5 ms·
Graphene ‘Nano-Origami’ Could Take Us Past the End of Moore’s Law
- drannex 6y agoAs with anything that has to do with Graphene: Fantastic, happy to hear, but let's see how it goes with more testing and if it's manufacturable. I haven't seen a successful long-term application yet and they've been talking about graphene for twenty years. I'm sure great things are happening in the field, and many wonderful ideas and discoveries have been made — but statements such as "take us past Moores law" requires manufacturing, and I haven't seen anything to say that this is possible albeit I am ever hopeful for the day that it is.
- nxpnsv 6y agoI just think people are too much in a hurry with results. With these things, the lag between discovery to commercial viability is decades, not months...
- junon 6y agoThat's not really the argument though. I would wager GP is more lamenting the writing style and "hype" surrounding certain tech, which causes widespread misinformation in the longer term, instead of reporting accurately and keeping scientific literature concise and accurate.
- Zenst 6y agoAgreed and flying cars taught me this over several decades, as they have many others if they think about it. The valley between in the lab/prototype and commercial viable/practical is long and wide in some science.
- yortpyperty 6y agoAgreed, it's the quick growth mentality that doesn't apply to things like fundamental science.
- piokoch 6y agoGraphene manufacturing was not needed as our best ~5nm chips could use copper wires to transfer electricity. I suppose the ones that are on R&D now (3, maybe 2 nm) also use copper (that's my guess only). But going smaller will require something better (meaning less resistant on such scale), so maybe Graphene will be back in the game.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ben_w 6y agoAt that scale, is it even useful to still call it “graphene”? 3nm is only 21 carbon atom diameters. How much of its desirable properties come from bulk effects? (Genuinely curious, I’m not qualified in chemistry).
- wcrossbow 6y agoNarrow and long strips of graphene are called nanoribbons in the literature. When they start to get really narrow their properties change significantly [1]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10177 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10177 Edit: spelling
- rsfern 6y agoIt’s probably workable in terms of material properties if you can manufacture it in the geometry needed, but I’m not an expert in 2d materials. The edge of a graphene sheet is a defect that affects the electronic properties, with strong orientation dependence However, in this article they intentionally introduce additional defects to tune the electronic properties, so there’s probably no fundamental issue. I agree with another poster here that manufacturing at scale in integrated devices is not obviously viable. Especially because it seems like a different method of introducing defects is needed if you want to grow the graphene by chemical vapor deposition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene_nanoribbon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene_nanoribbon
- MayeulC 6y ago> our best ~5nm chips could use copper wires to transfer electricity I thought Aluminium and titanium were used in the lower interconnect layers, but according to [1] you are right. The tech mentioned in the article is supposedly useful for transistors, not necessarily interconnect though. I guess that would be useful for going beyond planar processes. But at some point our current architectures are already severely limited regarding TDP anyway, so unless you can afford using only 10% of your chips, an architecture revolution is overdue IMO. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interconnect_(integrated_circuits) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interconnect_(integrated_circu...
- vimacs2 6y agoI keep hearing this sentiment but it's simply not true. They are already using graphene in consumer battery tech and with the recent invention of the "flash graphene" manufacturing process, production is going to ramp up significantly.
- dekhn 6y agoThis applies to fusion, genomics for precision med, and quantum computing as well. Hopeful to see a successful outcome, tired of 20+ years of unrealistic claims.
- PostThisTooFast 6y agoIsn’t it astounding that we used to get by without graphene?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- karmakaze 6y agoI'm glad it's only about 1000x faster, if it were millions or billions of times faster it could be disruptive in a world destabilizing way.
- mehphp 6y agoI'm assuming because it would able to break current cryptography?
- emkoemko 6y agothen just make the cryptography 10000x harder then now? no?
- talhah 6y agoThat might apply to future data but what about past data? Example the NSA may be collecting data they can't crack right now but now with a faster computer in the future they can easily crack it. What about accessibility of the computers required to make it 1000x harder?
- cutler 6y agoThe great Graphene Promise recycled.
- mpweiher 6y agoIsn't the more tangible problem the end of Dennard scaling? As in: Moore's law is still giving you more transistors, but you can't actually turn them all on, and they aren't getting faster, so no free lunch. (Which of course is why the Apple M1 is so significantly ahead, at least of Intel)