On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Evan Brown wrote:
>
> http://www.eurekalert.com/releases/ibm-scn020200.html
>
> Old-fashioned magic just doesn't seem so impressive these days....
True.... And you ain't seen nothin yet!
>
> On a somewhat different note, I'm curious (quantum incompetent that I am)
> what potential quantum tunneling may have in nanocomm. Web search so far
> found a tunneling based transistor
> http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/tunnel.htm,
[This was a '97 paper]
> but nothing regarding nanocomm.
"Nanocomm" isn't defined as a field by anyone to my knowledge.
> Freitas have anything to say about this? This even a conceivable use?
Robert discusses many various ways for nanobots to communicate
in Nanomedicine. You probably don't want to go to "light" unless
you need to go long distances. If you do, you need waveguides
installed. Mechanical or acoustic are the best communications
methods in your body.
> Am I barking up the wrong quantum effect?
Quantum tunneling transistors get their shot when we are up against
the heat dissipation limits. There's probably too much intertia
with the current technology for them to make inroads until we hit
some fundamental limits. Its the Gallium Arsinide story all over
again. (GaAs always gets touted as the next big trend in semiconductors
but historically its always been a bridesmaid, never a bride).
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:16 MDT