Intel says it has created the world's fastest silicon transistors, tiny switches that work 1000 time faster that those that power today's computers.
The technology also shrinks the devices making room for about 25 times more transistors than are packed in today's top-of-the-line Pentium 4. The transistors would not be incorporated into processors until 2007.
Transistors are at the heart of all modern computers. The opening and closing of their switches are the basis of all computations inside a microprocessor.

Where's this news from? ..

Ok, i think i've found it, intel.com of course. (http://intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20010611tech.htm?iid=update+010611&)

Wow, I wonder what they will do with the increased heat from all the extra transistors.

At those geometries the power requirements will also be much less. I doubt heat will be a problem.

I suspect their estimate for manufacturability of this process is off by a few years as well.

-t

They mention that eventually they will run at less than one volt. Wow, there is a 0.7 volt drop across a transistor. This is a physical law, so I can't see them being able to change it.

Dont you think by 2007 this technology will be obsolete?

Or maybe at this point in time thier new discovery is just all theroretical....

It's not theoretical, it's actually been built in the lab. This by itself takes if from theory to fact.

It's just not currently manufacturable.

-t

By 2007, they can have something that will work at the speed of light and be very low cost. This doesn't use the same technology that's simply more advanced and faster -- but an entirely other technology that can't have anything produce faster processing. This, of course, is just a theory, but is just as reasonable and workable. Apparently this idea just hasn't occured to people, or they simply don't have an idea how to make it work. Look for information about this in the next year.

Originally posted by Racin' Rob
They mention that eventually they will run at less than one volt. Wow, there is a 0.7 volt drop across a transistor. This is a physical law, so I can't see them being able to change it.

I missed this one the first time.

Using Silicon-Germanium this threshold voltage is dropped to 0.3v.

-t

I recall the quote from Mission to Mars, only really good part i can remeber.

"To stand on Mars for the first time, and look at the next planet"

We will be head in the tech race soon enough, and The Matrix will soon come true boys.

Tim,
What exactly are you referring to when you say :

By 2007, they can have something that will work at the speed of light

Electricity does travel at the speed of light..

The difficulty is the smaller the chip, the more they pack in, the harder it is to keep the circut lines isolated. IOW, keep the electrons from jumping the circut to the next circut.

Originally posted by SBHCOM
Tim,
What exactly are you referring to when you say :


By 2007, they can have something that will work at the speed of light

Electricity does travel at the speed of light..

Yes, (*in theory and) ideally it does. However in a circuit board there is capacitance and inductance and therefore resistance and delays and it's not truly to that point. Uh, Hopper, who? :-)

* I didn't realize I omitted that previously.

Originally posted by Racin' Rob
Wow, I wonder what they will do with the increased heat from all the extra transistors.

Or maybe it's possible that new cooling technologies will be required just to avoid burning the new chip out. Water simply isn't a good coolant for this matter.

Originally posted by SBHCOM

Electricity does travel at the speed of light..

A very common misconception :) Any particles with mass would never travel at the speed of light. Electrons (as electricity carriers) have very little mass (not to mention ions), thus they would never travels at the speed of light since then the energy needed to move these electrons (even one of them) would be infinite (Enistein's special theory of relativity). On the other hand, electric field may travels at the speed of light, but electricity and electric field are two completely different things.

Quite in the contrary to what most people think, electricity moving in a wire travels very-very slowly (resistance is one way to measure this). The following article would be helpful ... http://members.aol.com/PhysicsDad/topics/electricity.html

cheers,
:beer:

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Yes, ideally it does.

what is this ideal case? Even in vacuum, electron does not travel at the speed of light ... It can only get really close to travelling at the speed of light, but no way an electron would travel at the speed of light :)

cheers,
:beer:

Originally posted by PBoy
Water simply isn't a good coolant for this matter.

How about Liguid Nitrogen as a coolant whose temperature is around 77 degrees Kelvin. Wait ... even better... how about liguid helium with temperature around 4 degrees Kelvin? (comparison: water at room temperature is around 300 degrees Kelvin) :)

Would those be good enough coolant? :D

cheers,
:beer:

There is another interesting effect that you can design into doped silicon semiconductors. You can actually speed them up at higher temperatures - by design. We have chips that actually run faster, and better, when they heat up. Interesting stuff semiconductor device physics.

-t

Originally posted by dektong


How about Liguid Nitrogen as a coolant whose temperature is around 77 degrees Kelvin. Wait ... even better... how about liguid helium with temperature around 4 degrees Kelvin? (comparison: water at room temperature is around 300 degrees Kelvin) :)

Would those be good enough coolant? :D

cheers,
:beer:

Bah! Old technology! *l* Magnesium diboride was discovered to reach nearly Tc=40 K in Jan. 2001.

