Many people probably would agree that the transistor was the greatest technological invention of the twentieth century. The first transistor, invented by Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce in 1958, was made from silicon. Even though integrated circuit technology has advanced to the level of putting millions of transistors on a fingernail-sized chip, transistors are still made from silicon. Now, however, both the scientific community and the high-tech industry are very excited about something new: plastic electronics. For many of us, this might sound like an oxymoron, for we know plastic only as an insulator. So how can a protective substrate or a carriage box to the actual electronic device be converted into an electronic device?

The story of plastic electronics started late 1970s with Alan Heeger, Alan Macdiarmid, and Hideki Shirakawa. These scientists demonstrated that the molecular structure of certain polymers (plastics) can be manipulated and then used as conductors. The Swiss Academy of Sciences was somewhat slow in recognizing their work, for they were awarded the Nobel prize in chemistry only in 2000. Nevertheless, the scientific community did not wait for the Nobel committee’s recognition of plastics. Since 1977, plastic has become probably the most common material in our daily lives.

Silicon versus plastic

All computer chips are made out of silicon (semiconductor) and aluminum (metal). Silicon is a great material for integrated circuits, because it is available, can be acquired in an extremely pure state (single crystal or amorphous), and has a very high mobility (the speed that electrons can travel through material). This mobility, in turn, determines the device’s switching speed. However, silicon has one important drawback: It is not easy to process.

Integrated circuit technology can deposit millions of silicon transistors on a single chip. However, the procedure for making these devices usually requires facilities worth billions of dollars, for silicon has to go through complicated photolithography procedures under clean room conditions before it can be incorporated into a device. But is it really worthwhile to spend billions of dollars on such facilities? The answer probably looks obvious, since Intel remains one of the world’s largest companies. However, we do not really need such a high quality in many of the applications for which silicon is used. So if there is something cheaper that can do the job perfectly, why not use it? Plastic is far cheaper, but not so sophisticated an alternative.

Plastic is cheap because billion-dollar facilities are not required to convert it into a device. In fact, the technology needed to process plastic into an electronic device is only slightly more advanced than an ink-jet printer. Electronic circuits are printed on an insulating polymer, and then certain parts of the polymer are exposed to UV light in order to convert the insulating polymer into a conducting polymer. The result is a device in which only the parts that we want to conduct are conducting. Moreover, these conducting parts sit on a protective insulating sheet of plastic. That is pretty much all we need for many applications.

The case for plastic

Plastic has two advantages over silicon: price and flexibility. Like other inorganic elements, silicon has strong covalent bonds between its atoms. As these bonds are rigid, they cannot bend or stretch. Plastic has very loose molecular bonds that can tolerate a significant amount of bending and stretching. Flexibility combined with electronics implies applications like flexible displays that can be rolled up and taken somewhere else, reloadable electronic newspapers that can be bent like paper, disposable mobile phones, and many others.

So if plastic is that good, why is it not the electronics industry’s standard material? For one simple reason: Plastic’s loose molecular bonds, which make the material so flexible, make it more difficult for the electrons to travel through it. Thus, plastic devices are slower than silicon devices. Until several years ago, the mobility of a typical conducting plastic used to be around 0.1 cm2/volts, whereas crystalline (best) silicon could reach 1000 cm2/volts at room temperature. Recently, a new class of polymers (pentacene) has been found in which molecules tend to self-organize. As a result, the mobility has been pushed up to 3 cm2/volts. Scientist working on pentacene estimate a number close to 50 cm2/volts as the limit of achievable mobility for this special polymer.

These expectations are not just wishful thinking of some optimistic scientists. In fact, even now there are some significant outcomes of plastic technology.

Current developments

John Rogers and coworkers from Bell Labs (Lucent Technologies) have patterned 256 polymer transistors on the back-plane of a flexible optical display. Richard Friend and coworkers from University of Cambridge have produced thin film transistor circuits using a high-resolution inkjet printing. Dago de Leeuw and colleagues at Philips Research Laboratories in Eindhoven, The Netherlands, have developed a new technique called photochemical patterning. In photochemical patterning, a light sensitive-polymer is exposed to ultraviolet light through a mask shaped in the form of the desired circuit. The ultraviolet light changes the polymer from a conducting state to a non-conducting state. In this process, the polymer’s resistance can increase as much as 11 orders of magnitude (100000000000). The advantage of this technique over the patterning techniques used for silicon is that it does not need any vacuum and can be used on flexible substrates. The problems with photochemical patterning are that it is not significantly cheaper than photolithography and etching used for silicon, and it can be used only for light-sensitive polymers. Different research groups have developed various techniques that have pros and cons compared to photochemical patterning. However, many of the techniques cannot print features that are small enough for electronic circuits. The critical length is the distance between the transistor’s source and drain, typically 0.01 mm. This is the distance that the field-induced charges have to travel. As the drive current and switching speed of the device depend on this distance, having too large of a distance reduces the capabilities of the device. Another technique that pursues quite a different approach is microcontact printing. Developed by the Bell Labs group, microcontact printing with rubber-like stamps can make small enough features. Scientists have used this technique to make a flexible display in which a transistor controls each pixel. The key point in developing this technique was using gold pads, instead of a polymeric material, to deposit the transistor’s source and drain. Even though this device is not completely plastic, it is a step toward that goal. When a special kind of ink was applied to a thin film of gold, it formed some sort of self-assembled layer on the gold, which then produced well-defined patterns and sharp edges. This provided the required resolution to make small enough features necessary for an electronic device having a reasonable speed. These two techniques show two important aspects of the problem. In photochemical printing, we have a device that is completely plastic and so has the important advantage of flexibility. However, it is not as cheap as it could be and does not have the required resolution. In the second technique, the outcome is not a 100 percent plastic device, so it is not as flexible as a purely plastic circuit. However, it can be manufactured very cheaply and has a better resolution (and thus a higher switching speed).

