Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Super-fast Transistors On the Way 172

nbannerman writes "The BBC is reporting about a new kind of transistor, that recently set a world record of 110Ghz. From the article: 'To achieve the speed gain, researchers at the University of Southampton added fluorine to the silicon devices. The technique uses existing silicon manufacturing technology meaning it should be quick and easy to deploy.' The apparent applications for this process include mobile phones and digital cameras."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Super-fast Transistors On the Way

Comments Filter:
  • Faster? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Asm-Coder ( 929671 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @08:36PM (#15931501)
    Maybe we should just get faster software.
    • Re:Faster? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @08:40PM (#15931521)
      It's cheaper to pay a few top engineers to make faster hardware then to pay a mountain of top computer scientists to write stable, fast code. Corel learned that the hardway.
      • Re:Faster? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @10:05PM (#15931918)
        It's cheaper to pay a few top engineers to make faster hardware then to pay a mountain of top computer scientists to write stable, fast code.

        Yeah, because if the cpu is fast enough, even unstable code works better!
        • Re:Faster? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Carthag ( 643047 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @10:34PM (#15932016) Homepage
          It's the old "stable, fast, on schedule; pick two" -- the faster the chip is, the more likely you can concentrate on writing stable code on schedule and make up for the slowness with processor speed.
          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by sjwt ( 161428 )
            Due to economic downsizing, you now have a choice of 'pick one, so long as its fast'
          • It's the old "stable, fast, on schedule; pick two"
            Very true, and at the risk of drifting offtopic, I first heard this "three qualities, pick two" proverb over 30 years ago under the title of "The Printer's Triangle": the corners were labeled Good, Fast, and Cheap and the caption was "Pick any two." Does anyone know the origin of this bit of wisdom? Do other businesses have other versions?
            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              The "triangle of Expectation" has been used in the construction industry for a long time as well.
              often the sides are labeled Time, Cost and Quality, but the idea is still the same. I've even seen builders put the diagram in tender submissions.

              Some management guru has even gone on to say that for any given project the area of the triangle is always the same. so that the most effective project will be an equal angle triangle.
              The management guy was from the 70's so the idea has to be at least a 100years older
            • by miro f ( 944325 )
              Women: Single, Good looking, Mentally stable.

              Pick two
          • But why is the hardware CPU chip itself STABLE, and FAST, and released on SCHEDULE?

            Maybe software engineers should do some basic hardware engineering to learn the processes of making good stuff tm

            So use stable/schedule software guys to write 90% of your software, and use a few smarty pants guys to write
            the core speed deamon code for the specifics that require it.
            • But why is the hardware CPU chip itself STABLE, and FAST, and released on SCHEDULE?

              At one place I worked, one of the hardware engineering rooms had a poster on the wall which read: "Software will be as stable and as bug-free as hardware the day it costs a software engineer five million dollars and three months to run his compiler".

              That probably goes some way towards answering your question.

        • because if the CPU is fast enough then the software just won't have any time to fail, because it will be very occupied trying to not fall behind the processor. All of the software failures are due to high stress that software is experiencing and the faster the computers are the less time there is for the software to stress, thus it doesn't think about being bloated with all that dead weight and terrible algorythms that much and doesn't get depressed that easily.
          • i loaded an old word processor that ran in a window manager layer running on top of msdos 6.22 from a 12 MHz '286 on a 1 GHz pentium, it was just insanely fast; this new break-through might make the next new version of windows ship on time.
        • Actually, it is. Checking the logical consistency of code takes a long time, because the program's execution paths have to be analysed one by one. By having faster computers, maybe code testing will become a reality.
        • It is better! It crashes faster! Think of all the time wasted on programs that crash. Now, you will not waste as much timme since the end result iis reached much quicker!
      • by exley ( 221867 )
        Coming from someone in the semiconductor industry, hardware (at least, when we're talking chips), is quite often MUCH more expensive than software. Chip designers make a decent buck, and manufacturing is expensive. Not only is fabbing chips expensive, it is frequently time consuming (we're talking weeks of turnaround time in many cases for a new spin of a chip). And of course, time is money. If something can be fixed in software, that has the potential to be done much quicker than hardware changes. Thi
        • by x2A ( 858210 )
          On widely used software, yeah, it'd be quicker/cheaper to fix the software. But for all the one-offs out there, running individual shops/businesses/etc, it costs less to pay one company to design/build a faster processor, than it does to pay hundreds of thousands of software developers to be able to improve the hundreds of thousands of pieces of software out there.

