Talk:Molecular electronics/Archive 1

Comment

how recent is recent? --24.94.15.60 06:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revision

I am slowly writing up this page again. I will do as follow: Put a short theory part (after concept genesis). Then detail the different experimental category and progress (from conducting polymer to self assembled monolayer) and finally make a big part called "toward single molecule electronics" in the end. triskell 13:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This article presents a strange perspective on history

The current report comes across as a mechanism for claiming credit vs NPOV discussion of an area. It is unfortunate that the emphasis is on who-did-what-when vs what-was-done. Experts aside from admirers of someone named McGinness are needed.--Smokefoot 15:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mention the Nobel, you open the door for the rest of the history. History of discovery is important. And screw-ups on its assignment are definitely encyclopedic. E.g., under some circumstances, mistating it is Scientific misconduct. Similarly, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that each person has a right "(c) To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."

Also, much missing of point. If there is unintended "puffery", it is not for McGinness, but for Weiss et al, who had reported high conductivity in an organic polymer polypyrrole 10 years before. One more gift from the Auzzies, who gave the world Crocodile Dundee, Steve Irwin, and conductive organic polymers.

WRT the 2000 Nobel, McGinness' was merely the last (but certainly not the first) researcher to show high conductivity in this class of polymer before the Nobel winners rediscovered it<GRIN>. Whicle the Nobel Foundation cultivates an aura of omnipotence, the selection committes are basically composed of amateurs, tring to figure out who did what in areas where they likely have no expertise. They can and have been fooled. Pproctor 14:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

See above. Conducting polymers are never considered as "molecular electronics" hence why the Aviram/Ratner paper was such a monumental report at the time even though people had shown switching in conducting polymers at the time. And your gripes about the Nobel Foundation, while admittedly not without merit, do little to improve this page. Even the Weiss, et al reference is not applicable to the field of molecular electronics. It's making the history of the field unnecessarily regressive. Why not talk about polymers in general as well, like Teflon? People developed polymers before conducting polymers, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.42.76.69 (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

An absolutely breathtaking assertion. Conducting polymers in general have always been considered as part of molecular electronics. See Hush again. Don't have it to hand, but IIRC, the NYAS volume including the Hush paper was dedicated to Radner, whose contribution was pointing out that such effects might work down to the level of individual molecules, something not established until a decade or two later.Pproctor 04:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the cite: An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics, NOEL S. HUSH. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1-20 (2003). "Dedicated to Mark A. Ratner on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday" (emphasis-added). Enough said...Pproctor 04:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Revised your revisions. Why did you take out "An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003) ?. Taking out a good cite (the definitive history of the field) is almost vandalism. Perhaps you removed it because it supports my "strange perspective" to the details. Anyway, mess with text, not citations. Also, you have the history of Charge transfer complexes wrong. This originated in 1954, not 1972, though the cite seems to have disappeared. Pproctor 15:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Time for new version

I think there is really room for improvement on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.42.228 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is atrocious. Particularly the issue relating conducting polymers. Strictly speaking, the molecular electronics community is separate from conducting polymers unless the polymers are appropriately "nanoscale" (nanowires of single polymer strands, or oligomeric films). The discussion included focuses more on what would go in an "organic electronics" page as it focuses on microelectronics applications of polymers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.42.76.69 (talk • contribs) 2:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why does (e.g.) "An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003) (note the title)., include conducting polymers as part of the field? I have been in this area a lot longer than any of you-all, and I always thought we were working in "molecular electronics" and so did everyone else. When did the definition change?Pproctor 00:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this page needs the following to be corrected:

1) Molecular electronics needs to be defined more clearly. Is the term defined as using individual molecules as a switching element? For example, using a single molecule as a transistor. If true, this page is grossly inclusive.

2) No matter what the definition, polymer electronics are not "molecular electronics" unless you use an individual polymer strand or wire as the active element. I'm in the field, so I know that anyone claiming an organic transistor is "molecular electronics" is stretching the truth. That's a different field and thus is why organic electronics has its own page. The switch here is in no way molecular electronics, and claiming it's historical while ignoring any number of similar efforts is self-serving, especially since the Wikipedia author that inserted the reference (PProctor) is the co-author on the paper listed by McGinness and the co-creator of the device in the picture shown.

Also, the exact paragraph PPRoctor wrote is on a number of different pages due to PProctor's incessant desire to insert his own work onto those pages. While he has a legitimate gripe about the Nobel controversy, it doesn't belong on the organic electronics and conducting polymers and the organic semiconductor AND here.

128.42.76.69 22:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

PProctor, you deleted part of my comment. The Wikipedia guidelines clearly note that you do not delete any else's comments. Don't do it again. You are free to disagree and free to voice your view, but do not delete other's viewpoints just to support your own. That violates the spirit, intent, and rules of this resource. See the Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable Talk page guidelines. 128.42.76.69 18:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The omission was inadvertant. Sorry. But my point stands. Defining "molecular electronics" the way you do is definitely original research and not allowable. End of story, unless you can show us all something comparable to Hush's paper ("An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003), which definitely includes conducting polymers and all the rest as part of molecular electronics. The Hush history even cites the McGinness paper as an early example of molecular electronics, something which I left out to avoid assertions of "vanity".