Originally posted by dektong


what is this ideal case? Even in vacuum, electron does not travel at the speed of light ... It can only get really close to travelling at the speed of light, but no way an electron would travel at the speed of light :)

cheers,
:beer:

In theory, in it's ideal state, electricity travels at the speed of light (or one foot every nanosecond) -- assuming there's no resistance, as I described above. There's also controlled and uncontrolled surges. Carbon blocks burn up before there's a proper reaction. Gas tubes are faster, but they are uncontrollable and can surge far beyond the limits. Solid State is supposed to react as fast as electricity can travel, at it's very limit and is far more controlled. It's supposed to travel, I believe, at about 186,000 miles / second across wires (or 1,000,000,000 ft/s) and travel a foot in 0.000,000,001 s or 1.0 nanosecond. Carbon Blocks are supposed to be about 5,000-10,000 nanoseconds, Gas tubes at 4,000-5,000 nanoseconds, and Solid State at about 2-5 nanoseconds. The speed of light still can't really be measured anyway, but we can meaure electrictity, so that tells us something, although it's agreed by many that the speed of light is supposed to be somewhere around 299,792.458 km/s.

Originally posted by Tim_Greer


Bah! Old technology! *l* Magnesium diboride was discovered to reach nearly Tc=40 K in Jan. 2001.

Errr... I don't get the point .... So, what does that mean? :) I was talking about cooling mechanism (and of course, Liguid Nirogen and Liquid Helium cooling has been know for a long time -> old technology, yes, definitely) and you raise something about superconductor (MgB2)? What does these two have anything to do with each other? :)

Besides, when we speak about superconductor, we want the highest (not lowest) Tc available. The whole research in this field is to get High Temperature Superconductor (if possible at room temperature, 300K ... even at around 200K will be a great breakthrough!). The highest Tc achieved at ambient pressure is around 138K (http://www.superconductors.org/type2.htm). Of course, this number is bigger under higher pressure...

Although I don't see the relationship between what I was talking about (cooling mechanism) and what you are talking about (high Tc superconductor, though that number is considered obsolete already :) ), superconductor is really interesting in itself. Wonder how the world would be if one day room temperature superconductor is achieved! A total techonology revolution?

cheers,
:beer:

Originally posted by thewitt
It's not theoretical, it's actually been built in the lab. This by itself takes if from theory to fact.

It's just not currently manufacturable.

-t

if they can't manufacture it, how did they make the first one to know it worked? :D

Originally posted by Tim_Greer


In theory, in it's ideal state, electricity travels at the speed of light (or one foot every nanosecond) --


pardon my ignorance, but I have never really read anything about this! Any reference to it would be valuable for me, indeed! Even photon (light) in a medium does not travel at the speed of light in vacuum! And as I said, electrons in vacuum can't travel at the speed of light (only massless particle can travel at the speed of light), so I would be really surprised to know if electricity does indeed travel at the speed of light! :)

assuming there's no resistance
Yea.. I want to know this more... at vacuum (where there is no resistance -> resistance in electricity is just colisions between particles) electrons does not travel at the speed of light (CMIIW) ... Besides, if resistance is what determines how fast an electron (hence, electricity) moves, then ... if there is no resistance, why can't electricity travel faster than the speed of light? :)

Cheers,
:beer:

Originally posted by dektong

Errr... I don't get the point .... So, what does that mean? :) I was talking about cooling mechanism (and of course, Liguid Nirogen and Liquid Helium cooling has been know for a long time -> old technology, yes, definitely) and you raise something about superconductor (MgB2)? What does these two have anything to do with each other? :)

It was a joke...

Originally posted by dektong

pardon my ignorance, but I have never really read anything about this! Any reference to it would be valuable for me, indeed! Even photon (light) in a medium does not travel at the speed of light in vacuum! And as I said, electrons in vacuum can't travel at the speed of light (only massless particle can travel at the speed of light), so I would be really surprised to know if electricity does indeed travel at the speed of light! :)


Weird, I don't know why when I reply w/ quoting, it never embeds the previous quote as well -- or even the text.. something wrong with WHT?

