POET Technologies Inc (PTK)

[sevenOdouble]

1. Dont see anyware that BAE systems has issued a press release validatingOpel's process.
There was no release from BAE about this.

2. A quick search of photonics on chips - BAE website shows they have been working prior to 2006 on such issues.
BAE has a GaAs fab, so naturally they will be commissioned to do similar work.

3. See this search...http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=100+ghz+processor+photonic+chip+on+gaas+wafer
seems Intel and others, ibm etc are at the forefront.
POET v. Competition.

Start with this:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/engineering/eleceng/Adv_Network_Tech/Html/publications/IEEESpectrum.8.8.02.pdf

(this was the article CEO Leon Pierhal told me to read as a primer for ICs with photonics and electronics combined)

FTA:
p.2 (33) - Image at the bottom is what POET has accomplished.

“15+ Years Experts disagree on whether optical interconnects will ever connect the subsystems within a chip.”

P. 5 (35) “LEDs, unfortunately, are not as useful as more powerful, more focused lasers [such as the kind ODIS developed; see this link http://www.semiconductor-today.com/news_items/2011/APRIL/ODIS_200411.html and this link http://compoundsemiconductor.net/csc/news-details.php?id=19733388]. And, after decades of struggle, some researchers are skeptical of silicon’s chances. “If God wanted ordinary silicon to efficiently emit light, he would not have given us gallium arsenide,”says Elias Towe of Carnegie Mellon University (Pittsburgh).”

Note: Neither IBM nor Intel (nor anyone else) has managed to create a wafer of pure GaAs. Their attempts have been hybrids which form GaAs layers on a Si substrate which has all of the failings of a pure Si solution (heat issues, etc.)
Also, neither has managed to integrate a laser like the one described in the quote above.

P. 5 (35) “As for optical connections between one system and another on a single chip, the view of most experts is dim.
“I think that’s beyond what’s viable given today’s technology,” says USC’s Levi. But finding out whether across-chip optical interconnects will ever be practical is one of the reasons for advanced research, says DARPA’s Athale. “The answer is maybe, and that’s final.”

Note: as of 2002 (when the article was written),there were doubts as to whether OPEL’s invention would ever come to pass.
Even then it was thought to be 15+ years inthe future.

IBM & Intel

Both IBM and Intel have active R&D programs in place to try to accomplish what ODIS did in 2006. Both IBM and Intel are hoping to accomplishthis with a silicon base. It would be safe to say that IBM and Intel are frontrunners as far as the mainstream media is concerned:

Background:

IBM: CMOS Integrated Silicon Nanophotonics

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/33115.wss

INTEL:

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2010/20100727comp_sm.htm

Thankfully to understand the culmination of each of Intel’s and IBM’s R&D in this area, we have Intel and IBM taking shots at each other in the following article, and is therefore a good place to start:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/mapping-babel-10017967/intel-hits-out-against-ibm-terabit-chip-claims-10021216/

FTA:

“Both Intel and IBM are in the process of developing technology for making chips that can use pulses of light, rather than electricity, to transfer data. But the two companies have different manufacturing techniques in place.”

“IBM's technology has been in development for 10 years, Intel's for six. Both companies are hoping to produce chips using the photonics technology that are capable of a terabit of transfer speeds.”

ODIS has combined optical and electronic components monolithically. A number of different components are able to be built on a pure GaAs (or doped GaAs) chip – No Si.

Intel’s limitations

FTA:

“Intel' stechnology keeps the photonics and the chip separate [POET has them both on the same chip], so it does not have the benefit of the economies of scale that IBM's single-chip manufacturing process does.”

Another article: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/emerging-tech/2010/12/02/ibm-adds-light-to-chips-for-terabit-speeds-40091031/

FTA:

"One major difference here is that Intel is basically making [its] CMOS chip and then making [its] nanophotonic chip on a separate piece of chip and then [it is] bonding them together. Here, we are integrating them on the same piece of silicon... if you are talking about exascale systems that are supposed to be 1,000 times faster than current supercomputers, you need integration,"

Note: Intel recently began publicizing their “Tri-Gate” chip which is actually patented as FINFET, a technology which is 11 years old. They are rolling it out now because Si is reaching the end of it’s growth and they are using any technology possible to squeeze out as much performance as they can to try to compete in the small device market.

IBM’s limitations

FTA:

"This [IBM] research is another example of others also validating that silicon photonics is the path to high bandwidth, low-cost optical communications. While this research is interesting, there are still many challenges to commercialise this approach such as integration of lasers and integration with advanced future transistor processes”

OPEL has accomplished the integration of lasers on an integrated circuit:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ODIS-Inc-the-US-Affiliate-of-ccn-1371021864.html?x=0&.v=1

Another article suggests IBM’s chip will be difficult/expensive to manufacture: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20101203131808_Intel_IBM_s_Chip_with_Optical_Interconnections_May_Not_Be_Efficient_in_Manufacturing.html

“According to the representative of Intel, IBM's approach simply makes manufacturing difficult. For example, chipmakers will have to develop fabrication processes with optical-related elements in mind.”

Finally . . .

As of December 2010, IBM has no timeline on which to base the commercialization of their IC:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703994904575647081191160828.html

“He declines to put a precise timetable on delivering commercial products, however. "We see a path to commercialization in the not-too-distant future," Mr.Paniccia said.”

Why GaAS over Si?

Good ol’ wiki helps us out with this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide#Comparison_with_silicon

But... many of the advantages of Si over GaAs are not longer true due to POET.

e.g., The third, and perhaps most important advantage of silicon is that it possesses a much higher holemobility. This high mobility allows the fabrication of higher-speed P-channel field effect transistors [here is one of several patents showing Taylors HFETs devices which according to other NR’s can operate at 100GHz, and according to Dr. Taylor at the AGM can operate up to 400GHz.
http://www.google.com/patents/download/6936839_Monolithic_integrated_circuit_in.pdf?id=21sVAAAAEBAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U2mS51CTFVRRJX-NNdqMg0hVabWiA], which are required for CMOS logic. Because they lack a fast CMOS structure, GaAs logic circuits have much higher power consumption [We know from Dr. Taylor at the AGM that the POET process produces chips which operate at 5% of the power consumption compared with Si chips], which has made them unable to compete with silicon logic circuits.

GaAs is superior to Si, but what about graphene?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/10/ibm_graphene_mixer_circuit/

FTA:

“What a graphene transistor cannot do – and therefore making it unusable for digital circuits of the kind at the heart of computing devices as they are currently architected – is switch completely off. The challenge, then, would seem to be making an analog computer out of graphene circuits. One that might fit nicely into the skull of a T-800 Terminator, for instance.”

PS: Thanks to Fairchij, but especially to Ogee on www.stockhouse.com/Bullboards/SymbolList.aspx?s=OPL&t=LIST for the valuable information & help.

I hope this will answer most, if not all of your questions DFRAI.