Summary of thr research paper - Essay Example

Summary of “Intrinsic top-down unmanufacturability” The article en d “Intrinsic top-down unmanufacturability” was written by Kelly and published in Nanotechnology. The author presented concerns that distinguished structures with defined specifications as either manufacturable or unmanufacturable. As such, it was explicitly disclosed that there are some structures accurately identified in nanometers which could be fabricated, but not manufactured. The top-down manufacturing process was identified to be most applicable; but where limits were structurally professed to be imminent and results in unmanufacturability, but were fabrication was deemed possible.

The conceptual framework was specifically disclosed as accurately pinpointing that structures from a supposedly identified array of 3 nanometer diameter vertical pillars, reported on six nanometer pitch can allegedly be fabricated, but clearly classified as unmanufacturable (Kelly, 2011). As expounded: “the assertion is that the resulting array is not able to be reproduced to give electronic or optical properties that are within a narrow range of pre-specified values” (Kelly, 2011, p. 1). Two evidences were apparently provided in two stages, to wit: “(a) the intrinsic variability of the cross section of the pillars and then (b) the implications of this variability on the optical and electronic properties” (Kelly, 2011, p. 1). Kelly explained two ways of making the pillars by either “using metal particle catalyst to grow the pillars or infilling lithographically defined holes in a resist layer” (Kelly, 2011, p. 1). Technical descriptions of expounding on the two processes were provided in detail.

As such, the author disclosed that after justifying that the 3 nanometer (nm) diameter vertical pillars could not be manufactured, there were ten enumerated implications of this outcome, as summarized herewith:(1) The 3 nm diameter vertical pillars could not achieve the required design yield of 2σ;(2) These structural specifications do not meet instrinsic variability which renders them unmanufacturable;(3) There were indicated range levels specifying the appropriate interface which considers a structural specification as either manufacturable or unmanufacturable, which was disclosed to be within the 7 nm design rules;(4) Some structures continue to be undeveloped, even using nanotechnology, due to the reported restriction of intrinsic unmanufacturability;(5) There are still presence of intrinsic unmanufacturability in nanotechnology which proves the continued presence of scientific curiosities;(6) “Arrays of quantum dots, single-electron tunnel junction transistors, split-gate transistors, carbon nanotubes, etc, can always be used for their aggregate or averaged properties, but not as elements in any form of pixelated array” (Kelly, 2011, p. 2); (7) Identification of any precision optical metamaterials less than 5 nanometers were identified to possess the same unmanufacturability facet;(8) “None of these findings preclude the use of such small structures as one-offs subject to individual biasing” (Kelly, 2011, p. 2); (9) Other encompassing elements that signify similar features of manufacturability versus unmanufacturability included electromechanical properties; and(10) Nanotechnology identified more applications for fabrication, as compared to manufacture.

The article was appropriately summed, to wit: “a 6 nm array of 3 nm diameter features isintrinsically unmanufacturable using the most modern tools of microelectronic fabrication, because of the intolerable level of feature-to-feature fluctuations and the inability to address or read out from individual sites on the array” (Kelly, 2011, p. 2).Reference ListKelly, M., 2011. Intrinsic top-down unmanufacturability. Nanotechnology, Volume 22, pp. 1-3.