Manufacturability versus Unmanufacturability

建议对初步结果[1]进行扩展，并制定一套规则或指导方针，定义基于制造过程中使用的各种技术在纳米级实际可制造的东西和本质上不可制造的东西之间的界限。制造需要高成品率和对预先规定的规格的严格公差，而目前的纳米科学文献很少涉及可制造性问题。正是由于缺乏这样的规则或指导方针，纳米技术期刊才无法明确区分纳米科学和纳米技术。这些规则的应用将是时间相关的，因为随着新的制造方法的发展，或当前的制造方法的发展：然而，一些规则，如所提到的规则1是不可违反的。这些规则将重点放在这样一个点上，即内在的特征到特征的可变性扼杀了满足当前制造标准的任何机会，例如六西格玛成品率，甚至容错体系结构的四西格玛成品率。尽管乍一看这看起来像是一个消极的项目，但其目的是完全积极的，描绘出研究人员和新设备想法的开发者可以自信地实现可制造过程的领域。[1]M J Kelly，‘Intrinent Top-Down Unmefactability’，NanoTechnology 22 234303(2011年)

It is proposed to expand on initial results [1] and to develop a set of rules or guidelines that define the boundary between what is actually manufactureable at the nanoscale on the basis of the various techniques used in the fabrication process and what is intrinsically unmanufactureable. Manufacture requires high yield to tight tolerance to a pre-ordained specification, and little of the current nanoscience literature addresses the issue of manufacturability. It is the absence of such rules or guidelines that prevent nanotechnology journals to distinguish clearly between nanoscience and nanotechnology. The application of the rules will be time-dependent, in that as new methods of fabrication are developed, or current methods of fabrication evolve: some of the rules, however, such as the one referred to1 are inviolable. The rules will focus on the point at which intrinsic feature-to-feature variability kills off any chance of meeting current standards in manufacturing such as six-sigma yield, or perhaps even four-sigma yield of fault-tolerant architectures. Although this look like a negative project at first sight, the aim is entirely positive, to delineate those areas where researchers and developers of new device ideas can be confident of achieving a manufactureable process.[1] M J Kelly,' Intrinsic top-down unmanufacturability', Nanotechnology 22 234303 (2011)