I thought you guys (and hopefully Mr. Pass) find this interesting.
Laymans article: The vacuum tube strikes back: NASA’s tiny 460GHz vacuum transistor that could one day replace silicon FETs | ExtremeTech
Technical article: https://www.nasa.gov/ames-partnersh...nanostructure-based-vacuum-channel-transistor
This patented technology is available for licensing from NASA’s space program to benefit U.S. industry.
...do you guys have the same idea that i have? 😉
Laymans article: The vacuum tube strikes back: NASA’s tiny 460GHz vacuum transistor that could one day replace silicon FETs | ExtremeTech
Technical article: https://www.nasa.gov/ames-partnersh...nanostructure-based-vacuum-channel-transistor
This patented technology is available for licensing from NASA’s space program to benefit U.S. industry.
...do you guys have the same idea that i have? 😉
In all honesty though, this is the holy grail of amplification. A Kickstarter campaign for funds, Mr. Pass? 😛
I'm no EE, but with the basic understanding I have all you need for amplification is a device with a source, gate, and drain, also known as a cathode, grid, and plate for valves. As long as the device can output a higher amplitude signal than that is put into the gate or control grid, there is gain (amplification).
Tubes worked on electron flow due to thermionic emission- which means you must heat a substance up to a high temperature to release electrons (cathode).. The grid in between is the input, which will repel or attract electron flow going to the plate. The problem is that tubes are large, and the electrons have problems "flowing smoothly" the larger the distance is. The other problem is that heating the cathode takes a large amount of power, and the heat effects the lifespan of the whole tube. On the plus side, amplification by electron flow in valves is smooth, compared to the "on/off" switching of transistors.
https://youtu.be/nA_tgIygvNo
With the NASA designed vacuum transistor, we get the best of all worlds. They work by field emission- which means low power. To my knowledge there is no hard on/off switching, so amplification is "smooth" like tubes. Here's the kicker though- because the "tube's vacuum" is so small- the electrons do not collide. This most likely means ruler flat linearity like we've never seen before. NASA also claims the tech is extremely durable, and can be created using existing tech. Which means while the amplification of one device might be small- the amount of transistors on a CPU these days is in the 1,000,000,000's. You get my point? 😉
So it would be more like the beast with 1,000,000,000 vacuum transistors.. all on the size a bit larger than a half dollar coin. 😀
Tubes worked on electron flow due to thermionic emission- which means you must heat a substance up to a high temperature to release electrons (cathode).. The grid in between is the input, which will repel or attract electron flow going to the plate. The problem is that tubes are large, and the electrons have problems "flowing smoothly" the larger the distance is. The other problem is that heating the cathode takes a large amount of power, and the heat effects the lifespan of the whole tube. On the plus side, amplification by electron flow in valves is smooth, compared to the "on/off" switching of transistors.
https://youtu.be/nA_tgIygvNo
With the NASA designed vacuum transistor, we get the best of all worlds. They work by field emission- which means low power. To my knowledge there is no hard on/off switching, so amplification is "smooth" like tubes. Here's the kicker though- because the "tube's vacuum" is so small- the electrons do not collide. This most likely means ruler flat linearity like we've never seen before. NASA also claims the tech is extremely durable, and can be created using existing tech. Which means while the amplification of one device might be small- the amount of transistors on a CPU these days is in the 1,000,000,000's. You get my point? 😉
So it would be more like the beast with 1,000,000,000 vacuum transistors.. all on the size a bit larger than a half dollar coin. 😀
Last edited:
This is nice to see, but people have come up with this sort of field emission tube concept several times over the course of ~3 decades without getting any commercial traction. Field emission was once touted as a possibility for flat TV displays, but pixel-to-pixel uniformity problems killed it. Samsung was working on carbon nanotube field emitters for flat panel displays, but I haven't seen any news on that for a few years. I think they were hoping that using a sufficient number of nanotubes per pixel would even things out on the average and solve the uniformity problem.
As far as I'm concerned, it's vaporware until I can buy it from a distributor. I have my own ideas on the subject, but it's just another thing I don't have time to mess with...
As far as I'm concerned, it's vaporware until I can buy it from a distributor. I have my own ideas on the subject, but it's just another thing I don't have time to mess with...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.