Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Shark Hardware

Scientists Build Three Atom Thick LEDs 54

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the smaller-better-faster dept.
minty3 tipped us to news that UW researchers have built the thinnest LEDs yet: a mere three atoms thick. Quoting El Reg: "Team leader Xiaodong Xu, a UW assistant professor in physics and materials science and engineering, and his graduate student Ross, have published the technique in the latest issue of Nature Nanotechnology. They report that the LEDs are small and powerful enough to be used in optical chips that use light instead of electricity to shuttle signals and data through a processor, or they could be stacked to make new thin and flexible displays."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Build Three Atom Thick LEDs

Comments Filter:
  • Insulation... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Miamicanes (730264) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @12:45AM (#46452373)

    And how many atoms thick does the insulating layer between adjacent photosensitive or photoemitting structures need to be to prevent light emitted by one pair's LED from unduly influencing the state of an adjacent photodiode/phototransistor?

    What, exactly, is the benefit of building a chip whose internal connections are basically all optoisolators?

  • Re:Insulation... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @02:53AM (#46452701)

    He is just making a couple of questions. I don't see him shitting on other people's work(whether this was his intention or not, IDK). Your too fast in to jump in conclusions. If I had an account and mod points you'd definitely get a "flamebait" -1 mod.

  • Re:Insulation... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by artor3 (1344997) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @04:07AM (#46452867)

    No, he's not asking questions, he's making insinuations. Like clockwork, in every single discussion on some new technology, there will always be at least one jackass trying to seem smart by suggesting that those idiot scientists missed something important. Every. Single. Time.

    Functional sub-nanometer LED? Pfft. No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

  • by Alomex (148003) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @04:08AM (#46452869) Homepage

    Not to mention University of Warwick, University of Wales, University of Worcested and University of Warsaw all of which use UW to various degrees.

  • Re:Insulation... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fisted (2295862) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @07:11AM (#46453341)
    What the hell, dude, his question is very justified if you even just briefly think about it.
  • Re:Insulation... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thevirtualcat (1071504) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @10:26AM (#46454383)

    As other people have said, the advantage is speed.

    Of course nobody is expecting this tech to replace silicon based chips anytime soon. There's obviously a lot of R&D to be done and, let's face it, nothing may EVER come of it. That's just how science is. We don't know in advance what theories and tech will pan out.

    As for leakage between structures? I'm willing to bet we don't need perfect isolation. Just enough isolation that the interference is predictable. (Much like electrons in silicon...)

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."