Image: Bryan Christie Design
|
Back in October 2001, a Woburn, Mass., start-up called
Nantero said it was going to supplant flash memory
chips. Business journalists took note: flash memory was
then a US $7.8 billion market, and it was growing fast.
Even more alluring, Nantero’s technology, based on
carbon nanotubes, seemed to be the opening salvo in the
nanotechnology revolution those journalists had been
promising their readers for years.
Nantero called its prospective product the NRAM, the N
standing for “Nanotube-based/Nonvolatile.” The company’s
publicity people painted a picture of a computer freed
from its last moving part—the hard drive—and thus
capable of booting up instantly and surviving hard knocks.
What made the picture compelling was the way the
technology seemed to lend itself to mass production. By
relying on the properties not of individual tubes but of
a mélange of them, Nantero would sidestep the material’s
biggest bugbear, purity. By laying down the tiny tubes
at random, as a kind of fabric, so that patches could
reconfigure in response to electronic stimuli, the
company would enable data to be encoded mechanically,
and therefore permanently. Like costly static random
access memory, the NRAM wouldn’t lose its contents when
the power was switched off. Best of all, the company’s
fabrication processes would be compatible with standard
CMOS lithography, so that chip makers wouldn’t face the
kind of retooling expenses that dog (and often doom)
most new technologies.
These claims, buttressed by functioning prototype
chips, got the interest of venture capital firms and
garnered the company lots of breathless prose in the
technology press. Yes, including us: this reporter,
writing in this magazine, had only good things to say
about it (see “10 Tech
Companies for the Next 10 Years,” IEEE
Spectrum, November 2004).
But that was more than three years ago. And it so
happens that two years is the time Nantero has always cited in
response to questions about when its product would be
ready for the market: in 2002 the chips were supposed to
be out by 2004; and in 2004, by 2006. Now Greg
Schmergel, cofounder and chief executive officer of
Nantero, cites the same figure, telling Spectrum that
“with the right resources, commercial products could be
out in a one- to two-year time frame.” He says he’s
talking with major chip makers in the United States,
Europe, and Asia and hopes to announce a major deal in a
few more months.
Then again, that’s what he was saying two years ago,
and two years before that.
What the experts say
“Now we know where the dumb money
goes.” —T.J. Rodgers
“Nantero is impressive and ingenious in its use
of characteristics of carbon nanotubes. But the delay in
introducing commercial products—there are none yet—may
indicate difficulty in achieving
manufacturability.” —Nick Tredennick
Skeptics doubt that such speedy development can be
achieved. “Every change you make in the electronics
industry, as simple as it may look—changing wiring from
aluminum to copper, or adding a hafnium insulator—takes
10 years’ effort by the entire industry,” says Phaedon
Avouris, group leader of the Nanoscale Science and
Technology Group at IBM Research.
Avouris says the only way forward is to master the
science of carbon nanotubes, particularly the problem of
achieving the purity that Nantero tries to avoid dealing
with by taking its average-of-many-tubes approach. Such
averaging throws out almost all of the advantages
peculiar to the material, Avouris says, and can be of
use only in niche markets. “IBM has never made small
trinkets,” he sniffs.
Might not little Nantero conceivably do very well off
just such a niche market? Maybe, concedes Avouris, but
where is the payoff? “They make assertions that they
have products, but go look at their Web site,” he says.
“I see they are offering solutions for others, providing
technical support for $190 an hour.”
G. Dan Hutcheson, chief executive of VLSI Research, a
top semiconductor analysis company in Santa Clara,
Calif., is even more pessimistic: “I’ve been an
unbeliever from the beginning,” he says. He doubts,
specifically, that the NRAM technology can scale well
enough to keep up with the ever-shrinking circuit
components on standard chips. “The technology itself is
very interesting, and it works in the lab, but look how
long it took flash to succeed. A company like Nantero
can’t take such long bets.”
Right now, Nantero is relying to a large extent on
military R&D funds, says an engineering professor
who asked for anonymity. The military wants NRAM chips
for their ability to shrug off electromagnetic pulses,
such as might be directed against a satellite by an
enemy or even an errant solar flare. However, that
market is far too small and specialized to serve as a
launching pad for commercial electronics, the professor
says. He also repeated Hutcheson’s contention that
Nantero’s nanotube patches can’t scale down sufficiently
to keep up with advances in CMOS technology.
“If you look at the picture of the nanotube fabric in
their pictures,” he says, “you see it has 200-nanometer
holes. Their fabric ribbons can’t be smaller than the
holes, obviously.” For comparison, the smallest features
of the CMOS transistors now being manufactured in
state-of-the-art facilities measure roughly 45 nm. This
professor says that three years ago the company had said
it had hopes of finding new chemical processes to align
the nanotubes better, and so reduce the pore size, but
that it hadn’t worked out.
Schmergel rejects the criticism, saying that Nantero
has demonstrated a prototype with critical dimensions as
small as 22 nm. When it is pointed out that those
features were carved with an electron beam, a laborious
procedure that could never work in mass fabrication,
Schmergel retorts that “even to make the
22‑nm prototypes, we needed to solve the porosity
problem.” Purely chemical fabrication methods capable of
scaling down the NRAM will be possible, he adds.
Meanwhile, the years fly by and rival technologies
continue to advance, not least among them plain-vanilla
flash memory, which is getting better, cheaper, and
smaller. That instant-on computer that Nantero sketched
out more than six years ago? You can buy one right now
for just $400; it’s called the iPhone. Cheap flash is
the motive force behind One Laptop per Child’s XO (often
erroneously called the “$100 laptop”), which is being
churned out by the tens of millions for the poor
countries of the world. It is also what has, in the past
year, enabled both Samsung and Dell to introduce
powerful instant-on laptop machines.
Sure, flash won’t keep getting better forever, but
what about the other storage technologies—using
magnetism and other tricks—that have far more R&D
muscle behind them than the NRAM? How can Nantero keep up?
“It is competing with large companies,” notes Dexter
Johnson, a nanotech analyst at Cientifica, a consultancy
based in London. “Samsung, for instance, has created a
$4 billion market for themselves with flash memory. Do
you think they are going to idly sit by while some
start-up says they are going to make that business
obsolete? Not likely; they have their own approach,
which they are developing in conjunction with University
of Cambridge.”
Nantero’s patented methods may well find application
in completely different products. Just this past
September, for instance, HP’s inkjet printing people
signed an agreement to use Nantero’s nanotube techniques
to print up inexpensive RFID tags. A few months earlier,
Alpha Szenszor, a start-up also based in Woburn,
acquired rights to Nantero’s technology for use in its
medical diagnostic sensors. Such licensing agreements
could turn out to be lucrative indeed; a miner who
hasn’t struck gold can still make a living selling
pickaxes to other miners.
But as a mass-market replacement for flash, the NRAM
chip looks increasingly like a loser.