          Comes down to numbers.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Fordiman ( 689627 )
        Programmer: There is no speed issue that cannot be solved through the use of better hardware.
        Engineer: There is no hardware issue that cannot be solved through the use of well-written software.


        Meanwhile, they have this notion that an improvement in transistor speed is an advance specifically for mobile peripherals. What about shattering moore's law? Have these guys not considered that, you know, maybe, your computer's circuitry is made up almost entirely out of transistors and capacitors?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jthill ( 303417 )
          Check this out []. TFA's stuff is slow, and pisses away power like it was water. This stuff... they can make a functional transistor by bouncing a single electron off force-field walls. One electron. To test it at full speed, they first need to figure out what to use as a THz scope.
          • TFA's stuff is easy to implement using current manufacturing equipment, which is what will make it quickly ubuiquitous.

            Just one look at the design shows it's not 'bouncing'. It's passing through the dielectric portion of a capacitor. The pyramid isn't even present in the SEM view of the device.

            Which is not to say it's not a good idea for memory; you end up having a transistor and capacitor coupled in such a way as to make for a single self-maintaining bit.

            Meanwhile, it doesn't look that revolutionary. Th
        • by miro f ( 944325 )
          it seems this technology is only for bipolar transistors, whish I thought were not used in microchips at all in favour of MOSFET transistors which tend to have less power usage when switching. Definitely your PC uses CMOS and I would have thought that the microchip in your phone would as well.

          so yeah, I am a little confused on this point...
        • Programmer: There is no speed issue that cannot be solved through the use of better hardware.
          Engineer: There is no hardware issue that cannot be solved through the use of well-written software.


          It's not plugged in?
    • "Maybe we should just get faster software."

      That takes more time and more talent to write. It'd be a pain in the butt if mobile phone or digital camera processors were so slow everything had to be super optimized just to be useful. Heck, I remember using one of the first digital cameras. Relatively speaking, it took forever just for it to capture, encode, and save the image to memory. Nowadays you can get cameras that take the pictures super fast. I say we should have faster processing AND better softwar
  • by terminateprocess ( 812697 ) <> on Thursday August 17, 2006 @08:36PM (#15931503) Homepage
    Now remind me why exactly we need 110GhZ moblie phone processors?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by BSonline ( 989394 )
      Because faster is better. Don't you remember high school cheerleaders?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      "Now remind me why exactly we need 110GhZ moblie phone processors?"

      So the future will get here faster.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        So the future will get here faster.

        Precisely! We agree completely.

        Slashdot Anonymous Cowards For The Future

        -----EQUAL REPRESENTATION-----

        Listen you "big A-C" Anonymous Cowards, we're against the future. Technology ruined our lives, remember when trolls used to live under bridges? Now we live in basements or apartments. We should go backwards, not forwards!

        Slashdot Anonymous Cowards Against The Future.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by telchine ( 719345 )
        I keep waiting for the future to come, but all I ever see is the present.
    • Re:Mobile Phones? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Formica ( 775485 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @08:44PM (#15931543)
      They're talking about transistors, not entire processors. High speed transistors are needed for the RF front-end, where analog signals up to 1 GHz or so are encountered. These signals require devices that can switch at speeds significantly faster than the signal frequency. Formica
      • Check your numbers -

        WiFi sits in the ISM band at 2.7GHz
        Cellular service is in assorted bands all over 500MHz and under 3GHz
        Collision avoidance radar (now going into fancy new cars) is up around 40-60 GHz (not sure on the exact number, haven't designed one yet)

        Any and all of that can be done with 0.18um CMOS, (excepth the radar) nothing fancier required.

        For RF front end there are a lot of secialty transistors, SiGe, GaAs. IndP and others.
    • Re:Mobile Phones? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Trouvist ( 958280 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @08:44PM (#15931550)
      The faster the chip cycles, the higher the communication frequency can be. It is difficult to do noise-reduction calculations on ultra-high frequency communications without chips that cycle at the rate of data transmission.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by modecx ( 130548 )
        I'm sorry? Using "ultra-high frequency communications" would serve no purpose as an application to cell communication, unless you cherish the idea of cell companies needing to put a tower every few hundred yards, having your phone put out enough radiation to cook your brains, having your signal blocked by a little bit of rain, and not being able to use your phone whilst inside buildings with walls thicker than cellophane.

        Cellphones use the frequencies they use not because it's the best that technology can
    • Power Consumption (Score:4, Interesting)

      by grahamsz ( 150076 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @08:51PM (#15931599) Homepage Journal
      Remember that when a CMOS gate is switching the current flowing through it increases. The faster the gate is able to switch, the less power will be used in the state change. Now the processor doesn't have to run at anywhere near that speed, but the fast transistor switch will minimize the power per cycle.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by dunkers ( 845588 )
        The gate will only switch faster for the same, or less, current if the gate capacitance is decreased - i.e. you make the device physically smaller. If the capacitance stays the same then you must bung in current faster to achieve faster switching. Faster switching may reduce the power cycle (time), but on its own it doesn't reduce the power requirements.
        • Re:Power Consumption (Score:5, Informative)

          by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @09:41PM (#15931832) Homepage Journal
          You're both right.

          You are talking about basic c*v**2 current, and he's talking about shoot-through current during the transition. Though one normally doesn't fuss too hard about shoot-through unless slew rates are really slow. But then again, it wasn't that many years ago that device standby leakage was nearly negligible, instead of being a substantial fraction of the active current, like it is today. For that matter, the scope traces I've seen of high-speed clocks look a heck of a lot more like a sine wave than a logic pulse, but at this point we're stressing capabilities of the measurment electonics, too.
      • Re:Power Consumption (Score:5, Informative)

        by wontonenigma ( 451597 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @09:55PM (#15931892)
        From the article:
        The research was carried out using a simple type of transistor known as a silicon bipolar transistor.

        This isn't about CMOS, for a change. This is about analog power amplification and the 100GHz figure quoted is either the maximum frequency of current or power amplification. Too bad the BBC doesn't say.

        Most cell phones contain one Gallium Arsenide bipolar transistor to amplify the signal going to the antenna. This faster Silicon transistor would open up other transmission frequencies but it wouldn't make that game of Alchemy play any faster.
        • Um, no...

          GaAs is a FET, not a bipolar, although there are some GaAS bipolars as well.

          Also the RF PA in a cell phone is generally GaAs although there are some exception. Never been a single transistor ever to my knowledge, the classic architecture is a three stage device.
      • Re:Power Consumption (Score:4, Informative)

        by 1zenerdiode ( 777004 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @10:30PM (#15931999)
        Yeah, except TFA says the gains were achieved with modified BJT technology, which is not CMOS. In addition, the faster that you switch COMPLIMENTARY (that's the C) MOS structures, the larger the shoot-through current (this is the current that flows between the power supply rails as each transistor in the complimentary structure is temporarily partially conducting). In microprocessors and memory cells, these are responsible for huge transient current requirements, and get worse as the clock frequency is increased.

        The reason that the development is significant is not from a microprocessor standpoint - it means that the front end amplifiers and mixers that have to run at the highest frequencies can be fabricated using more cost-effective manufacturing techniques. This is assuming that the article is correct in stating the development concerns BJT's. Hell knows why they showed a photo of a non-populated circuit board, but hey, it's the media. Guess you have dial your expectations lower.
      • Hey, it is "standard" "silicon" process, but they compete with other GaAs/InP/SiGe bipolar transistors, not yoru garden variety CMOS FETs -- and for other technologies Ft of more than 100GHz is not unheard of. Neat trick, and you will see them in your cellphone front-end, maybe soon, but do not hold your breath for 20GHz processors (and if someone makes 'em, please *do not hold them with your bare hands*! -- they gonna be HOT!) ;-)

        Paul B.
      • Um, read the article. This is about Bipolar transistors using Flourine as a dopant.