Anyway, I didn't say it does travel the speed of light and I don't agree that it can or will -- hence my original post in this thread and why it's superior. I was simply saying, that in theory, it could. Do you disagree of have other information stating that electricity doesn't travel one foot in a nanosecond (a billionth of a second)? If not, and the speed of light is theorized to be around 299,792.458 km/s, then they are pretty close. Being, a foot a nonosecond equals 186,000 miles a second, and the speed of light being at 299,792.458 km/s (speed of light = 299,792.458 being about 186,23x? miles a second and the speed of electricity being 186,000 miles a second (or at approximately 299,330 kilometres per second).) Perhaps I'm wrong about the numbers or I'm tired and my math is off?

If you're talking about drift velocity of electrons, then it's very slow, as I'm sure you'll agree. But what kind of electricity (energy) are we talking about? Are we talking about llectromagnetic fields (radio waves, light)? -- yes, Photon's indeed. The frequency spectrum is lower frequency, but is the same as radio waves and light (what is it? 60Hz?). We're talking about travelling around the wires, not within them. High-frequency electricity is theorized (or said to be) the same as light. It's said to move at the speed of light (in 60Hz frequency along the outside of the wires). Are we talking about coversion? After it's converted into other energy? Electricity comes in higher frequencies as well -- we call them radio waves. You are looking at it as a mass, as matter, almost (or definite) visible. There's many definitations, but the most valid to this discussion is the one that we know of and what it does and the speed it travels at. Maybe I'm confused here. :-)

Originally posted by rastoma


if they can't manufacture it, how did they make the first one to know it worked? :D

Creating one in the lab is generally much easier than building them in a manufacturing environment.

The first 1ghz processors were running in the lab more than 6 years ago - and they are only now being manufactured with yields that are acceptable.

Lab techniques are rarely applicable to production :).

-t

Originally posted by Tim_Greer

If you're talking about drift velocity of electrons, then it's very slow, as I'm sure you'll agree. But what kind of electricity (energy) are we talking about? Are we talking about llectromagnetic fields (radio waves, light)? -- yes, Photon's indeed. The frequency spectrum is lower frequency, but is the same as radio waves and light (what is it? 60Hz?). We're talking about travelling around the wires, not within them. High-frequency electricity is theorized (or said to be) the same as light. It's said to move at the speed of light (in 60Hz frequency along the outside of the wires). Are we talking about coversion? After it's converted into other energy? Electricity comes in higher frequencies as well -- we call them radio waves. You are looking at it as a mass, as matter, almost (or definite) visible. There's many definitations, but the most valid to this discussion is the one that we know of and what it does and the speed it travels at. Maybe I'm confused here. :-)

Err... OK, I won't talk more since the term "electricity" itself is ill-defined and the above paragraph is the easy example of what happened when we confuse the word "electricity" ... Electricity as a flow of currents? Electricity as Electric field (electromagnetic field)? Electricity as flow of energy? Higher and lower frequency of electricity? Dang, these are all messed up... no wonder, since the term electricity itself is actuall ill-defined.... what do you mean by "electricity"? Since we have started talking about "the speed electricity travels", "Resistance", etc ... I take it you mean electricity as the flow of charged particles (positive or negative charge) inside a medium, right? I.e. we all wonder how long does it take a charged particle to move in a circuit (or any medium) from point A to point B? The answer, can't be the speed of light ... :)

If electric current is not what you meant, I am not sure why would you talk about resistance at all (Resistance to what?) ....

And as far as this definition (electricity as an ill-defined term for electric current, which is just flow of charge particles) goes, I will stand on my foot saying that any non-zero mass particle can/will never travel at the speed of light (in vacuum); it's simply prohibited my Einstein's special relativity, even in it's most ideal case ... flow of charge particle in a perfect vacuum :)

I think it's really confusing when people start talking about electricity. Yes, probably we all are confused. I found the following article is helpful to avoid misconceptions/confusions ... http://www.amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html .

Until we define what we mean by electricty (electric current? electric energy? electric field?), I think we should not have tried to talk it much ... :)

cheers,
:beer:

PS: I re-read the paragraph above, and I can't understand what you really want to say :) You seem to have confused electricity with so many different things in just one paragraph, that I am really just lost :)

Originally posted by thewitt


Creating one in the lab is generally much easier than building them in a manufacturing environment.

The first 1ghz processors were running in the lab more than 6 years ago - and they are only now being manufactured with yields that are acceptable.

Lab techniques are rarely applicable to production :).

