Daily News

Permanent URI for this communityhttp://localhost:4000/handle/123456789/1851

BITS, ABG, Education

Browse

Filters

20252

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Rao, V. RamgopalHas files: No

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Shrinking devices, expanding possibilities
    (Financial Express, 2025-12-13) Rao, V. Ramgopal
    A 3-nanometre transistor is no longer science fiction; it is inside the phone in your pocket. Yet classical silicon is gasping. The next leap will come from nanoelectronics: new materials, new device physics, and integration at atomic precision. This includes today’s scaled CMOS, powering everything from AI chips to edge devices. This is not just about making chips smaller. It is about making them smarter, cheaper, and greener. The global nanoelectronics market, encompassing scaled CMOS semiconductors, sensors, and IoT edge devices, is heading toward $1 trillion by 2030. Nanosensors already detect a single virus particle. Ultra-low-power chips enable IoT networks that run for ten years on a coin cell. Flexible electronics printed on plastic will turn any surface into a display or a health monitor. From electric-vehicle powertrains to satellite constellations, every high-growth sector rides this wave.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Perception parameter a black box in NIRF rankings’: BITS Pilani Group V-C Ramgopal Rao urges more transparency
    (The Indian Express, 2025-09-18) Rao, V. Ramgopal
    With BITS Pilani entering the top 10 in the ‘universities’ category of the NIRF rankings this year for the first time since 2016, Prof V Ramgopal Rao, its Group Vice-Chancellor pointed to what worked for the institution this year and the issues he thinks are to be addressed in the rankings. Prof Rao, who is a former director of IIT Delhi, and has been a faculty member at both IIT Bombay and IIT Delhi, co-authored a paper – ‘Unpacking Inconsistencies in the NIRF rankings’ – published in the journal Current Science last year. The paper raised concerns about the reliability of the rankings, flagging issues like the “subjective” nature of the ‘perception’ parameter that is included in the rankings, inadequate transparency in the methodology, and reliance on data that is self-reported by institutions.