-
Scientists at Stanford University have managed to create the first computer based on carbon nanotube technology.
The result itself is not something that will scare anyone, it is not an ultra-efficient superprocessor, nor could it win competing against the Z80 of an Amstrad CPC.
The feat is in having managed to manipulate and process the carbon (presumably SWCNT) to create a functional computer. From there it is the usual thing: building tools that allow us to build better tools and continue this iteration as far as we can. What we achieve while perpetuating this loop is what we call "technological evolution"…
...how beautiful it turned out. ;D -
In reality, nanotubes have only been used as wires, which is a great breakthrough, but it still doesn't get around the component that is currently limiting microelectronics: silicon.
The advantage of carbon nanotubes is that they are superconductors at room temperature, so they produce 0 losses in conduction. Unfortunately, in any silicon-based gadget, the vast majority of losses are caused by the semiconductor.
-
In reality, nanotubes have only been used as wires, which is a great breakthrough, but it still doesn't get around the component that is currently limiting microelectronics: silicon.
@TheVerge.com:
The nanotubes are used to create a novel kind of transistor, one that doesn't rely on conventional silicon.
Stanford scientists create world's first carbon nanotube computer | The Verge
-
Stanford scientists create world's first carbon nanotube computer | The Verge
I'm going by this outline

I see conflicting information so I'll read the original article when I have a moment.
-
Mystery solved: in some of the articles, in an attempt to graphically illustrate the process, they searched for "Field effect in carbon nanotube transistors" (or its equivalent in English, and they grabbed the diagram from the corresponding Wikipedia entry, without clarifying where such a graphic came from. Carbon nanotube field-effect transistor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While it is true that in the Nature article it is also not clear the process they followed, nor what substrate they used.

Edit: A little more information about the process.
This of having to publish and edit on an iTouch 2G is a pain. :eoh: