Single-phase single-electron digital circuits

Journal of Applied Physics

Volumn 81, Issue 7, 1997, Pages 3311-3315

  Ancona, M G ^a  

^a NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0011117226     PISSN: 00218979     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.364316     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. M. Hatamian and G. L. Cash, Proc. IEEE 75, 1192 (1987).
2. For this reason, asynchronous design may be attractive for nanoscale circuits. One possibility is the "computing-in-the-ground-state" approach developed for polarizable quantum dot circuits; see for example, C. S. Lent, P. D. Tougaw, and W. Porod, Appl. Phys. Lett. 62, 714 (1993).
3. A proposal of this type is given by A. N. Korotkov, Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 2412 (1995).
4. A single-electron technology would represent a revolution not just in scaling but in its very physical foundation. To date all practical computational circuits have operated with a basis in continuum physic; the underlying microscopic discreetness is irrelevant (if not parasitic). In contrast, in a single-electron teschnology the physical discreteness is essential, i.e., electrons represent bits. A number of other proposals of this type have appeared (dating back to the 1960s) founded on a wide variety of discrete physical objects, e.g., Gunn domains, magnetic bubbles, single flux quanta, electron pairs and electron spins. The scaling advantage of these approaches stems from the discrete object's small size and indivisibility which acts to partially suppress fluctuations. Their main drawback - and the reason the macroscopic versions never achieved practicality - is their limited gain, power, fanout and impedance matching capabilities. But in ultrascaled, locally interconnected circuits these limitations are less critical and can even be advantages. And so discrete-physics approaches, never before viable, could prove suitable for nanoscale circuits.
5. M. G. Ancona, J. Appl. Phys. 79, 526 (1996).
6. M. G. Ancona, Superlatt. Microstruct. 20, 461 (1996).
7. K. K. Likharev and V. K. Semenov, in Extended Abstracts of the International Superconductor Electrical Conference, Tokyo, 1989, p. 182; D. V. Averin and K. K. Likharev, in Single Charge Tunneling, edited by H. Grabert and M. H. Devoret (Plenum, New York, 1992), Chap. 9.
8. K. K. Likharev and V. K. Semenov, in Extended Abstracts of the International Superconductor Electrical Conference, Tokyo, 1989, p. 182; D. V. Averin and K. K. Likharev, in Single Charge Tunneling, edited by H. Grabert and M. H. Devoret (Plenum, New York, 1992), Chap. 9.
9. H. Pothier, P. Lafarge, P. Orfila, C. Urbina, D. Esteve, and M. Devoret, Physica B 169, 573 (1991).
10. L. Geerligs, V. Anderegg, P. Holweg, J. Mooij, H. Pothier, D. Esteve, C. Urbina, and M. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2691 (1990).
11. L. R.C. Fonseca, A. N. Korotkov, and K. K. Likharev, J. Appl. Phys. 79, 9155 (1996).
12. In Ref. 5 this was referred to as a single-electron charge-coupled device. The term shift register seems preferable because of its digital character.
13. H. D. Jensen and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. B 46, 13407 (1992).
14. M. G. Ancona and R. W. Rendell, J. Appl. Pnys. 77, 393 (1995).
15. W. F. Kosonocky and D. J. Sauer, Electron. Des. 23, 58 (1975).
16. In the CCD context the scheme has been called a "virtual phase" approach; see for example, J. A. Hynecek, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-28, 483 (1981).
17. A somewhat similar proposal is contained in K. K. Likharev and A. N. Korotkov, Abstracts of IWCE'95, Tempe, AZ, 1995, p 5; K. K. Likharev and A. N. Korotkov, Science 273, 763 (1996).
18. A somewhat similar proposal is contained in K. K. Likharev and A. N. Korotkov, Abstracts of IWCE'95, Tempe, AZ, 1995, p 5; K. K. Likharev and A. N. Korotkov, Science 273, 763 (1996).
19. Y. Matsumoto, T. Hanajiri, T. Toyabe, and T. Sugano [Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 1 135, 1126 (1996)] argue that single-electron devices with asymmetrical barrier should have improved operating characteristics.
20. S. Y. Lee and H. Chang, IEEE Trans Magn. MAG-10, 1059 (1974).
21. Most of this design does indeed have a four-phase clock and the minimum spacing between electrons is typically four islands. However, as seen in Fig. 6, the control island requires its own special wave form which could probably be synthesized locally from the four phases but otherwise would constitute a fifth distinct clock phase.