots on intellectual sites like slashdot that don't understand basic chemistry terminology.

It's a materials science term (1)

MTorrice (2611475) | about 3 months ago | (#46941275)

Materials scientists use "two-dimensional" to describe graphene and similar materials. These are materials that consist of essentially a single molecular/atomic layer.

Re:It's a materials science term (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 months ago | (#46941327)

Yeah and I would entertain that use of the term if this were only one atom thick, but it's not.

A definition from folks who study these materials (5, Informative)

MTorrice (2611475) | about 3 months ago | (#46941385)

"a material in which the atomic organization and bond strength along two-dimensions are similar and much stronger than along a third dimension" REF: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/1... [acs.org] .

Re:It's a materials science term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46942859)

Why would you think your opinion matters to anyone in a field of which you are so deeply ignorant?

Re:It's a materials science term (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 3 months ago | (#46941341)

As a computer programmer, this sounds fine to me.

The properties of a single object (in this case, the position of any single atom) can be described with only two variables. Thus it's two-dimensional.

Under this definition, I'm even okay with having several distinct layers, as long as they're all one atom thick. Effectively the material type then becomes the third dimension, but I'm willing to overlook that.

Re:It's a materials science term (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#46943145)

Except that this uses 4 layers of these thin atomic structures (including substrate), and one of these thin layers is 3 atoms thick already. So 5 atoms thick plus a really chunky substrate underneath it.

The transistors aren't 2-D, the materials that mak (1)

MTorrice (2611475) | about 3 months ago | (#46943209)

The use of the term reflects the usage by materials scientists. The titles of both papers describe the materials as 2-D. It is an established term in the field.

Re:getting real sick of this (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 3 months ago | (#46941455)

What percent of discussion on slashdot goes down in flames over semantic quibbles having nothing to do with the substance of the issue at hand?

Re: getting real sick of this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941727)

Maybe have a big sign at the top, "Pedants this way ->"

Re: getting real sick of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46942043)

With the link going to that gawdawful soyl...soiledpant.... whatever site.

Re: getting real sick of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46942769)

Enjoy your beta.

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 3 months ago | (#46941735)

KInd of a stupid thing to say. I suggest you investigate what a physicist means by two dimensional. Such as in "surface phenomena". Essential this means that the physics of 2D QFT and 2D statistical mechanics apply to what is happening on these semiconductors.

Re:getting real sick of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46942239)

In addition to physicists, any engineer who works in semiconductors. Actually, I believe an undergrad EE would have been exposed to the concept in junior year, at my school at least...

This is not obscure information, and I'm surprised the grandparent was confused.

Re:getting real sick of this (1)

Kevin McGough (3630053) | about 3 months ago | (#46942251)

Hear Hear!

Re:getting real sick of this (2)

jasonmantey (832164) | about 3 months ago | (#46942295)

In a semiconductor, electrons are not localized. They exist as a wave -- usually mathematically as a wave packet to compromise between a wave and a particle (it is both) -- this wave can be very easily several nanometers. Additionally, electrons diffuse around a semiconductor (they are not bound to one atom) - and this diffusion length is much much larger than a few nm. When a material is just a couple of nanometers, the electrons cannot (statistically) move vertically, and the material is considered 2D (for electron transport - not for physical dimensions of the materials). Headline is 100% correct.

Two-Dimensional My Ass... (1, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#46941027)

"The transistors, just a few atoms thick and hence transparent,"

Sorry, but "a few atoms thick" still gives it all three axes in Cartesian space, no matter how small any given axis may be. Hell, even "one atom thick" qualifies as three-dimensional.

Pedant Headline Fail, eh?

Re:Two-Dimensional My Ass... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 months ago | (#46941121)

Pedant Headline Fail, eh?

Just keepin' 'em honest - if they can do some kind of quantum tunneling of electrons, I'd be willing to forgive the deBroglie height of their waves and call it 2D, if there's to be any useful application of such a term within our view of the universe.

Re:Two-Dimensional My Ass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941279)

Flash memory already uses quantum tunneling.

Re:Two-Dimensional My Ass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941521)

Wow, and so do tunnel diodes! Ol' Bill there is only over half a century out of date!

Re:Two-Dimensional My Ass... (1)

Kenja (541830) | about 3 months ago | (#46941223)

They are made from an infinite number of 2D layers!

Re:Two-Dimensional My Ass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941345)

What fail? It seems to me as if the definition of 2D-material used in academia only requires that the material is only a couple of atoms thick.

Re:Two-Dimensional My Ass... (1)

Kenja (541830) | about 3 months ago | (#46941439)

The issue I have with that, is you can just claim any material of any thickness is therefore built up of X amount of 2D materials. It renders the term meaningless.

Re:Two-Dimensional My Ass... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941403)

It depends. There are regimes where the transport can be considered 2D (ie. the density of states function is characteristic of a 2D system).

It is not always simply the dimensionality of the physical device that is relevant.

Re:Two-Dimensional My Ass... (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 3 months ago | (#46941905)

"The transistors, just a few atoms thick and hence transparent,"

Sorry, but "a few atoms thick" still gives it all three axes in Cartesian space, no matter how small any given axis may be. Hell, even "one atom thick" qualifies as three-dimensional.

Pedant Headline Fail, eh?

Although the whole thing is a few atoms thick, each individual material is only one atom thick. It is a few atoms thick because it consists of 3 different materials, each layer of which is 1 atom thick. Click on the article and there's a pretty picture at the top for you. While I dislike the term 2-D (why can't they just call it one atom thick?) because a single atom obviously has thickness, as far as electrons are concerned there are only 2 dimensions that matter. The term relates to electron transport, not how thick the material is in space. While I agree that /. headlines are often horrible and misleading, in this case it's a term that's more widely used. At least try to understand, or click on the article ([diety] forbid you'd actually take 30 seconds to google it) before you claim it's bogus.

Re:Two-Dimensional My Ass... (1)

maird (699535) | about 3 months ago | (#46942033)

I wondered about that one for a bit but no-one said the transistors were 2D, only that the materials the transistors were made were two dimensional. The transistors themselves consist of layers of these materials, each one atom thick giving the transistor itself three-dimensions: "First Transistors Made Entirely of 2-D Materials". Underscore materials not transistors. Every atom in each layer can be referenced by it's position relative to any other position in the layer using only two dimensions (left a couple, forward a couple but never up or down any atoms in that layer regardless of up or down being relevant in the multi-layer transistor itself). There are no transistors made of only one material so it was already implicit in the headline that the transistors had three dimensions due to the need to use multiple layers in each one.

ah, the materials are 2-d, not the devices (0)

beschra (1424727) | about 3 months ago | (#46941063)

I am impressed, but I was hoping to be stunned.

Pedantry at its finest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941073)

Even an atomically thin material still has three dimensions. The depth, while incredibly slim, is still present.

3D video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941077)

So, lower energy consumption, faster clock rates, flexible electronics, nanoscale engineering, and you go for '3-D video' as your go to feature? What the hell is wrong with people?

Re:3D video? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#46941171)

So, lower energy consumption, faster clock rates, flexible electronics, nanoscale engineering, and you go for '3-D video' as your go to feature? What the hell is wrong with people?

You mean, aside our penchant for making nearly every technological innovation about porn?

Re: 3D video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941221)

Well, stack 10,000 of these transparent video screens on top of one another and you have a real 3D display.

Re: 3D video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941365)

It would be sweet to have your desk be a huge glass cube display...

Re: 3D video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941577)

10,000 seems a bit excessive.

3D-displays using stacked LCD-displays have been around for at least a decade. (But at a very prohibitive price.)
As far as I know they have only been used together with medical equipment. I think about 20 layers were used and provided a "good enough" 3D view.
While 20 layers might seem a bit low I don't think it will be worth the expense to have a depth resolution higher than the width or height. 1,000ish screens will probably be more than enough.

Not 2D (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941113)

Not truly 2D is it? "A few atoms thick" Oh so there is thickness?

Re:Not 2D (1)

sgbett (739519) | about 3 months ago | (#46941207)

It will never sell! They should have said just a few atoms thin

In my day... (0)

TommyBear (317561) | about 3 months ago | (#46941155)

...we respected the definition 2-D materials as set out in classical physics.

you ivory-tower physicists make me puke (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 3 months ago | (#46941857)

I never saw a spherical cow,
and nobody'll ever see one;
But I can tell you, anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one
(being non-existant, and all...)

Re: you ivory-tower physicists make me puke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941959)

A spherical cow is always theoretically represented with the Greek symbol "Muuuuu"

A few atoms thick (0)

Sigvatr (1207234) | about 3 months ago | (#46941215)

A few atoms thick still isn't 2D.

Re:A few atoms thick (1)

maird (699535) | about 3 months ago | (#46942071)

None of the materials the transistor is made of is a few atoms thick. Read the story more carefully. There was never a claim that the transistor was 2D, only that each of the materials the transistor used multiple layers of was 2D. Well, even an atom is thick but it is also true that in each layer of the materials used in the transistor the position of any transistor with respect to any other transistor only requires two dimensions to describe it (right a couple, forward a couple, no third direction).

Re:A few atoms thick (1)

maird (699535) | about 3 months ago | (#46942083)

Correction: I used transistor in places I meant to use atom: None of the materials the transistor is made of is a few atoms thick. Read the story more carefully. There was never a claim that the transistor was 2D, only that each of the materials the transistor used multiple layers of was 2D. Well, even an atom is thick but it is also true that in each layer of the materials used in the transistor the position of any atom with respect to any other atom only requires two dimensions to describe it (right a couple of atoms and forward a couple of atoms, no third direction required for each material used).

To all who say it's not two-dimensional (2, Informative)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 3 months ago | (#46941217)

two-dimensional
adjective
having or appearing to have length and breadth but no depth.

According some of the definitions of two-dimensional that I am reading here, there is no such thing as two-dimensional outside of a few popular thought experiments in theoretical physics.
appearing to have - This is why it is not incorrect to call a sheet of paper two-dimensional.

Re:To all who say it's not two-dimensional (1)

snarfies (115214) | about 3 months ago | (#46941273)

But a piece of paper appears to have three dimensions.

Even when you look at it edge-on.

So it is still totally incorrect to call a piece of paper two-dimensional.

Re:To all who say it's not two-dimensional (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 3 months ago | (#46941317)

Your really grasping there.

Re:To all who say it's not two-dimensional (1)

c4320n (2551122) | about 3 months ago | (#46941539)

Except people do call pieces of paper (and, more commonly, things drawn on them) 'two dimensional'. With great frequency. It's entirely consistent to call something five atoms thick, where the axis perpendicular to its plane is pretty much entirely irrelevant to its design, 'two dimensional'.

Re: To all who say it's not two-dimensional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46942087)

This reminds me of a job application that required me to submit a one-sided piece of paper with my answers. Only a god could get that job.

Re: To all who say it's not two-dimensional (1)

Traze (1167415) | about 3 months ago | (#46942375)

Möbius strip resume?

Re: To all who say it's not two-dimensional (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 months ago | (#46942451)

I am trying to figure out if someone did give me their resume on a MÃbius strip, if I should hire him for his creativity, or decline him, because he will nitpick on every little technicality. And probably not be a team player.

Re: To all who say it's not two-dimensional (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 3 months ago | (#46942425)

Nah, they just wanted you to wad your application up into a ball before giving it to them.

(It saves time when filling it in the circular file, don't ya know!)

Re: To all who say it's not two-dimensional (1)

qwijibo (101731) | about 3 months ago | (#46942485)

That's just crazy, creating paper spheroids to throw into a cylindrical object? This is the fault of the paper and waste basket manufacturers who should all use a single standard form factor to maximize rubbish density.

Re: To all who say it's not two-dimensional (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 3 months ago | (#46942619)

Damn it. "Filing," not "filling."

Re:To all who say it's not two-dimensional (1)

maird (699535) | about 3 months ago | (#46942103)

Indeed, most drawings I can think of can be reproduced by moving the drawing device using only two directional references regardless of how thick the material placed on the paper is. Therefore, the drawing is two dimensional in a real sense even though it is simultaneously three dimensional in terms of deposit of crayon, pencil, chalk, ink, etc.

Re:To all who say it's not two-dimensional (1, Funny)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 3 months ago | (#46941333)

Why try to explain actual engineering to a bunch of typists?

