3 ms·

>The big difference is the channel, which allows electrons to flow from the source to the drain. In today’s transistors, the channel is based on silicon. In con

by trhway 5y ago

>The big difference is the channel, which allows electrons to flow from the source to the drain. In today’s transistors, the channel is based on silicon. In contrast, a carbon nanotube FET makes use of a fixed number of tiny and parallel nanotubes for the channels, each measuring 1nm in diameter. Leveraging the properties of these materials, carbon nanotube transistors exhibit high mobilities at low power. vacuum channel is even better - 460GHz with existing technology https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/185027-the-vacuum-tube-strikes-back-nasas-tiny-460ghz-vacuum-transistor-that-could-one-day-replace-silicon-fets https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/185027-the-vacuum-tube-s...

smaddox 5y ago
I actually think such vacuum transistors are the future of digital electronics. I remember first seeing the research on them when I was in grad school back in ~2014 or ~2015. The big challenges I see are making a complementary version, to get CMOS-like power savings, and mass producing them with sufficient yield. If you can do both of those, it should be possible to 3D stack them, which would put silicon transistors to shame.
- Archit3ch 5y ago
  > making a complementary version How? Electron holes can't traverse a vacuum.
tomxor 5y ago
> vacuum channel is even better - 460GHz with existing technology Interesting. How exactly does this compare? Does anyone know roughly what the switching speed of a finFET is in a leading CPU of today? I always presumed it to be significantly faster than the cycle speed which is dependent on total propagation of the longest path. Since that path tends to include a series of many switches surely the individual switching speed is significantly faster... [edit] Found it, indirectly, lower in the parent's article link: > In early testing, a vacuum-channel transistor was able to operate at 460GHz — on the order of 10 times faster than a conventional, silicon-based FET (and comparable to the speeds that a graphene transistor might operate at). Although higher in the article they incorrectly suggest FETs are only capable of a few GHz (probably confusing CPU clock frequency for switching frequency) along with other serious confusion: > There’s no word on whether these vacuum-channel transistors will allow for the creation of small, modern audio amplifiers that sound like original tube amps — but maybe!
deepnotderp 5y ago
Switching speed isn’t really what people are after with CNFETs, broadly speaking they’re after parameters like increased drive current per unit of gate capacitance.
baybal2 5y ago
Conventional single HEMT FETs already passed 1THz
- watersb 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-electron-mobility_transistor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-electron-mobility_trans...

by trhway 5y ago

smaddox 5y ago

I actually think such vacuum transistors are the future of digital electronics. I remember first seeing the research on them when I was in grad school back in ~2014 or ~2015. The big challenges I see are making a complementary version, to get CMOS-like power savings, and mass producing them with sufficient yield. If you can do both of those, it should be possible to 3D stack them, which would put silicon transistors to shame.

Archit3ch 5y ago
> making a complementary version How? Electron holes can't traverse a vacuum.

tomxor 5y ago

> vacuum channel is even better - 460GHz with existing technology Interesting. How exactly does this compare? Does anyone know roughly what the switching speed of a finFET is in a leading CPU of today? I always presumed it to be significantly faster than the cycle speed which is dependent on total propagation of the longest path. Since that path tends to include a series of many switches surely the individual switching speed is significantly faster... [edit] Found it, indirectly, lower in the parent's article link: > In early testing, a vacuum-channel transistor was able to operate at 460GHz — on the order of 10 times faster than a conventional, silicon-based FET (and comparable to the speeds that a graphene transistor might operate at). Although higher in the article they incorrectly suggest FETs are only capable of a few GHz (probably confusing CPU clock frequency for switching frequency) along with other serious confusion: > There’s no word on whether these vacuum-channel transistors will allow for the creation of small, modern audio amplifiers that sound like original tube amps — but maybe!

deepnotderp 5y ago

Switching speed isn’t really what people are after with CNFETs, broadly speaking they’re after parameters like increased drive current per unit of gate capacitance.

baybal2 5y ago

Conventional single HEMT FETs already passed 1THz

watersb 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-electron-mobility_transistor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-electron-mobility_trans...