|
|
|
|
|
|
by flashingleds
5227 days ago
|
|
|
It's an issue of definitions. Of course you cannot build an electronic device using only a single atom, because you need leads, interconnects, power supplies, measurement equipment etc.
So when you talk about a single atom transistor, what's meant is that the critical, behaviour determining region of the device is a single atom. If you took that single atom away, you would not have a transistor any more. In much the same way we talk about 32nm transistors in computer chips for example - it's understood that this number refers to the gate length, not your whole processor. |
|
|
No, you would still have a transistor, albeit a non-functioning one, just like you would still have a car if you removed the engine. I appreciate your effort to explain, but your explanation is worded for people similar to those who work in your lab. Definitions should be correct, especially when they are put forth by the NY Times, a news source for the general public. People have already had their expectations raised over "jetpacks for everyone any day now" stories, so it's rather irresponsible to define something new with a name which is obviously false, and which tends to overrepresent, by far, the achievement that the name defines. I actually work with nanotech, but the average reader of the NY Times has little-to-no knowledge of "leads", "interconnects", "power supplies", "measurement equipment", "critical, behaviour-determining regions", "gate length", or even: "transistor".