Manufacturability versus Unmanufacturability

建议在初步结果的基础上进行扩展[1]，并制定一套规则或指南，以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内容与本质上不可制造的内容之间的边界。制造需要高产量，严格的公差，以预先规定的规格，目前的纳米科学文献很少解决可制造性的问题。正是由于缺乏这样的规则或指导方针，阻碍了纳米技术期刊明确区分纳米科学和纳米技术。这些规则的应用将是随时间而定的，因为随着新的制造方法的开发，或当前的制造方法的发展：然而，其中一些规则，例如所提到的规则1是不可违反的。这些规则将集中在这样一个点上，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，例如六西格玛产量，甚至可能是容错架构的四西格玛产量。虽然乍一看这是一个负面的项目，但其目的是完全积极的，以描绘新设备想法的研究人员和开发人员可以有信心实现可重复过程的领域。[1]MJ凯利，“内在的自上而下的不可制造性”，纳米技术22 234303（2011）

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)