
Super ‘superlattices’ could enable ‘superfast’ transistors - rbanffy
http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/electronics-news/super-superlattices-could-enable-superfast-transistors/170605/
======
splittingTimes
> Such superlattices __are believed to__ hold the prospect of enabling
> improved and new classes of electronic and optoelectronic devices, with
> applications including ‘superfast and ultra-efficient semiconductors’ for
> transistors.

Not to take a way from the accomplishment by the UCLA team. But I know when I
see the good old research funding motivation/validation rethoric. The same
phrasings are used, e.g., by the "topological insulator" community. Before
that by the Graphene community ("lossless electron transport, super-fast
transistor switching") for over a decade now and even earlier, by the quantum
dot community ("single electron transistor").

This lead to next to nothing in term of actual consumer devices or improved
performance of existing technology.

~~~
Brockenstein
Not shilling for any "revolutionary" ideas. Just look at the history of the
transistor, sometimes these developments and implementations take longer than
what's convenient from a users perspective. And one could argue the difference
now too is work done in the first half of the 20th century was relatively low
hanging fruit compared to the limits we're trying to push now. It was a good
twenty years between the first patent for the transistor and a demonstrable
transistor, and then another seven years on top of that before a commercial
implementation.

Ten years is an arbitrary length of time. And these things might lead to
nothing, sure. But...

1\. There's a long road between discovery and implementation and no reliable
length of time that can always be pointed to say "that's how long it takes".

2\. Road blocks and expense in implementation. Some things are just hard and
depend on yet to be discovered or perfected technology to make them viable.

3\. Existing technologies and processes are still sufficient, mature and cost
effective. So we'll use those until the new technology can do it better and
cheaper. We probably won't be using x86 and current technologies forever.

I like to think of an example I probably got from a Carl Sagan book that deals
more with why throwing money at a problem doesn't guarantee results, but it
was an argument for funding all science and discovery because we can't predict
what discoveries will yield. It went something like: The British empire in
1850 could have spent every penny it had to develop television and it would
have failed because it depended on science discoveries yet to be made. It
doesn't mean television wasn't viable or that it was impossible. And no one
could have predicted that some of the things discovered, which probably seemed
inconsequential to the general public and a waste of time and money would help
lead to television decades later.

~~~
ExactoKnight
Peter Thiel has a strong critique of this where he asserts the opposite: that
both governments and science research spending today is too indeterminate.

Governments don't believe in the capacity to make big plans any more, and it's
made it impossible for us to achieve big goals in the last 40 years on the
scale that we used to (like with the moon landing).

Instead... failures are excused with portfolio theory, hundreds of
universities end up doing hundreds of different things, with nobody really
understanding the meaning or connection between any of it. Grant funding is
based more on politics than on merit, and this slows down science, because few
people are simultaneously both good scientists and good politicians.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZM_JmZdqCw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZM_JmZdqCw)

------
overcast
Personally, I'm waiting for Lattice 64.

------
deepnotderp
By "superlattice" are they referring to van der Waals heterostructures?

~~~
splittingTimes
No. You call the regular configuration of atoms of a particular material like
GaAs a lattice.

Now when you start to grow one type of material on top of another in a regular
fashion like layers in a sandwich:

10 nm GaAs 5 nm InAs 10 nm GaAs 5 nm InAs

You get what is called a super lattice. It is not an atomistic lattice, but a
lattice of material type A and B.

~~~
deepnotderp
Got it, so they've figured out how to deal with lattice constant mismatches?

~~~
splittingTimes
Yes they did. That's why you will mostly see combinations of binary materials
like GaAs, InAs, AlAs to form super lattices.

------
grondilu
So, what's the catch?

------
zeofig
I really 'like' the title,

~~~
RegBarclay
It's 'super.'

------
tossandturn
Obligatory reference to ice-nine: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-
nine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-nine)

We're almost there! EDIT: Oh wait, it does exist:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_IX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_IX)

