Researchers create laser light interconnects on silicon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jan Panteltje
  • Start date Start date
(e-mail address removed) schreef:


Well, I was not insulting anyone.
You would not happen to be a Muslim fundamentalist now would you?
They get insulted by a self-inflicting reflective suicide-insult
mechanism.
like this:
http://groups.google.com/group/us.p...c2926c62b6f/98d4e474dd67e280#98d4e474dd67e280
'Moslems Threaten to Massacre Christians Over Claim of Islamic
Violence'

LOL

<thumbs up>Hey man, good point once in a while!</thumbs up> Sure I
want to have nothing in common with Muslim fundamentalists, so much so
that I would not even share the planet with them if only there was any
way to do so other than suicide ;-)

NNN
 
Phil said:
John Bowers of UCSB is a collaborator of mine...we're on the Intra-Chip
Optical Networks (ICON) team in the DARPA UNIQ program. He's a very
smart guy who knows his stuff, and this is a pretty nice piece of work.
However, he's not the one doing all the heavy breathing--it looks like
the Intel hype machine is what's behind that. (Those Intel hype guys
are _good_--better than the technology people, that's for sure.)

The gee-whiz terabit numbers are assuming things like 40 Gb/s per
wavelength, with 50 wavelengths per line, which isn't impossible at all.
The idea is that one 'wire' can pass many full-speed logic signals
simultaneously, which is a big win. You don't need terahertz logic
speeds to do this, which is a good thing since we're not going to have
terahertz logic speeds, ever.

You need a transistor f_max at least 10 times the logic speed, and you
can't make transistors with f_max of 20 THz. This is because the
maximum frequency that signals can propagate in a semiconductor is
proportional to the square root of the carrier density. The same is
true in plasmas, which is why this limit is called the 'plasma
frequency.' You can't dope semiconductors enough to get the plasma
frequency higher than 10-30 THz, so you can't make 20 THz transistors,
so you can't make 2 THz logic out of transistors. Not to mention that
at that speed, the region of the chip you can keep synchronous is about
30 microns square, on optimistic assumptions.

It's very helpful to have optical gain in all-photonic ICs, and these
InP-based devices may turn out to be an important part of the tool kit.
Wire is so much easier to make than these optical gizmos that we have
to have a really amazing advantage in real computer performance before
the chip guys will even talk to us. (I'd feel the same in their shoes.)
Fortunately it looks like we can do that.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs
So you can do dwdm or at least WDM using a single laser? Or is it more
LED? How is the cavity for the laser formed? VCSEL?
 
Del said:
So you can do dwdm or at least WDM using a single laser? Or is it more
LED? How is the cavity for the laser formed? VCSEL?

No, you use add-drop couplers made from resonant rings coupled to the Si
waveguides. You can make modulators that way too--you tune the ring
back and forth across the laser line.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs
 
John said:
There have been many: fiber optics, CDs and DVDs, CCDs and thermal
imagers, semiconductor lasers, laser printers, high-efficiency LEDs
from infrared to ultraviolet. But Intel hypes every obscure gadget as
the Next Big Thing, like their Raman "on-chip silicon laser" that
needs a table-sized external optical pump.

Pasting compound-semi lasers on top of silicon chips is interesting,
worthy of a journal article, but everybody is already declaring it to
be a miracle that will change the world. Unlikely.

I'm referring to the hype about how 'optical computers' will be 1000x as
powerful using 'this new technology' BS.
 
I'm referring to the hype about how 'optical computers' will be 1000x as
powerful using 'this new technology' BS.


"If they can pull it off, it will definitely make circuits work
faster," Hutcheson said. "It'll make your PC work faster. You can edit
movies. Photoshop will work much easier."

- San Francisco Chronicle

John
 
John said:
"If they can pull it off, it will definitely make circuits work
faster," Hutcheson said. "It'll make your PC work faster. You can edit
movies. Photoshop will work much easier."

- San Francisco Chronicle

But it won't make it work faster than simply shrinking size to the next
gen semi process.
 
Your remarks, you are proven wrong, and do not admit it.