        Not CMOS, it is a different world.

        As for switching speed being faster, well, yes, but at 90nm and down gate dielectric leakage plays into it in a big big ugly way...
    • Re:Mobile Phones? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17, 2006 @08:52PM (#15931601)
      So my shiny new video-enabled phone will respond instantaneously to button-presses.

      Like my LCD-based phones from 10 years ago used to.
      • No, it'll respond instantly.
        (Or rather, it won't as this isn't the CPU we're talking about. You've just tripped my latest semantics-nazi pet-hate. Sorry.)
    • This transistor is for modulating the radiowawes, not for driving your java-games.
    • Now remind me why exactly we need 110GhZ moblie phone processors?
      To record & postprocess hi def video of course :)
  • by nebaz ( 453974 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @08:37PM (#15931509)
    added fluorine to the silicon devices

    Not only will the transistors be faster, but whiter and shinier, they won't need to floss.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17, 2006 @08:44PM (#15931549)
    ...might taint your precious bodily fluids.
  • by FlyByPC ( 841016 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @08:44PM (#15931556) Homepage this means that Flight Simulator X will run at 10fps instead of 5?
  • TFA didn't mention what effect this process has on CMOS devices, which is probably more relevant since this is what is used in most digital design these days (and a lot of analog as well). Bipolar devices take up more area and tend to consume a lot more power, among other things. But if this speeds up MOSFETs, then they're really on to something...
  • The article says they did this with bipolar transistors. I recall from my intro electronics class that most integrated circuits are CMOS (built with field effect transistors) because in general they are faster and use less power than equivalent TTL circuits (built with bipolar transistors). If this is true, does this new process make TTL chips more attractive for (at least some) applications?
    • by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <{atd7} {at} {}> on Thursday August 17, 2006 @09:13PM (#15931705) Homepage
      No, because whenever Slashdot covers these ultra-high-frequency transistors, they never bother mentioning that there's a huge difference between transistors optimized for logic (always on/off, usually very high drive levels and low gain, fast switching of square waves) and transistors designed for RF signal amplification (Usually designed for linear amplification of sinusoidal or modulated sinusoidal signals, lower drive levels with higher gain, and no one cares about the switching time, just the highest frequency sinusoid at which the device exhibits gain.) In essentially every case, the article is covering amplification of a signal at the record-setting frequency, not operation of a logic gate at that frequency.

      There is also a very good chance that while the manufacturing process may be suitable for single (relatively) large tranistors (perfectly suitable, and often desireable for RF), it is not suitable for integrated circuits with multiple tranistors and other components on a die. Gallium Arsenide is a perfect example of this - The IC industry gave up on it pretty quickly because it was simply too difficult to make integrated circuits with it and the performance benefits for logic circuits weren't worth the costs, but manufacturers of RF transistors are still putting large amounts of effort into GaAs and plenty of commercial products exist. (Yes, there are still issues with GaAs technology and a lot of companies still don't trust GaAs in their products except in low-volume high-performance applications, but it's not like logic circuits where nothing exists on the market.)

      Same thing with IBM's big SiGe push - great for RF but doesn't seem to have made any inroads to logic, probably due to cost issues and technical problems that make SiGe potentially unsuitable for logic but don't really affect their RF performance.
      • by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <{atd7} {at} {}> on Thursday August 17, 2006 @09:23PM (#15931755) Homepage
        And before anyone brings up that TFA does mention "clocking", the impression I get is that the writer of the article isn't very technically literate and doesn't really understand the difference between RF circuitry and clocked logic circuitry. See the comment about mobile phones operating in the 1 GHz range - even the fastest smartphones have a CPU clock speed of only 400-500 MHz at most, but mobile phones have been operating with RF carriers close to 1 GHz (specifically 800 and 900 MHz) for 15-20 years, and the 1.8 and 1.9 GHz bands have been in use for close to a decade too. Satellite communications systems frequently operate in the 10-20 GHz region. I don't see any case where the researchers are directly quoted talking about using their new developments for logic circuitry, but a few where they are implying using the new stuff for RF.
      • Andy:

