The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Nanotube network: Atomic-force-microscopy images show semiconducting carbon nanotubes aligned on a spin-coated silicon wafer.
Melburne LeMieux / Stanford University
A one-step method sorts and aligns carbon nanotubes for use in electronics.
A new method for sorting single-walled carbon nanotubes by electronic type and arranging them over a large area could be useful for manufacturing high-performance displays and other electronic devices. Researcher from Stanford University and Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology describe the method in this week's issue of Science.
Carbon nanotubes have excellent electronic and mechanical properties that could enable smaller and faster transistors, which are essential elements in a range of electronic devices. Ultimately, researchers hope to make ultracompact computer chips in which transistors are made from single nanotubes. But thin films of carbon nanotubes, in which several nanotubes are used for each transistor, can also be useful. For example, carbon nanotubes transport electronic charges faster than the films of amorphous silicon used now in transistors that control pixels in displays. Carbon-nanotube-based displays, then, could be more responsive. They would also consume less power--an important consideration for portable electronics displays.
But carbon nanotubes have proved challenging to work with. Every batch of carbon nanotubes has both semiconducting and metallic varieties, but transistors need to switch on and off to control current flow, which only semiconducting nanotubes can do. As a result, techniques are needed to sort the different types of nanotubes. What's more, the nanotubes must be carefully aligned to make working transistors. While other researchers have developed ways to either sort or align carbon nanotubes, the new method combines these two steps, which could make it attractive for manufacturing electronics. "We believe our approach is very practical, since the separation and alignment take place right at the surface, in a one-step process," says Melburne LeMieux, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford and the first author of the study.
To make carbon-nanotube transistors, the group refined what is called a random nanotube network, which involves depositing a carbon-nanotube solution onto a silicon wafer and spinning it rapidly to form a thin film of nanotubes. By chemically modifying the silicon wafer with either amine or phenyl groups, the researchers ensured that only one type of nanotube--semiconducting or metallic, respectively--would be absorbed onto the surface. The researchers showed that the process results in a film of carbon nanotubes with 90 percent of one or the other electronic type. They then added electrodes to the wafer to form transistors.
"It is hard to find an easier or simpler process than a one-step spin coating of a silicon wafer," says Michael Strano, a chemical-engineering professor at MIT. "This is potentially a very low-cost method to creating thin-film transistors from single-walled nanotubes." Although the films are not purely one electronic type or the other (a semiconducting film still has 10 percent metallic nanotubes), the researchers showed that the binding was selective enough to produce devices with useful electronic properties, such as high ratios between on and off states and the ability to quickly transport charge. The semiconducting surfaces showed an average on-off ratio of 100,000 to one, which the researchers say is the highest ratio achieved for carbon-nanotube films to date. Although on-off ratios for amorphous silicon are much higher (more than a million to one), the ability of the nanotube network to carry charges much more quickly compensates for this, by allowing the devices to perform faster. Nanotube-based transistors also require less voltage than silicon to be turned on, which reduces power consumption.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
National Instruments has gathered customer information and data regarding some of the cost differences between building a custom solution versus using NI off-the-shelf tools. Using this data, we built the Graphical System Design ‘Build vs. Buy’ Calculator. The calculator can help show the financial differences between building a custom solution versus buying an off-the-shelf system. This paper discusses the benefits and drawbacks of both a traditional custom design approach and off-the-shelf embedded tools.
View full PDF >Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
dtutelman
117 Comments
Not a good example
Quote from the article:
"For example, carbon nanotubes transport electronic charges faster than the films of amorphous silicon used now in transistors that control pixels in displays. Carbon-nanotube-based displays, then, could be more responsive."
This was in proximity to a statement about nanotubes offering faster transistors than silicon.
This is not a good example. Transistors, whether silicon or carbon, operate in the range of nanoseconds or less. Displays operate in the millisecond range. And they do not have to operate any faster, because human response times are typically not much faster than 100 milliseconds. So improving the speed of a multi-millisecond display by nanoseconds is not a useful exercise.
There are plenty of transistor-array examples (e.g.- memory) where nanoseconds make a big difference, but display is not among them.
Reply
ioannis
1 Comment
Re: Not a good example
although your general statement is valid, modern LCD displays with 1ms G2G do not exhibit any noticeable ghosting effect, human response times are not in the range of 100ms=10Hz !
Reply
dtutelman
117 Comments
Re: Not a good example
OK, let's say 1ms. That is still orders of magnitude larger than the nanosecond times that the new technology is affecting, so my point is still the same.
Reply
mightybob
9 Comments
Re: Not a good example
you give the human body too much credit. the accepted mean reaction time of an average collage age student is around 190ms, thats from light stimuli .
from http://biae.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm#Mean%20Timeshttp://biae.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm#Mean%20Times
Reply