‘Writing’ with atoms could transform materials fabrication for quantum devices

[…]A research team at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory has created a novel advanced microscopy tool to “write” with atoms, placing those atoms exactly where they are needed to give a material new properties.

“By working at the , we also work at the scale where quantum properties naturally emerge and persist,” said Stephen Jesse, a materials scientist who leads this research and heads the Nanomaterials Characterizations section at ORNL’s Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, or CNMS.

[…]

o accomplish improved control over atoms, the research team created a tool they call a synthescope for combining synthesis with advanced microscopy. The researchers use a , or STEM, transformed into an atomic-scale material manipulation platform.

The synthescope will advance the state of the art in fabrication down to the level of the individual building blocks of materials. This new approach allows researchers to place different atoms into a material at specific locations; the new atoms and their locations can be selected to give the material new properties.

[…]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5FSc-lqI6s

We realized that if we have a microscope that can resolve atoms, we may be able to use the same microscope to move atoms or alter materials with atomic precision. We also want to be able to add atoms to the structures we create, so we need a supply of atoms. The idea morphed into an atomic-scale synthesis platform—the synthescope.”

That is important because the ability to tailor materials atom-by-atom can be applied to many future technological applications in quantum information science, and more broadly in microelectronics and catalysis, and for gaining a deeper understanding of materials synthesis processes. This work could facilitate atomic-scale manufacturing, which is notoriously challenging.

“Simply by the fact that we can now start putting atoms where we want, we can think about creating arrays of atoms that are precisely positioned close enough together that they can entangle, and therefore share their , which is key to making quantum devices more powerful than conventional ones,” Dyck said.

Such devices might include quantum computers—a proposed next generation of computers that may vastly outpace today’s fastest supercomputers; quantum sensors; and quantum communication devices that require a source of a single photon to create a secure quantum communications system.

“We are not just moving atoms around,” Jesse said. “We show that we can add a variety of atoms to a material that were not previously there and put them where we want them. Currently there is no technology that allows you to place different elements exactly where you want to place them and have the right bonding and structure. With this technology, we could build structures from the atom up, designed for their electronic, optical, chemical or structural properties.”

The scientists, who are part of the CNMS, a nanoscience research center and DOE Office of Science user facility, detailed their research and their vision in a series of four papers in scientific journals over the course of a year, starting with proof of principle that the synthescope could be realized. They have applied for a patent on the technology.

“With these papers, we are redirecting what atomic-scale fabrication will look like using electron beams,” Dyck said. “Together these manuscripts outline what we believe will be the direction atomic fabrication technology will take in the near future and the change in conceptualization that is needed to advance the field.”

By using an , or e-beam, to remove and deposit the atoms, the ORNL scientists could accomplish a direct writing procedure at the atomic level.

“The process is remarkably intuitive,” said ORNL’s Andrew Lupini, STEM group leader and a member of the research team. “STEMs work by transmitting a high-energy e-beam through a material. The e-beam is focused to a point smaller than the distance between atoms and scans across the material to create an image with atomic resolution. However, STEMs are notorious for damaging the very materials they are imaging.”

The scientists realized they could exploit this destructive “bug” and instead use it as a constructive feature and create holes on purpose. Then, they can put whatever atom they want in that hole, exactly where they made the defect. By purposely damaging the material, they create a new material with different and useful properties.

[…]

To demonstrate the method, the researchers moved an e-beam back and forth over a graphene lattice, creating minuscule holes. They inserted tin atoms into those holes and achieved a continuous, atom-by-atom, direct writing process, thereby populating the exact same places where the carbon atom had been with tin atoms.

[…]

Source: ‘Writing’ with atoms could transform materials fabrication for quantum devices

Some startups are going ‘fair source’ to avoid the pitfalls of open source licensing

With the perennial tensions between proprietary and open source software (OSS) unlikely to end anytime soon, a $3 billion startup is throwing its weight behind a new licensing paradigm — one that’s designed to bridge the open and proprietary worlds, replete with new definition, terminology, and governance model.

Developer software company Sentry recently introduced a new license category dubbed “fair source.” Sentry is an initial adopter, as are some half dozen others, including GitButler, a developer tooling company from one of GitHub’s founders

The fair source concept is designed to help companies align themselves with the “open” software development sphere, without encroaching into existing licensing landscapes, be that open source, open core, or source-available, and while avoiding any negative associations that exist with “proprietary.”

However, fair source is also a response to the growing sense that open source isn’t working out commercially.

“Open source isn’t a business model — open source is a distribution model, it’s a software development model, primarily,” Chad Whitacre, Sentry’s head of open source, told TechCrunch. “And in fact, it places severe limits on what business models are available, because of the licensing terms.”

[…]

Sentry, an app performance monitoring platform that helps companies such as Microsoft and Disney detect and diagnose buggy software, was initially available under a permissive BSD 3-Clause open source license. But in 2019, the product transitioned to a business source license (BUSL), a more restrictive source-available license initially created by MariaDB. This move was to counter what co-founder and CTO David Cramer called “funded businesses plagiarizing or copying our work to directly compete with Sentry.”

Fast forward to last August, and Sentry announced that it was making a recently acquired developer tool called Codecov “open source.” This was to the chagrin of many, who questioned whether the company could really call it “open source” given that it was being released under BUSL — a license that isn’t compatible with the Open Source Initiative’s (OSI) definition of “open source.”

Cramer swiftly issued an apology of sorts, explaining that while it had erroneously used the descriptor, the BUSL license adheres to the spirit of what many open source licenses are about: Users can self-host and modify the code without paying the creator a dime. They just can’t commercialize the product as a competing service.

But BUSL isn’t open source.

“We sort of stuck our foot in it, stirred the hornet’s next,” Whitacre said. “But it was during the debate that followed where we realized that we need a new term. Because we’re not closed source, and clearly, the community does not accept that we’re open source. And we’re not open core, either.”

Those who follow the open source world know that terminology is everything, and Sentry is far from the first company to fall in its (mis)use of the established nomenclature.

[…]

For now, the main recommended fair source license is the Functional Source License (FSL), which Sentry itself launched last year as a simpler alternative to BUSL. However, BUSL itself has also now been designated fair source, as has the all-new Fair Core License (FCL) which was contributed by Keygen, both of which are included to support the needs of different projects.

Companies are welcome to submit their own license for consideration, though all fair source licenses should have three core stipulations: It [the code] should be publicly available to read; allow third parties to use, modify, and redistribute with “minimal restrictions“; and have a delayed open source publication (DOSP) stipulation, meaning it converts to a true open source license after a predefined period of time. With Sentry’s FSL license, that period is two years; for BUSL, the default period is four years.

The concept of “delaying” publication of source code under a true open source license is a key defining element of a fair source license, separating it from other models such as open core. The DOSP protects a company’s commercial interests in the short term, before the code becomes fully open source.

[…]

In many ways, fair source is simply an exercise in branding — one that allows companies to cherry-pick parts of an established open source ethos that they cherish, while getting to avoid calling themselves “proprietary” or some other variant.

[…]

 

Source: Some startups are going ‘fair source’ to avoid the pitfalls of open source licensing | TechCrunch