        Excellent commentary - a couple of addendums -

        GaAs has all kinds of problems with defect density yield loss, this is another reason it is friendly to the RF PA (under 20 transistors) and not for the next Pentium-27 (2 zillion transistors) :)

        SiGe (from IBM & Jazz anyhow) is sold as BiCMOS, CMOS and SiGe Bipolars on the same chip. However BiCMOS tends to be a few generations in size behind CMOS.

        SiGe (and Strained Silicon, but thats another story) does get used in specialized locations inside of big-i
  • The apparent applications for this process include mobile phones and digital cameras.

    Tell me, what digital device would not benefit from shorter switching times?
    • I'm onclear on that too. I thought the main limitation on processors these days was 1) energy dissipation and 2) latency between transistors, as in, the time it takes light to travel 1 or 2 cm. Is that true, and do faster transistors help with those issues?
    • by vistic ( 556838 )
      An old style videogame machine.

      You'll be dead before your finger can push the button.
  • Ripper: A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie works. Mandrake: Jack... Jack, listen, tell me, ah... when did you first become, well, develop this theory. Ripper: Well, I ah, I-I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love. From Dr. Strangelove []
  • MOSFET Application (Score:5, Informative)

    by dduardo ( 592868 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @09:27PM (#15931776)
    I believe this technique would speed up MOSFETs as well because they are saying that the added fluorine doesn't allow the boron to diffuse into the silcon as much. This means you'll have a cleaner line between the p-type and n-type dopped regions. In terms of MOSFETs you could inject the flourine under the gate so when you dope the silicon to create the source and drain you won't have overlap you normaly get under the gate. This means you could reduce the gate to drain and gate to source capacitances which kills the high frequencies.
    • by dcapel ( 913969 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @11:20PM (#15932173) Homepage
      Truely now, how many people modded this insightful because they didn't understand it?
      • by strider44 ( 650833 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @11:55PM (#15932262)
        Two. The other two people who modded it modded it informative because they didn't understand it.
        • by Aceticon ( 140883 ) on Friday August 18, 2006 @03:26AM (#15932846)
          A MOSFET [] is a type of transistor which is very common in integrated circuits because it's very easy to make using the most common IC fabrication techniques (which basically boil down to making holes in a silicon base, filling those holes with stuff and depositing lines of other stuff on top of it).

          One of the physical features of a MOSFET is that there are places where silicon dopped to be of the type P (ie, a substance was added to it so that it is missing electrons in it's crystaline structure by comparisson with pure silicon) is in direct contact with silicon dopped to be of type N (ie, a substance was added to it so that it has extra electrons in it's crystaline structure by comparisson with pure silicon).

          Now, as many of us know, solids are just very slow liquids ... stuff embedded in a solid tends to move around, though slowly. The higher the temperature, the faster the moving.

          In the specific case of a MOSFET, we have junctions between the silicon dopped with a specific material to make it type-N (ie more electrons) and silicon dopped with a different material to make it type-P (ie fewer electrons). In this situation, some of the dopping atoms in the type-N silicon will move to the type-P side and vice versa, thus making the junction less "sharp" (in terms of the difference between both sides).

          Some very complicated formulas (which i forgot all about) can be used to show that the "sharper" the junction, the more efficient it is.

          This is what the GGP is going about.

