/* ---- Google Analytics Code Below */
Showing posts with label Semiconductor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Semiconductor. Show all posts

Monday, July 03, 2023

BBCube 3D: A Breakthrough in Semiconductor Integration, Data Transmission

BBCube 3D: A Breakthrough in Semiconductor Integration, Data Transmission

Tokyo Tech News (Japan)

June 29, 2023

The Bumpless Build Cube 3D (BBCube3D) technology designed by scientists at Japan's Tokyo Institute of Technology (Tokyo Tech) and tech developer Hitachi could potentially improve the three-dimensional integration of processing units (PUs) and memory chips. The researchers facilitated 3D connectivity between PUs and dynamic random access memory (DRAM) by stacking PU dies atop multiple DRAM layers interconnected by through-silicon vias (TSVs). BBCube 3D owes its improved electrical performance to low parasitic capacitance and resistance to the TSVs, overall compactness, and the absence of solder microbumps. Tokyo Tech's Takayuki Ohba said the technology "has the potential to achieve a bandwidth of 1.6 terabytes per second, which is 30 times higher than DDR5 [Double Data Rate 5 Synchronous DRAM] and four times higher than HBM2E [High Bandwidth Memory 2E]."

Friday, December 23, 2022

On How Not to Win a Tech Ware

Thoughtful points, more at the link

From ACM DEPARTMENTS

How Not to Win a Tech War      By Moshe Y. Vardi

Communications of the ACM, January 2023, Vol. 66 No. 1, Page 7   10.1145/3571077

CACM Senior Editor Moshe Y. Vardi

A paradox: for the U.S. to compete with China, the U.S. is using Chinese talent. But let's start from the beginning. In May 2022, I predicted a "tech war" between the U.S. and China. "If computing technology is viewed as strategic technology," I wrote, "then we may have to say goodbye to the research world in which we openly collaborated and openly published." The tech war has come faster than I personally would have predicted.

In early August 2022, the U.S. authorized USD280B in taxpayer money to subsidize American computer-chip companies and invest in technology research for the sake of "keeping America strong and innovative." Following that, in early October 2022, the U.S. imposed limits on semi-conductor exports to China, aimed at limiting China's ability to make advanced semiconductors. The White House issued sweeping restrictions on selling semiconductors and chip-making equipment to China, in an attempt to curb the country's access to critical technologies.

Critics have questioned both legs of this strategy. On one hand, an investment of USD52B is considered relatively small, considering that a single major Taiwanese semiconductor manufacturer—TSMC—announced in 2022 new capital investments of more than USD40B. On the other hand, China has been a major market for the U.S. tech industry, and the growing separation between American and Chinese tech markets will also hurt U.S. companies.

But tech wars are ultimately won by innovation, which requires both financial and human capital. The U.S. benefited tremendously by being a magnet for worldwide talent. According to the 2021 Taulbee Surveyb of the Computing Research Association, approximately 65% of doctoral students in computing in North America are international students. My estimate is that this pool of international students is dominated by Chinese students. My own research program has been greatly enriched by my Chinese students. This means the technological competition with China is aided, to a significant degree, by Chinese students. Hence, the opening sentence of this column.

But while American universities are still eager to attract Chinese talent, several U.S. actions imply otherwise. In 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice launched the "China Initiative," reflecting the strategic priority of the U.S. in "countering Chinese national security threats." Yet several prosecution cases under the China Initiative have ended in acquittals. Chinese-origin and Chinese-descent scientists and students studying and working in the U.S. bore and continue to bear the brunt of the suspicion. A September 2022c report by the Asian-American Scholars Forum (AASF) pointed out that feeling the pressure of potential federal investigations since the launch of the China Initiative, Chinese-origin scientists in the U.S. now face higher incentives to leave the U.S. and lower incentives to apply for federal grants. Furthermore, it has recently been reportedd that the number of new Chinese students at U.S. colleges has plummeted from pre-pandemic levels.

