Talk:Nanocomputer

Existence

Considering that the high end chips of today use 65-nm transistors, and the threshhold is 100, does that mean that nanocomputers already exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.253.242 (talk • contribs) at 18:07, 24 August 2006

No. Because it doesnt say that nanocomputers have to have semiconductor transistors with a size under 100nm. It just says that when the transistors are that small they don't perform as well. N.B.: Next time, please date your post so that everybody knows that this isn't a dead post.--LF2 19:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They might be eligible for nanotechnology funding since they're smaller than 100nm, but I don't think they'd count as nanocomputers since they're part of the same old semiconductor fabrication paradigm. Antony-22 01:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Article style and contents

This article is terribly organized, the first part deals with one meaning, the most common one, or at least the one which I knew, and after the list it switches to a totally different thing that turns almost metaphysical... There should be a proper separation. In fact the second part could easily be detached or even dumped... just my two cents Alchaemist (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Problems start to multiply with things that small

21 silicon atoms wide ... Diffusion defects, expansion/contraction deformations. Ultra-purity being required for materials and cleanliness for production ...

Unfortunately many of the gains will have to be made practical with additional redundancy to work around failing sub sections of any such device.

Some types of applications can handle such issues (distributed function, mass redundant inherant in the task), but many cant. The more complex/integrated the functioning, the more a single defect will disable.

75.36.136.15 (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)