Carbon Nanotubes Finally Outperform Silicon in Transistors

Re:Carbon Nanotubes Finally Outperform Silicon in Transistors by nutschig on Friday October 14, 2016 @01:45PM (#12709810)

Silicon is not the best transistor material ever. For example, gallium arsenide can run at a switching frequency of 250 GHz thanks to faster electron velocity and higher electron mobility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide#GaAs_advantag...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Nanotubes Finally Outperform Silicon in Transistors by GregBuchholz on Friday October 14, 2016 @02:07PM (#12709964)

You can create some pretty high frequency transistors (BJTs) with Indium Phosphide (InP) (ft > 600GHz, fmax > 1THz). See page 33 of:

http://www.ece.ucsb.edu/Faculty/rodwell/publications_and_pre...

...for examples of some 600 GHz circuits, and:

http://www.semiconductor-today.com/news_items/2014/OCT/NORTH...

...for a >1THz circuit using InP HEMTs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Nanotubes Finally Outperform Silicon in Transistors by raverbashing on Friday October 14, 2016 @02:32PM (#12710169)

Wow that's crazy.

I wonder how you even test a 1THz amplifier. Also what kind of natural noise might exist in those bands

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Nanotubes Finally Outperform Silicon in Transistors by jpmattia on Friday October 14, 2016 @03:18PM (#12710427)

> I wonder how you even test a 1THz amplifier.

The usual schtick is to measure the S-parameters a slower speeds and extrapolate out to the cutoff. (see chart 21 from the link above: http://www.ece.ucsb.edu/Faculty/rodwell/publications_and_pre...)

For the digital people, building a ring oscillator with N stages will cause the output to divide by N, and just make sure that f/N is in the range of your oscilloscope.

To actually measure things up in the THz range directly, there are more exotic methods: Superconducting bolometer is one that I've been involved with. But those are a PITA for a bunch of reasons.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Nanotubes Finally Outperform Silicon in Transistors by GregBuchholz on Friday October 14, 2016 @02:55PM (#12710293)

>I wonder how you even test a 1THz amplifier.

Most likely using a mixer or some other non-linearity to down convert into the frequency range of your spectrum analyzer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Nanotubes Finally Outperform Silicon in Transistors by raverbashing on Friday October 14, 2016 @03:15PM (#12710404)

And how do you get the 1THz signal in the 1st place? Maybe upconvert as well?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Nanotubes Finally Outperform Silicon in Transistors by pbhjpbhj on Saturday October 15, 2016 @08:46AM (#12713756)

Does 'Heisenberg' or some other theory limit the top frequency, if so, what's the limit?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Nanotubes Finally Outperform Silicon in Transistors by buserror on Friday October 14, 2016 @03:08PM (#12710375)

I, for one, have a Germanium transistor in my 1964 Accutron Bulova watch. So there!

http://www.decadecounter.com/accutron/history.htm

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Nanotubes Finally Outperform Silicon in Transistors by jpmattia on Friday October 14, 2016 @03:13PM (#12710396)

Old joke: It's not that Germanium has a bad bandgap, it's just that room temperature is wrong.

[As it turns out, having a decent native oxide is also a winner.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Nanotubes Finally Outperform Silicon in Transistors by duaneb on Friday October 14, 2016 @01:55PM (#12709876)

> thanks to faster electron velocity and higher electron mobility.

How does this effect energy transfer? This is the metric I assume most people care about as it is typically much faster than an electron can move.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Nanotubes Finally Outperform Silicon in Transistors by klodolph on Friday October 14, 2016 @03:07PM (#12710366)

"Best" is a funny word, because it means different things to people who care about different things. Silicon can be built with better gates / insulators than gallium arsenide, so if that's what you care about, silicon is better.

[ Parent | on HN ]