Conclusion

Many other approaches are being employed to develop this new and exciting technology. If plastic electronics does become standard for at least some applications, it probably will be a hybrid of these different techniques. If the optimistic group of scientists working on plastic electronics prove to be right, one day we might see TV screens curling around the walls of our rooms and even reloadable electronic newspapers that can be folded and carried like regular newspapers. Who knows what new inventions will come with this new technology?

References

• Garnier, F., (et al). Science 265 (1994): 1684-86.
• Gelinck, G., T. Geuns, and D. de Leuw. Applied Physics Letters 77 (2000): 406-8.
• Levi, Barbara G. ‘New Printing Technologies Raise Hopes for Cheap Plastic Electronics.’ Physics Today (February 2001). Online at: www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-2/p20.html.
• Nobel Focus: Electricity through Plastic.’ Physical Review Focus (24 October 2000). Online at: http://focus.aps.org/v6/st18.html.
• Scott, Campbell. ‘Electronics Put It on Plastics.’ Physics in Action. (October 1998). Online at: www.physicsweb.org/article/world/11/30/3/1.
• Voss, David. ‘Cheap and Cheerful Circuits.’ Nature 407 (28 September 2000).

WHY OPTICAL?

Despite the many benefits that classical computers (‘classical’ here means computers in which the signals are carried electrically) have brought to our lives, they have some limitations which prevent any improvement in the speed or volume of signals carried. These limitations are inherent to the way these computers work.

For example, classic electric circuits carry information units serially, one by one, and there are some lower limits beyond which such circuits cannot be built-below that limit they simply cannot process the information reliably. Another handicap is that electrons floating in circuits can interfere with each other-and this interference, incidentally, is one reason why engineers cannot produce smaller circuits. By contrast, photons, light particles, which are the main signal or information carrying agent simply do not interact with each other because they do not carry a charge.

An optical computer could be run faster than one running electrons, theoretically at the speed of light, along optical fibres which are specifically designed guide-wires to transfer light-photons in and out between chips in an optical computer without distortion.

One of the main advantages of optical computers is their capability of processing more than one piece of information at the same moment. That means multi-beams can be processed in one chip. This would allow engineers to use parallel processing which greatly enhances the speed of the computer.

THE DIFFICULTIES

Lasers would, naturally, be the source of light in this new generation of computers. Scientists and engineers all over the world are trying to build appropriately tiny lasers emitting precise frequencies of infrared light. But they face a number of practical hurdles. One has to do with making lasers of appropriate size and efficiency. Current technology does not have the means to build optical chips comparable in size to ‘classical’ ones. The efficiency of the lasers is not high enough for the specifications required. Most of the energy to run these lasers escapes as heat and is not used. Since one or at most two percent of this energy can be transformed into the useful form of light, the rest can generate a lot of heat which is dangerous to the condition of the chips.

Making the right lasers is not the only problem on the way to fully optical computers. Switches are at the heart of optical computers, but as photons do not interact with each other, there are substaintial difficulties in building switches.

SOME PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

One solution to this problem is to build computers which are part electrical, part optical. Many scientists now believe that the most viable use for optical technology is in this type of hybrid system combining optics and electronics. Researchers are now focusing their work on optical interconnections between chips, which could be a reality in as little as one or two years. This type of connection can vastly increase the amount of data moving in and out of chips.

Such a machine would have to contain prisms, mirrors, and lasers to channel the light, as well as gallium arsenide chips that convert pulses of laser light into electrons so as to function as switches. If all this does happen, there will be a need for new computer architectures, that is, new computer structures.

However, there are some scientists following a different route. They are trying to find ways to use current transistor technology so as to detect laser beams in the information processing. NPN type transistors without a metal cover would be appropriate because they are faster. This approach also allows for adaptation of existing designs, with all the advantages in time and savings that brings.

FUTURE

The first optical processor developed at AT&T Bell Labs measured about two feet by two feet. Scientists hope some day to fit it all into three square inches. A fully optical computer is more than five years away.

Scientists have set themselves a target for the year 2000: 1,000 I/O (input and output) channels running at 1 giga-bit/sec. That is a thousand times faster than current modern computers.

It is a pity that we must wait for a decade, while scientists and engineers try to accomplish this difficult task. But what an exciting wait!

•  FURTHER READING
• ‘Bright future’, Scientific American, May 1990.
• ‘Now easier optical’, Electronics, May 1990.
• ‘Slacken lights up’, Scientific American, July 1991.
• ‘Optical computer no longer lighters away’, Byte, April 1992.
• ‘Optical computing sheds ‘blue sky’ image’ Electronics, April 1990.