Author: Steve J
Date: 22:40:23 02/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2003 at 22:47:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 27, 2003 at 21:30:09, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On February 27, 2003 at 20:45:54, Steve J wrote: >> >>> One point I was trying to make was that every reduction in size is done >>>with an exponential increase in cost. We will reach a time when the >>>physics of very small devices will not allow for transistor that can be >>>turned "on" and "off" at any reasonable cost. >> >>Could you explain this? Switching cost goes down with smaller feature size, so >>why should it ever become prohibitive? > >He is talking about "cost == $$$" The smaller you make things, the harder it >is to make them, and the more it costs, in terms of simple dollars... > Yes, that is what I meant to say. > >> >>>Given that this is related >>>to the size of the atom, it does not make much of a difference if the >>>material is Silicon, GaAs, InP, or more exotic materials. >> >>Of course, atoms are not all the same size. The absolute difference in size is >>tiny, but the relative difference may be several percent or more. If you go >>from molecular to atomic sizes, the difference can be an order of magnitude or >>more. I agree. Many atoms are in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 Angstroms (i.e., 10 E-10 meters). as feature sizes get smaller, a single atom mismatch can represent a large percentage of the total transistor width. Regards, Steve
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.