Again, unless you can give us a comparable published paper to Hush's definitive history, your assertions are original research. Naturally, you are entitled to your personal opinion, as am I. But neither your asserted expertise (which I cannot judge) nor mine count here, except in the "experts" sense of knowing the published literature and being able to cite it. I give a cite, please provide yours.Pproctor 23:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is what Hush says about the McGinness paper: ""Also in 1974 came the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device (emphasis-added) that functions along the lines of the biopolymer conduction ideas of Szent-Gyorgi. This advance was made by McGinness, Corry, and Proctor who examined conduction through artificial and biological melanin oligomers. They observed semiconductor properties of the organic material and demonstrated strong negative differential resistance, a hallmark of modern advances in molecular electronics {emphasis-added).58 Like many early advances, the significance of the results obtained was not fully appreciated until decades later...(p 14)". So if this cite does not belong in molecular electronics, where does it belong?Pproctor 23:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the exact paragraph PPRoctor wrote is on a number of different pages. It doesn't belong on the organic electronics AND conducting polymers AND the organic semiconductor AND here.128.42.76.69 22:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research again. I can only refer you to Hush's paper, which basically includes all these areas under "Molecular electronics". Again, give us a cite, any cite, to back up your assertion, which otherwise is original research.Pproctor 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen

The sure step to controversy and ultimately mediocrity in an article is to focus on who discovered what and when. Most of the article should focus, IMHO, on - surprise! - molecular electronics! vs some sort of credit-giving diatribe. Readers of an encyclopedia are far less interested in the personalities than the science-engineering, whereas editors seem to fall into the quicksand of "who did what first". --Smokefoot 23:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The definitive history "An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003) (note the title)., definitely includes conductive polymers as part of molecular electronics. Peer reviewed, from a heavy duty publication too. If you can find something equally authoritative with takes the contrary point of view, please cite it. That is, the view you-all express is original research and thus not allowable. If I am incorrect on this, then both points of view should be presented. It is true that I cite our work. Experts are allowed and encouraged to do this at arms length, because (well) we are experts and know the literature. However, I do this mostly to note that it was the Auzzies who first discovered high conductivity in organic polymers. Not us, and definitely not the guys who won the 2000 Nobel for this discovery.Pproctor 00:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: The assertion that readers are not interested in the history of a scientific field is also incorrect. Many people are, if only to understand the intellectual underpinnings of the field.

But there are also practical uses to understand the "prior art" with respect to patents. For one thing, persons seeking a patent or to contest or defend an existing patent must exercise "due care' in examining the history and "prior art". This can make the difference (e.g.) between having only parts of a patent overturned or the whole thing, for "inequitable conduct". One of the first places they look (as with much else) is Wikipedia. I sometimes use Wikipedia as a means of providing "constructive notice" about the history of a field. The eventual goal is that a Wikipedia search will stand up as part of "due care", as would (e.g.) an encyclopedia or other journal of record.Pproctor 01:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Final Word

1) Intellectual history is important, if only for intellectual reasons. Practical considerations include patent prior art, etc. Also the fact that the Aussies more or less invented the modern field make people look at the present rather extensive Australian endeavors a little differently. Similarly, the Nobel story is part of the history of molecular electronics. Everybody loves a good scandal.

2) People use Wikipedia as a source for the history of discovery, just like they use it for other purposes. E.g., I have been interviewed for a major Hollywood-type documentary on the history of MRI, based on historical material I posted on Wikipedia. See it when it comes out.

3) Molecular electronics encompases conductive polymers and organic electronics. And vice versa. Always has. There is plenty of documentation for this (e.g., Hush) and nothing I am aware of to the contrary.

4) I follow Hush's "Overview..", which, far from omitting or minimizing Radner's contributions, is dedicated to him. Check out the link.

5) Macro or not, the electronic properties of conductive polymers reflect processes operating at the quantum scale. Which means over distances less than 100 nanometers. I.e., at the molecular level. Which is why there is no real distinction between the macro and molecular scales-- it is all really on the molecular scale.

A good example is negative differential resistance, Hush's "hallmark of modern molecular electronics"). This is due to quantum processes like tunnelling, etc. which only work at "quantum-scale" distances. Sometimes, these processes get expressed on the macro scale, say, because materials act like molecular switches in series. One (arguably the first) example is McGinness' et als switch, pictured in the article. The fact that molecule-scale (i.e, quantum domain) processes were being measured was well recognized at the time, BTW. Elementary quantum mechanics.

However, direct measurement of the electrical properties of individual molecular devices a la Radner/Aviram had to wait the development of methods for making molecular-scale electrical contacts. This was not technically possible for decades after their original theoretical suggestion that a rectifier (not an active device) might be possible. It is also true that this suggestion generated a lot more interest than McGinness' actual active device from about the same time. Also see Dulbecco's law. Pproctor 16:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Its Ratner not Radner. Hansbethe 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nanoelectronics navbox

I'm developing a navbox for nanoelectronics over at Talk:Nanoelectronics - any comments would be appreciated! Antony-22 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)