Really fascinating

Found this in a ZDNet newsletter and although the article is rather small it has some good refs embedded in it. I found the stuff about carbon as a transistor material really riveting reading and could be the answer to a lot of the cooling problems we now face insomuch that operating temps could probably exceed 100C with out internal damage.

Mind you it would still mean I suppose the extra heat would still have to carried away but still that could be with more conventional low tech methods.
http://www.zdnet.com/ibm-packs-10000...12/?s_cid=e539

Good reading. Thanks for posting

IBM is always sneaking around doing neat things. I wonder how diamond power would work.

I don't know Bear I found out this morning thought that carbon is a better conductor of heat than any of the metals so that sort of leads us down yet another path I suppose if the carbon can actually withstand greater temps than say silicon

Q & A: Best heat conductors | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Diamond is carbon.

Layback Bear said:

Diamond is carbon.

Yep I know it is the same as graphite - pure carbon but in a very different molecular structure / matrix.

The point I was trying to make was perhaps a tad ambiguous I was thinking that transistors made out of carbon would or could be run hotter than the usual materials they use in them and that the dissipation of heat would be perhaps a bit more efficient in view of the carbon being better thermally (conductive) speaking than those materials we see now being used.
In my rather scrambled brain that means a far efficient core than would normally be, because you could run them at higher temps without degradation of the chip itself.
I suppose this also leads into how does one get rid of that "extra" heat in that scenario.
My own personal thoughts on that would be to make the chip itself larger than the silicon chips are today. I think a good friend of mine demonstrated that a long time ago in here that the actual silicon chip is only a tiny surface area compared to the heat spreader to which it is in contact with. For example say the heat spreader was 4cm2 the chip is only 1cm2 so in fact one ends up with a disproportional heat dissipation area in a CPU.

Good mourning. I understand. Look what we do today just to cool a small chip. Cooling will always will be a concern. I think it's great that companies have the for-site and are willing to spend the time and money to do such R&D. How some companies are going in the direction of using less power (watts) to get more done with less heat. Using basic materials such as sand and carbon to do such high tech things is mind boggling.

Absolutely Bear I just don't have enough time to read more about this stuff. I do remember a few years ago reading about using organic molecules to form transistors but now being at the atomic levels is just truly fascinating gear.

I am prompted to wonder if it will ever come down to using a say sub atomic particles. But right now with using an atom of just 6 protons - I know someone will pick me up on the isotopes ie the different number of neutrons and frankly I am not clever enough to say much about any changes that would make to the properties of the form of carbon being used. It is interesting though because what say they could get down to using hydrogen as a transistor base the thing would be so small it defies the imagination.

But I think you make a very good point in stating that a great deal of research is being put into this technology to be able to reduce the amount of power required for devices to work. I think that we are perhaps a little guilty of not recognising that fact when we gripe at the cost of the devices we use.