-t

wow, that could mean that someone is already at Mars! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by klisis


wow, that could mean that someone is already at Mars! :rolleyes:

Yeah, but only in the lab :cool:

Originally posted by dektong

[SNIP]

PS: I re-read the paragraph above, and I can't understand what you really want to say :) You seem to have confused electricity with so many different things in just one paragraph, that I am really just lost :) [/B]


I was simply posting some basic information about some of the theories about the travelling speed, etc. Not only are most definitions seemingly incorrect and/or weak, but they often (and specifically) contradict the other. Of course it matters what and how we are talking about. I wasn't confused about what I was saying, and again, from the beginning, I stated what I did due to it not being the same speed -- just simply saying that it's said to travel at the same speed (or very close) as light. I made an effort to explain how/why that is said, I didn't meant to confuse anyone or the newly formed subject. Cheers!

[Edit: Interestingly enough, I decided to follow the link you posted anyway, and it basically said what we've both just said in our last few posts. I think it's too confused.]

Originally posted by Tim_Greer

I wasn't confused about what I was saying, and again, from the beginning, I stated what I did due to it not being the same speed -- just simply saying that it's said to travel at the same speed (or very close) as light. I made an effort to explain how/why that is said, I didn't meant to confuse anyone or the newly formed subject. Cheers!


whatever you say, Tim :) Your comments on this subject show clearly how confused you are, yet you do not want to admit ;). I can elaborate more, but I won't. At least not here. Probably I will just email you directly, that if you are willing to learn :)

cheers,
:beer:

2+2=5

<sigh> I guess I'll have to settle with being lucky, cuz I not smart enough for this thread....:bawling:

Originally posted by dektong


whatever you say, Tim :) Your comments on this subject show clearly how confused you are, yet you do not want to admit ;). I can elaborate more, but I won't. At least not here. Probably I will just email you directly, that if you are willing to learn :)

cheers,
:beer:

I guess as long as you put in those smiley faces, it's not intended to be as insulting. Anyway, I think you were just confused about what I meant. I never stated or insinuated that the different examples I gave were all the same or had to do with the other -- I was simply and only and specifically giving different examples of why it was theorized. I also said that yes, they were different things, some of them contradict the other, but just as an example of why it's said to travel at certain speeds. This didn't reflect my personal opinion, because if it did, I'd not have said that light travels faster -- and I think my initial statement in response to another poster was "Yes, in _theory_". In some people's "theory" we don't really even exist.

As for any of the other things, less the joking, of course, was simply posts about different theories and in different subjects of the travelling speed. I guess I simply wasn't clear about that. This isn't me not admitting anything, I've never claimed to be an expert in the field of electricity (if you can call it that), and I had only said that "in theory" and tried to elaborate. I'm not making an excuse either, simply (as I find myself doing sometimes) explaining why and how I was explaining. Thanks for the post though.................................

whatever you say, Tim ;)

cheers and peace,
:beer:

Originally posted by dektong
whatever you say, Tim ;)

cheers and peace,
:beer:

Enough of this already. You wish to only believe one thing, even when I've clearly stated that this is not my theory or one I believe, other than to clearly state why other people (and it's said to be) believe this. Take your issue up with them and keep the petty insults and snide remarks to yourself, because this is all based on you being confused as to what I said, why and about what. Until you recognize this, these remarks and ramblings to try and show me how your knowledge is superior in thie field, are pointless and foolish. I don't know where this came from or why, but your reasons are incorrect as to why you are going on and on about this in the manner in which you have. I've told you in a private discussion on ICQ (which you contacted me through) that I have no interest in this, I never claimed to know anything more than you in this field and that all this incorrect and contradictive postings were simply (perhaps poorly) trying to explain why this theory is said to be -- not because I believe those reasons are accurate, or true, but why they are said to be.

Whatever you conclude beyond that, I can only find suspect and a little off the wall. If you just like getting pissed off and challenging what people say, believe and do, maybe you should at least make an attempt to know them, about them or read what they actually said -- or, alternatively, you can just get into a ring with them and go to battle. Either way, this is completely uninteresting and a total bore. If you can see my posts for what they are (not me claiming any of those things or believing this theory to be sound), then maybe we can actually be a little more civil about this and keep it on topic to the theory or the subject, instead of some sarcastic rant like some jerk with a problem. "Whatever", indeed, dektong.

Back to the origninal issue ...

I wonder ... We can have very fast CPU (thousands of Ghz), but I think the progress in CPU is much ahead than the progress in other parts, especially hard drives ... Typical hard drive access is in milli seconds ... memory access/motherboard bus speed is in tens of nano seconds (100 Mhz bus)... CPU clock cycle is in hundreds of pico seconds (1.7 Ghz) ... Dang... we need to have a much faster hard drives (solid state hard drives are around 100 times faster than ordinary hard drives) and probably even faster!

cheers,
:beer: