4 ms·
Firstly, the mantra that smaller is better is not valid anymore at this scale, because of a number of reasons; most prominently of which is that the electrodes
by miked 17y ago
Firstly, the mantra that smaller is better is not valid anymore at this scale, because of a number of reasons; most prominently of which is that the electrodes which supply the charge carriers are now (as in the picture in the article) much bigger than the device itself, making further shrinking of the device itself useless.
That was the first thing that jumped out at me. What's the point, then? The article doesn't say.
- graphene 17y agoWhat's the point, then? In traditional (solid-state-based) transistors, smaller dimensions has always meant faster switching speed, less energy waste and more efficient use of chip real estate. I fail to see how any of these are applicable to molecular-scale devices, although I could be wrong. I think the proper way to see this is as a feat not of engineering, but of experimental physics; in that light, the mere novelty of having fabricated a single-molecule switching device has plenty of merit on its own. For real engineering applications, as I mentioned in the parent post, this specific example is probably of limited use, but could help pave the way for the development of other designed molecular systems. Also, I'm afraid there is pr value in claiming to have created the ultimate incarnation of Moore's law, regardless of any actual engineering applicability. This could also have provided some of the incentive for this work.