Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.magic.secrets > #284 > unrolled thread

Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip

Back to article view | Back to alt.magic.secrets

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 13:11 +0800
    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-29 01:39 -0400
      Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 19:20 +0800
        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-29 12:57 +0100
        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-30 05:14 -0400
          Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 21:51 +0800
            Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-30 12:06 -0400
              Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 18:51 +0000
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:51 +0000
              Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:45 +0000
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer.... physics? "quantum"? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:24 +0800
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 03:13 -0400
                  Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:29 +0800
          Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-30 16:27 +0100
            Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:28 +0000

#284 — Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip

On 6/29/2026 2:09 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-06-28, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>
>> IBM unveils sub-1-nanometer chip architecture that stacks 100
>> billion transistors onto a fingernail-sized processor
>>
>> . . .
>>
>>     Pretty impressive ... and stacking two (three?) layers
>>     really packs a lot in.
>>
>>     NOT sure how they deal with the HEAT in the stacked
>>     design.
>>
>>     100 billion ... how many in the i4004 ?
> 
> Dunno - but I do remember that manufacturers hit a wall for
> a while when trying to get below 1 micrometer.  It took some
> time before memory chips larger than 64K became available.

Wall? Or Seal? :)


-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#285

On 6/29/26 01:11, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 6/29/2026 2:09 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2026-06-28, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> IBM unveils sub-1-nanometer chip architecture that stacks 100
>>> billion transistors onto a fingernail-sized processor
>>>
>>> . . .
>>>
>>>     Pretty impressive ... and stacking two (three?) layers
>>>     really packs a lot in.
>>>
>>>     NOT sure how they deal with the HEAT in the stacked
>>>     design.
>>>
>>>     100 billion ... how many in the i4004 ?
>>
>> Dunno - but I do remember that manufacturers hit a wall for
>> a while when trying to get below 1 micrometer.  It took some
>> time before memory chips larger than 64K became available.
> 
> Wall? Or Seal? :)

   Amazed they were able to get this small - but do
   expect a wall/seal is pretty much here. We're
   talking kinda atomic dimensions now - nowhere else
   to go using any conventional approaches. Anything
   much further won't be 'electronics' as we know it,
   some kind of weird quantum stuff.

   STABLE deca-state logic maybe ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#286

On 6/29/2026 1:39 PM, c186282 wrote:
> 
>     Amazed they were able to get this small - but do
>     expect a wall/seal is pretty much here. We're
>     talking kinda atomic dimensions now - nowhere else
>     to go using any conventional approaches. Anything
>     much further won't be 'electronics' as we know it,
>     some kind of weird quantum stuff.
> 
>     STABLE deca-state logic maybe ?

Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?

Is zero the seal or wall? :)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#287

On 29/06/2026 12:20, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 6/29/2026 1:39 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>
>>     Amazed they were able to get this small - but do
>>     expect a wall/seal is pretty much here. We're
>>     talking kinda atomic dimensions now - nowhere else
>>     to go using any conventional approaches. Anything
>>     much further won't be 'electronics' as we know it,
>>     some kind of weird quantum stuff.
>>
>>     STABLE deca-state logic maybe ?
> 
> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
> 
> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
> 
No. The wall is the quantum level issues. Below a certain size the 
probability that what constitutes a logic one is so few electrons that 
sometimes it looks like a zero, becomes significant.



-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#289

On 6/29/26 07:20, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 6/29/2026 1:39 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>
>>     Amazed they were able to get this small - but do
>>     expect a wall/seal is pretty much here. We're
>>     talking kinda atomic dimensions now - nowhere else
>>     to go using any conventional approaches. Anything
>>     much further won't be 'electronics' as we know it,
>>     some kind of weird quantum stuff.
>>
>>     STABLE deca-state logic maybe ?
> 
> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
> 
> Is zero the seal or wall? :)

   Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
   normal electronics, that's IT.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#290

On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>
>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>
>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
> 
>     Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>     normal electronics, that's IT.


You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip.

That's a void, empty, nothing. :)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#292

On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>>
>>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
>>
>>     Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>>     normal electronics, that's IT.
> 
> 
> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip.
> 
> That's a void, empty, nothing. :)

   "Electronics" are now about literal atom-thick structures.
   Can't go any smaller.

   Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum
   effects - get more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum
   stuff isn't as deterministic as bulk matter devices
   and suffer from the uncertainty principle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#293

On 2026-06-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

> On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
>> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>
>>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>>>
>>>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
>>>
>>>     Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>>>     normal electronics, that's IT.
>> 
>> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip.
>> 
>> That's a void, empty, nothing. :)

I tried to think through the implications of this
but I got a divide error.

>    "Electronics" are now about literal atom-thick structures.
>    Can't go any smaller.
>
>    Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum
>    effects - get more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum
>    stuff isn't as deterministic as bulk matter devices
>    and suffer from the uncertainty principle.

Omigod, we might have to revive the KISS principle
in order to get anything more done.  The proponents
of complexity as a weapon will be so disappointed...

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  No artificial
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  intelligence was
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  used in the creation
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  of this post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#296

On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:51:03 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2026-06-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is zero the seal or wall?
>>>>
>>>>     Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any normal
>>>>     electronics, that's IT.
>>> 
>>> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip.
>>> 
>>> That's a void, empty, nothing.
> 
> I tried to think through the implications of this but I got a divide
> error.

"Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not 
differ from form.  Form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself form.  
Sensations, perceptions, formations, and consciousness are also like 
this."

https://www.izauk.org/multimedia-archive/hannya-shingyo-the-heart-sutra/

Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate  Bodhi Svaha.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#295

On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:06:38 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum effects - get
>    more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum stuff isn't as
>    deterministic as bulk matter devices and suffer from the uncertainty
>    principle.

Physics was a 4 semester course and the 4th was quantum when it started to 
get weird. On one essay test I wrote about Heisenberg's uncertainty 
principle versus Heidegger's principle uncertainty. Fortunately the 
professor had a sense of humor or maybe he realized how far off the beaten 
path the original quantum guys got when you start thinking about the Being 
of beings.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#297 — Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer.... physics? "quantum"?

On 7/1/2026 7:45 AM, rbowman wrote:
> 
> Physics was a 4 semester course and the 4th was quantum when it started to
> get weird. On one essay test I wrote about Heisenberg's uncertainty
> principle versus Heidegger's principle uncertainty. Fortunately the
> professor had a sense of humor or maybe he realized how far off the beaten
> path the original quantum guys got when you start thinking about the Being
> of beings.



I was taught by a lecturer who claimed to have studied
quantum mechanics, when I was studying about a Computer
Studies degree in City Polytechnic/University of HK.
He taught us some stoachastic mathematics including
queuing theory. One my my classmate became his
"apprentice" and got a PhD under CityU.

LEGEND - Dr. S.L. Hung
<https://sites.google.com/site/bsccs1990/home/teascher1/h-l-hung>

Kam Yiu LAM - CityUHK Scholars
<https://scholars.cityu.edu.hk/en/persons/cskylam/>

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#299

On 6/30/26 19:45, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:06:38 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum effects - get
>>     more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum stuff isn't as
>>     deterministic as bulk matter devices and suffer from the uncertainty
>>     principle.
> 
> Physics was a 4 semester course and the 4th was quantum when it started to
> get weird. On one essay test I wrote about Heisenberg's uncertainty
> principle versus Heidegger's principle uncertainty. Fortunately the
> professor had a sense of humor or maybe he realized how far off the beaten
> path the original quantum guys got when you start thinking about the Being
> of beings.

   Hey, all we need is a "Heisenberg Compensator" :-)

   As for the old Quantum Guys (maybe a few gals) - they
   weren't really WRONG. The calx are the calx. Yea, it's
   a Weird Weird World - nothing sympathetic to the human
   nervous system - but then it's all NOT *ABOUT* US.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#300 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy?

On 7/1/2026 3:13 PM, c186282 wrote:
> On 6/30/26 19:45, rbowman wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:06:38 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>
>> Physics was a 4 semester course and the 4th was quantum when it started to
>> get weird. On one essay test I wrote about Heisenberg's uncertainty
>> principle versus Heidegger's principle uncertainty. Fortunately the
>> professor had a sense of humor or maybe he realized how far off the beaten
>> path the original quantum guys got when you start thinking about the Being
>> of beings.
> 
>     Hey, all we need is a "Heisenberg Compensator" :-)
> 
>     As for the old Quantum Guys (maybe a few gals)...

So quantum mechanics is just pig-cheat? ;)
It's just mathematical philosophy?
Quantitative Philiosphy? :)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291

On 30/06/2026 10:14, c186282 wrote:
> On 6/29/26 07:20, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> On 6/29/2026 1:39 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>     Amazed they were able to get this small - but do
>>>     expect a wall/seal is pretty much here. We're
>>>     talking kinda atomic dimensions now - nowhere else
>>>     to go using any conventional approaches. Anything
>>>     much further won't be 'electronics' as we know it,
>>>     some kind of weird quantum stuff.
>>>
>>>     STABLE deca-state logic maybe ?
>>
>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>
>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
> 
>    Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>    normal electronics, that's IT.
> 
Actually the limit is a fair bit above atoms

GOOGLE AI
=========
"Transistor nodes have shrunk dramatically, with leading developers like 
IBM advancing into the sub-1 nanometre realm (e.g., 0.7-nanometer tech). 
However, absolute limits are rapidly approaching due to several factors:

     Quantum Tunnelling: At sizes measuring just a few atoms across, 
electrons no longer stay neatly in their channels. They start randomly 
leaking or tunnelling through insulation barriers, resulting in massive 
power loss and data corruption.

     Atomic Boundary: The absolute physical limit for a silicon 
semiconductor is effectively constrained by the size of the silicon 
crystal unit cell (about 0.54 nm).

      Heat Density: Shrinking transistors allows more components to be 
packed together, but it creates extreme heat concentrations. The 
challenge shifts from building them to keeping them cool without burning 
out£

.....

I note that google can't spall 'nanometre' OR 'tunnelling; correctly

...
-- 
Any fool can believe in principles -  and most of them do!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#294

On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:27:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> "Transistor nodes have shrunk dramatically, with leading developers like
> IBM advancing into the sub-1 nanometre realm (e.g., 0.7-nanometer tech).
> However, absolute limits are rapidly approaching due to several factors:

iirc terms like '5 nm process' no longer refer to any physical dimension 
so I'm curious what the actual gate size is on 0.7 nm tech. 

IBM sold their fab lines to GlobalFoundries and their '7 nm' tech was 
closer to Intel's 10 nm. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.magic.secrets

csiph-web