For >30 years I've been "proven" wrong. There's a difference between proof
of concept and a viable economic, marketable solution... which seems to get
lost on you.
Time to killfile your drivel.

Go ahead - I'll be delighted to not have your mindless ravings to deal
with.
 
"If they can pull it off, it will definitely make circuits work
faster," Hutcheson said. "It'll make your PC work faster. You can edit
movies. Photoshop will work much easier."

- San Francisco Chronicle

John

With imagination like that, they could be running a major software
company.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
With imagination like that, they could be running a major software
company.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

The irony, one of many, is that increased compute power has almost
always made computers less reliable and harder to use.

John
 
Trent said:
*giggle*

Angels? Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny too?


I don't believe in usenet trolls, but there you are.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
John said:
The irony, one of many, is that increased compute power has almost
always made computers less reliable and harder to use.

John

Like yesterday's foxtrot cartoon. The kid is creating a website, and
he's bragging about everything he is using to create it. His sister
asked, But what will it look like? He has no idea. I think we've found
the person responsible for creating all those useless websites for
semiconductor manufacturers.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
With quite a bit of room to spare, I might add.
I don't believe in usenet trolls, but there you are.

How about the Great Pumpkin? Do you think Linus will ever give up his
annual foray into the pumpkin patch, or is he doomed to a lifetime of
heartbreak and disappointment? EMWTK.
 
Trent said:
With quite a bit of room to spare, I might add.


How about the Great Pumpkin? Do you think Linus will ever give up his
annual foray into the pumpkin patch, or is he doomed to a lifetime of
heartbreak and disappointment? EMWTK.


Ask Eeyore. He's the expert on cartoon characters.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
John said:
Yup, but you could already epoxy and wire-bond a
compound-semiconductor laser on top of a silicon chip. I don't see a
breakthrough here. Still no silicon laser, still no bulk deposition of
non-silicon lasers on silicon.



Lots of people have developed SiO2 and polymer and PLZT optical
waveguides on silicon, for 10 years at least, and a couple of them
have even managed to stay in business. Nothing new here, either.


John

This isn't just waveguides on a chip, they've also added a light source
right on the chip. That part is different. Most light-emitters are
incompatible with silicon.

Mark
 
This isn't just waveguides on a chip, they've also added a light source
right on the chip. That part is different. Most light-emitters are
incompatible with silicon.

Mark

They glued individual compound-semiconductor lasers on top of a
silicon chip. Cute, but it hardly deserves front-page headlines. And
all of the press articles I've seen so far have been loaded with
technical inaccuracies and absurd projections. Intel has a fondness
for this sort of thing, and "science writers" rarely know anything
about what they are writing about.

John
 
Michael said:
Ask Eeyore. He's the expert on cartoon characters.
NO! He IS a cartoon character. I am the expert in cartoon characters!

And, if you are really sincere, and have a great pumpkin patch, You Too
can see the Great Pumpkin rise up on Holloween night... 8-)

Charlie Brown...
 
Charlie said:
NO! He IS a cartoon character. I am the expert in cartoon characters!

And, if you are really sincere, and have a great pumpkin patch, You Too
can see the Great Pumpkin rise up on Holloween night... 8-)

Charlie Brown...


Sorry, Charlie, but I don't sit around in a muddy field at night. I
did enough of that in the US ARMY, and its why I have respiratory
problems now. The wet sawdust and bullets didn't help, either.

BTW "Sorry Charlie" is related to what cartoon character? ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
Michael said:
Sorry, Charlie, but I don't sit around in a muddy field at night. I
did enough of that in the US ARMY, and its why I have respiratory
problems now. The wet sawdust and bullets didn't help, either.

BTW "Sorry Charlie" is related to what cartoon character? ;-)
That was another of my nicknames as a kid, Charlie the Tuna! of course,
I swam like a tuna, so it was more a compliment than a put-down!

Charlie
 
Charlie said:
That was another of my nicknames as a kid, Charlie the Tuna! of course,
I swam like a tuna, so it was more a compliment than a put-down!

Charlie


Then its a good thing they never wanted to put Charlie in a can. ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
Back
Top