A week after the AASF report was published, the U.S. National Academies issued a report entitled "Protecting U.S. Technological Advantage." The main point of that report is that maintaining U.S. global leadership in science and technology requires a greater focus on strengthening innovation, and not solely on restricting access to specific technologies, calling on the U.S. to strive to maximize the amount of work that can be appropriately performed in an open research environment.

The National Academies' report also called on the U.S. to develop policies and programs aimed at developing domestic research talent. But the domestic doctoral talent pipeline has been shriveling for decades. In the mid-1990s, David Goodstein, a CalTech physicist, wrote in a blog: "The best American students have proved their superior abilities by reading the handwriting on the wall and going into other lines of work instead of choosing graduate school … The humming machinery kept right on going, fed by ore imported from across the oceans … Foreign graduate students have, temporarily at least, rescued our way of life."  ... ' 

Saturday, November 26, 2022

How the First Transistor Worked

 How far we have come.

HOW THE FIRST TRANSISTOR WORKED

Even its inventors didn’t fully understand the point-contact transistor

By GLENN ZORPETTE in Spectrum.ieee   20 NOV 2022 12 MIN READ

A photo of an outstretched hand with several transistors in the palm of it.  

A 1955 AT&T publicity photo shows [in palm, from left] a phototransistor, a junction transistor, and a point-contact transistor. AT&T ARCHIVES AND HISTORY CENTER

THE VACUUM-TUBE TRIODE wasn’t quite 20 years old when physicists began trying to create its successor, and the stakes were huge. Not only had the triode made long-distance telephony and movie sound possible, it was driving the entire enterprise of commercial radio, an industry worth more than a billion dollars in 1929. But vacuum tubes were power-hungry and fragile. If a more rugged, reliable, and efficient alternative to the triode could be found, the rewards would be immense.

The goal was a three-terminal device made out of semiconductors that would accept a low-current signal into an input terminal and use it to control the flow of a larger current flowing between two other terminals, thereby amplifying the original signal. The underlying principle of such a device would be something called the field effect—the ability of electric fields to modulate the electrical conductivity of semiconductor materials. The field effect was already well known in those days, thanks to diodes and related research on semiconductors.

A photo of a cutaway of a point-contact of a transistor.  In the cutaway photo of a point-contact, two thin conductors are visible; these connect to the points that make contact with a tiny slab of germanium. One of these points is the emitter and the other is the collector. A third contact, the base, is attached to the reverse side of the germanium.AT&T ARCHIVES AND HISTORY CENTER

But building such a device had proved an insurmountable challenge to some of the world’s top physicists for more than two decades. Patents for transistor-like devices had been filed starting in 1925, but the first recorded instance of a working transistor was the legendary point-contact device built at AT&T Bell Telephone Laboratories in the fall of 1947.

Though the point-contact transistor was the most important invention of the 20th century, there exists, surprisingly, no clear, complete, and authoritative account of how the thing actually worked. Modern, more robust junction and planar transistors rely on the physics in the bulk of a semiconductor, rather than the surface effects exploited in the first transistor. And relatively little attention has been paid to this gap in scholarship.

It was an ungainly looking assemblage of germanium, plastic, and gold foil, all topped by a squiggly spring. Its inventors were a soft-spoken Midwestern theoretician, John Bardeen, and a voluble and “ somewhat volatile” experimentalist, Walter Brattain. Both were working under William Shockley, a relationship that would later prove contentious. In November 1947, Bardeen and Brattain were stymied by a simple problem. In the germanium semiconductor they were using, a surface layer of electrons seemed to be blocking an applied electric field, preventing it from penetrating the semiconductor and modulating the flow of current. No modulation, no signal amplification.

Sometime late in 1947 they hit on a solution. It featured two pieces of barely separated gold foil gently pushed by that squiggly spring into the surface of a small slab of germanium.