Re:To all who say it's not two-dimensional (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 3 months ago | (#46941445)

Yeah. I'll probably get modded down. (Score: -2, Reasonable)

3d is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941311)

pig disgusting

Hmm (1)

koan (80826) | about 3 months ago | (#46941335)

The rise of the disposable video newspaper, and what I really want video wall paper.

2d or not 2d, that is what you question (1, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | about 3 months ago | (#46941353)

On a measurement level, they are 3 dimensional as nothing in our universe lacks having those 3 dimensions.
Of course, you could never discern that thickness without some highly specialized super sensitive devices.

Then there's the whole effective or design thing going on there. That map you look at when you get lost, it's considered 2d. Not because the ink and paper is composed of atoms and are actually 3d, but rather because the information and design of it's display is only on 2 dimensions. Ever see a 3 dimensional map? Sure, they exist, but you don't carry them around. If you really need 3d info of the terrain, you usually use a topographical map that displays info about the 3d, but in a 2d method.

Sure these new electronic components physically have a 3rd dimension, but it's not part of their functional design. They are laid out like the information on a piece of paper, something generally considered to be 2 dimensional.

So yes, technically your statement of them being 3d is factual, and yet it is completely worthless. Much like most Microsoft technical advice. To quote part of the old joke, "You are in a Helicopter.". If you want to read the whole joke, there are lots of copies of it, here's one: http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/microsoft-helicopter-joke-t3245996.html

Re:2d or not 2d, that is what you question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941711)

>On a measurement level, they are 3 dimensional as nothing in our universe lacks having those 3 dimensions.

An image projected on a screen has 2 dimensions, height and width but 0 depth. A Mobius strip and Klein bottle are also interesting models of topography.

Re:2d or not 2d, that is what you question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46942201)

On a measurement level, they are 3 dimensional as nothing in our universe lacks having those 3 dimensions.

Not nessarily true. Quite possibly the most precise measurement in all of science is the electron g-factor, which suggests that it is a point-like particle with a dimension of 0.

Yet another display technology.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941495)

...that will never make it to market. Come on, where's my consumer OLEDs

yo0 Fail It!! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941583)

BSD culminated 'in Members aal over the public eye:

Refresh rate limited by electron mobility? (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | about 3 months ago | (#46941691)

I know very little about display tech, but is display refresh rate really dictated by transistor switching speed? In any event, solid-state amplifiers can extend well into the GHz range, and display refresh rate is sub-kHz. I think rise-times of existing transistors are measured in ns, not ms.

I understand that high framerates at many megapixels can be computationally expensive, but I wouldn't call that refresh rate. Are talking display tech or graphics card tech here?

Re:Refresh rate limited by electron mobility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46941845)

I think rise-times of existing transistors are measured in ns, not ms.

Think again. They are many orders of magnitude faster still.

Re:Refresh rate limited by electron mobility? (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 3 months ago | (#46943027)

They are comparing against transistors made directly on the amorphous silicon of the display, which are really shitty but transparent..

Re:Refresh rate limited by electron mobility? (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | about 3 months ago | (#46943273)

Gotcha, thanks. Apparently I don't read good ;)

I knew this day would come (0)

Tablizer (95088) | about 3 months ago | (#46941783)

Dear Earth,

Due to budget cuts related to the long and intense war with Satan, I am canceling one of the spacial dimensions. Thus, please re-engineer your technology for 2D instead of 3D.

My apologies for any inconveniences this may cause, but we must all make sacrifices to win this difficult war.

Sincerely,
-God

Why not the 4th ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46942335)

Why not cut time instead ?

Time is money.

Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46942019)

Would you Nerds stop arguing about dimensions...

Gordon Moore's Law LIVES! (0)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 3 months ago | (#46942403)

Lives I tell you!

Amorphous silicon?! (1)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about 3 months ago | (#46942669)

Electrons travel in the devices 70 to 100 times faster than in amorphous silicon.

It's a good thing that we make our transistors out of monocrystalline silicon then! Are you kidding me?! My grandmother can run down the corridor 100 faster than electrons in amorphous silicon.

Re:Amorphous silicon?! (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 3 months ago | (#46943049)

"make our transistors out of monocrystalline silicon"

Not the transistors on LCD displays, which are specifically referenced here.

The objective is to layer 2-d devices made with good materials over the display rather than making crappy devices directly on the amorphous silicon.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...