447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
1–10 of 169 posts
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#2[deleted]
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#3Yeah, I've been baited by "breakthroughs" in storage technology for almost 40 years at this point [1]. I'll believe it when it's in Best Buy. Battery "breakthroughs" have really taken up the mantle of headline-grabbing research fund-raising articles so it's nice to see a throwback to the OG: storage.
[1]: https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1991/06/23/holograms-the-ne...
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#4Sniff test: a paper with a single author and 53 revisions, listing a gmail address as contact information despite the author, after a brief internet search, appearing to have affiliations with CSU Global, (maybe) the University of Central Florida, and the San Jose State University Department of Aerospace.
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#5Sniff test: a paper with a single author and 53 revisions, listing a gmail address as contact information despite the author, after a brief internet search, appearing to have affiliations with CSU Global, (maybe) the University of Central Florida, and the San Jose State University Department of Aerospace.
Author here. Three PhDs (Mathematics, Pisa; Quantum Chemistry, UCF; Materials Science, UTD — in progress), plus MS degrees from SJSU and CSU. The gmail is because this is independent work, not affiliated with any institution. v53 reflects thirteen years of development since the original 2013 publication (Graphene 1, 107–109). The barrier is verified at two independent levels of theory with a confirmed transition state. Happy to discuss the physics.
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#6Remarkable. If this material works and is flexible enough, we could someday see tape drives with hundreds of exabytes of capacity.
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#7[dead]
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#8Remarkable. If this material works and is flexible enough, we could someday see tape drives with hundreds of exabytes of capacity.
Author here. The paper describes exactly this — a nanotape spool architecture with volumetric density of 0.4–9 ZB/cm³. Section 4.4 in the preprint.
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#9Sniff test: a paper with a single author and 53 revisions, listing a gmail address as contact information despite the author, after a brief internet search, appearing to have affiliations with CSU Global, (maybe) the University of Central Florida, and the San Jose State University Department of Aerospace.
Author here. Three PhDs (Mathematics, Pisa; Quantum Chemistry, UCF; Materials Science, UTD — in progress), plus MS degrees from SJSU and CSU. The gmail is because this is independent work, not affiliated with any institution. v53 reflects thirteen years of development since the original 2013 publication (Graphene 1, 107–109). The barrier is verified at two independent levels of theory with a confirmed transition stat…
Have you considered subjecting this to expert scrutiny by submitting to a journal? That's probably better than getting hot takes on HN by random technology enthusiasts, skeptics, anon experts, and trolls.
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Author here. Three PhDs (Mathematics, Pisa; Quantum Chemistry, UCF; Materials Science, UTD — in progress), plus MS degrees from SJSU and CSU. The gmail is because this is independent work, not affiliated with any institution. v53 reflects thirteen years of development since the original 2013 publication (Graphene 1, 107–109). The barrier is verified at two independent levels of theory with a confirmed transition stat…
Have you considered subjecting this to expert scrutiny by submitting to a journal? That's probably better than getting hot takes on HN by random technology enthusiasts, skeptics, anon experts, and trolls.
It's under peer review at Physica Scripta (IOP) since March 25. HN is for visibility, not validation.