Talk:Nanoelectronics

Definition
This article seems to assume that the term only refers to exotic materials and devices e.g. SETs, CNTs, Molecular electronics. It even opens up with the bizarre statement that the 22 nm node is not "nanoelectronics", because apparently it doesn't involve quantum mechanics. This would certainly be news to the researchers at Intel or IBM. Even if this was standard usage in the past, it's surely been hijacked by now (for good reason). A google search reveals that research on MOSFETs in modern technology nodes is often referred to as nanoelectronics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.226.59 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - need clearer definition(s) with sources. Maybe it has different meanings in different contexts. What does it exclude ? (could almost change it to a disambiguation between molecular/mechanical/MOSFET nodes below XX nm etc ) - from the name presumably there is a size range, and there must be some 'electronics' - Rod57 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Nanoelectronics navbox
I'm designing a navbox for nanoelectronics, but I'd like to get some feedback on what the proper organization of all the subarticles should be. Wikipedia's coverage of nanoelectronics topics is kinda sparse at the moment, so it's hard to get a sense of what needs to be included in a navbox. Antony-22 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are no comments, I will place the navboxes. Antony-22 (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nanoantennae
Strangely no mention of this topic anywhere in the Nanotech/NanoElectronics pages. There is an island wiki entry Nanoantenna which is just starting to branch into photonic computing. Note especially ref 4 in that article Perhaps both the internal article and the external ref should be brought into the Nanotech/NanoElectronics fold somewhere?

I have also posted this comment on the top Nanotech page as I don't understand the boundaries, and it may be that the Nanoantenna topic has a place in both - as a material in Nanotech and as a photonic tool here. (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental concepts section needs to be restructured/moved
The Fundamental Concepts section in many places reads more like a criticism of nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing in general, rather than a basic overview of nanoelectronics. It should be cut down to specifically nanoelectronic notions and moved to a criticism section. Some of the material could possibly be included in other articles as well.

In addition, it needs sources. I believe Eric Drexler answered some of the objections it mentions in his debate with Richard Smalley in Scientific American a few years back. It could be brought up to date. 97.119.189.229 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, currently very unbalanced - majority about mechanical problems which seems not electronic. - Rod57 (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I second that. The "Mechanical issues" section needs to be changed or removed. It has a strong anti diamondoid nanosystems vibe and is citing no relevant sources. That beside being not about nanoelectronics.
 * The discussion jumps to concluding infeasibility of diamondoid nanosystems from the scaling law for bearing-surface-area (that is: halving bearing sizes doubles total bearing area for the same total volume of machinery) while missing/overlooking other scaling laws that act opposingly and are reducing friction losses by orders of magnitude. Specifically missed is:
 * how machine-thoughput-density scales with size (halving machinery-size doubles system-throughput-per-system-volume given speeds and total-system-volume are kept constant)
 * how dynamic nanoscale friction scales scales with speed (halving the speed quarters friction)
 * Furthermore the section misses qualitative changes across scales like …
 * that "selling" machinery-speed for "buying" amount-of-machinery while keeping total-system-throughput constant paradoxically still gives a drop in friction losses despite increasing bearing-surface-area as the quadratic dropping of friction losses from speed-drop wins out against linear rising of friction losses from surface-area-rise.
 * that the presence of suberlubricity (A) reduces friction by a lot and (B) avoids the (for MEMS typical) stiction problems
 * Relating to the "surface tension problem" as mentioned in the section, missed is …
 * that parts (& atoms) sticking to pick-n-place end-effectors (& mechanochemistry tools) will equally stick to the place they shall be put to, so it is just a matter of designing for force balancing and energy recuperation, more "slippers" than grippers as end-effectors
 * that VdW-forces/LD-forces are actually useful in that they replace the missing relevance of gravity, similar to how magnets are useful for assembly at the macroscale
 * Finally the section without basis semi-implicitely claims that diamondoid namomachinery is about naive reproductions of macroscopic machines when there is non-naive technical analysis including but not limited to:
 * Hogg, Tad; Moses, Matthew S.; Allis, Damian G. (2017). "Evaluating the friction of rotary joints in molecular machines." Molecular Systems Design & Engineering, 2(3), 235-252. DOI:10.1039/C7ME00021A
 * Drexler, K. Eric (1991). "Molecular machinery and manufacturing with applications to computation." Thesis (Ph.D.)—Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Architecture. Advisor: Marvin L. Minsky. Includes bibliographical references (pp. 469-487). URI
 * The latter one is proposing slow nanomachinery operation speeds of ~1 to 5 mm/s (~1MHz frequencies) as a result of insights from scaling laws still giving viable throughput productive nanosystems (as eventual development target). Misleadingly molecular dynamics simulations are typically done at >100m/s (~10^5 times faster). That's due to the simulation time-steps needing to be shorter than thermal oscillation periods with thermal speeds being near the speed of sound. I'll digress no further.
 * Login Mechadense (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a POV-section template to the "Mechanical issues" section. Will leave the editing to others as I could be called biased too.
 * Login Mechadense (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Viability of nanotransistors
This article has the following quote "In 1999, the CMOS transistor developed at the Laboratory for Electronics and Information Technology in Grenoble, France, tested the limits of the principles of the MOSFET transistor with a diameter of 18 nm ... Today it would be impossible to master the coordinated assembly of a large number of these transistors on a circuit and it would also be impossible to create this on an industrial level." However, another Wikipedia article says that smaller nanotransistors are commercially available. - [Nov 2015]