          Consider that maybe there are enough people in /. with an EE degree or a deep interest in electronics to actually understand the issue at hand, and maybe, just maybe, they're extra attracted to articles about new kinds of transistors !!???
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by davros-too ( 987732 )
        Definitely not modded insightful by someone who understands. There's no engineer designing MOSFETs who is going to slap his or her forehead and say 'why didn't I think of that?'. CMOS design/fabrication is incredibly complex and doping profiles are optimised using multiple techniques. Silicon bipolar transistors are large and unsophisticated in comparison to the CMOS devices in your computer. I'm not saying these researchers aren't doing good work - but their techniques are not directly applicable to chip m
  • by Manchot ( 847225 ) on Thursday August 17, 2006 @09:34PM (#15931798)
    Sure, it might be the fastest silicon BJT, but as TFA alludes to, there are InGaAs HBTs that are functionally equivalent to BJTs and have cutoff frequencies of 710 GHz. Specifically, I'm talking about the one discussed in this paper [] by Milton Feng's group at the University of Illinois.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by swg101 ( 571879 )
      From your link:
      The performance of a 0.25×3 m2 pseudomorphic heteojunction bipolar transistors achieves peak fT of 710 GHz (fMAX=340 GHz)... (emphasis mine)

      So, maximum achievable frequency is actually quite a bit lower than 710GHz.

      Also, the article acknowledges that faster transistors exist ("Alternative approaches for building fast transistors exist but they use other materials, such as gallium arsenide or a silicon germanium mix, which require more expensive manufacturing techniques."), but thi
  • Purpose? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by treak007 ( 985345 )
    Why would the prime purpose of this be cameras and cell phones, rather then computers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17, 2006 @10:20PM (#15931972)
    At 100 GHz the wavelength is 3 cm. A quarter wave line would be 0.75 cm. This thing is operating at a frequency well above that at which it is easy/feasible to use a printed circuit board. To operate at this frequency I would have to spend a whole pile of money so I could use hybrid IC techniques. Or I could figure out how to couple this device to waveguide. AARGH!

    The magic word Slashdot asks me to type to prove that I'm not a robot is 'hospital'. How very appropriate 'cause that's where I would end up if I tried to use this sucker.
    • by olman ( 127310 )
      At 100 GHz the wavelength is 3 cm. This thing is operating at a frequency well above that at which it is easy/feasible to use a printed circuit board.

      More like 3mm when we get down to it.

      Basically you have to use balanced transmission lines such as LVDS and start learning how to define trace impedance for PCB. Oh and stop putting unrelated power/GND planes on same sections of the PCB..

      Easy? No. Feasible? Oh definitely.
  • []

    Apparently this freq is known as W-band microwave radiation. Useful for millimetre wave radar apparently - you know the machine that can see through clothes at the airport? Wonder if this is why they are researching it? Anyone know better than me? Will my kids have real X-ray specs?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    This here's my BIPOLAR TRANSISTOR. I design analog circuits with it and it's got an Ft of 110 GHz.

    I don't design digital circuits with bipolar devices. I design digital circuits with CMOS devices. Bipolar sucks power but it runs fast. CMOS sips power but it run's slower.

    And if I'm going to design anything usefull with it, that thing is going to operate at about 1/10th of the cut-off frequency (Ft).

    This ain't about 110 GHz CPUs.

    This is about Op Amps and Phase Lock Loops.

    I know that Circuits 101 was a long ti
    • hm, your "bedside manner" when dealing with IT, S/W and digital folks needs some refinement.

      Oh, and BTW, if you think you are doing op-amps at these frequencies, then please go sit in the corner for a 10 minute time-out...

  • ...who reads something like this, and hearkens back to the days when people thought stuff like this would lead to some sort of golden age, and then to hear that it will simply make "better phones and cameras" is kind of disappointing. I know the prior attitude was a lot of idealistic pie-in-the-sky, flying-car, jet-pack, white building, monorail nonsense. Still though. I miss it. Oh... bring back Donald Duck with his doors to the future, and the nuclear powered airplane. Please? For just a moment?

  • by raftpeople ( 844215 ) on Friday August 18, 2006 @01:45AM (#15932609)
    Just a few weeks ago there was an article about IBM in conjunction with Georgia Tech, supercooled reaching 500ghz, room temp was at about 300ghz.

    Hos is this new one a world record at 110ghz?
  • Who reads BBC news for scientific discovery?

    Summary: []
    pdf: Record_fT.pdf []

Loose bits sink chips.