Textbooks and popular accounts alike tend to ignore the mechanism of the point-contact transistor in favor of explaining how its more recent descendants operate. Indeed, the current edition of that bible of undergraduate EEs, The Art of Electronics by Horowitz and Hill, makes no mention of the point-contact transistor at all, glossing over its existence by erroneously stating that the junction transistor was a “Nobel Prize-winning invention in 1947.” But the transistor that was invented in 1947 was the point-contact; the junction transistor was invented by Shockley in 1948.

So it seems appropriate somehow that the most comprehensive explanation of the point-contact transistor is contained within John Bardeen’s lecture for that Nobel Prize, in 1956. Even so, reading it gives you the sense that a few fine details probably eluded even the inventors themselves. “A lot of people were confused by the point-contact transistor,” says Thomas Misa, former director of the Charles Babbage Institute for the History of Science and Technology, at the University of Minnesota.

Textbooks and popular accounts alike tend to ignore the mechanism of the point-contact transistor in favor of explaining how its more recent descendants operate.

A year after Bardeen’s lecture, R. D. Middlebrook, a professor of electrical engineering at Caltech who would go on to do pioneering work in power electronics, wrote: “Because of the three-dimensional nature of the device, theoretical analysis is difficult and the internal operation is, in fact, not yet completely understood.”

Nevertheless, and with the benefit of 75 years of semiconductor theory, here we go. The point-contact transistor was built around a thumb-size slab of n-type germanium, which has an excess of negatively charged electrons. This slab was treated to produce a very thin surface layer that was p-type, meaning it had an excess of positive charges. These positive charges are known as holes. They are actually localized deficiencies of electrons that move among the atoms of the semiconductor very much as a real particle would. An electrically grounded electrode was attached to the bottom of this slab, creating the base of the transistor. The two strips of gold foil touching the surface formed two more electrodes, known as the emitter and the collector.  ...  '

Thursday, September 29, 2022

NSF Announces $10-million Partnership with Intel

 Watching the building of semiconductor resources, will ultimately be crucial.

NSF Announces $10-million Partnership with Intel

By Mirage News, September 8, 2022

Today, the U.S. National Science Foundation announced a new program with Intel Corporation to educate and train the nation's semiconductor manufacturing workforce and advance opportunities for equitable science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Following the historic passage of the "CHIPS and Science Act," Intel and NSF will invest $10 million to provide funding to support the development of a high-quality manufacturing workforce at all levels of production and innovation as described in a new Dear Colleague Letter, or DCL.

A nationwide shortage in semiconductors, complicated by the global pandemic, has made it difficult for the chip industry to meet the increasing demand for chip-based products. And while that demand is high in the U.S., only about 10% of the global supply of chips is produced nationally. Awards made through this DCL will help tackle this problem by supporting the education and training of the semiconductor manufacturing workforce in the U.S.

"We are thrilled to continue our partnership with Intel to support research and workforce development to advance semiconductor design and manufacturing," said NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan. "It's not just about chips – it's about unlocking investments in America's science and technology research, STEM education and workforce. This collaboration presents a remarkable opportunity for students entering this field."

From Mirage News

View Full Article    

Wednesday, August 03, 2022

Chips Act Explained

 Seems a weak and expensive move. 

The CHIPS Act and Industrial Policy, Explained

By The Week,  August 2, 2022

The United States is going to start making more of its own electronics, and taxpayers are going to pick up a good chunk of the tab.

Congress has passed the CHIPS Act, a bill that devotes billions of dollars to the research and manufacture of semiconductor chips used in "the nation's smartphones, cars, computers, medical equipment, and weapons systems," Barbara Sprunt reports for NPR. The bill had support from both Democrats and Republicans, who say it "will lower U.S. reliance on China for chip manufacturing, which they say poses a national security risk."

In the CHIPS Act — and in the new climate bill backed by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — some observers see the United States drifting from free-market philosophies in favor of "industrial policy," giving the federal government a firmer hand in shaping the American economy. Even a few conservatives are on board. "What we are doing is industrial policy unlike people of my free-market background have done before," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said after the CHIPS Act passed. Is the United States really returning to an era of industrial policy? Why? And how will that shape the nation's future economy?

From The Week

View Full Article