(I'm also unclear how the bit is supposed to actually flip under the applied electric charge without the fluorine and carbon having to pass through each other.)
447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
51–60 of 169 posts
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you need to build a demo of Tier 2? I am guessing if you can do that then you can get an investor.
Tier 2 requires near-field infrared optics at sub-10 nm resolution — that's active research in several groups but not commercially available yet. The immediate next step is Tier 1: one C-AFM image proving the read, one voltage pulse proving the write. That's $300 in materials and access to an AFM. Already in progress with a collaborator.
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people do not need to worry about material possessions as much as some others because of the random birth wealth lottery. Then they can pursue interests in less goal driven ways than it would otherwise seem wise
In many European counties it's easily feasible to just study all your life while working ~20 hours / week. I won no lottery but had no issue spending a decade of my life pursuing interests at universities while working 20-30 / hours a week in a comfortable software dev job. If I'm paying for "free" education with my tax euros, I might as well use it.
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#54This is a pipe dream and I’m almost tempted to say a fever dream. The chemistry part seems somewhat sound, even though that’s outside of my field of expertise. But the entire readout process is questionable, and has clear signs of heavy AI writing. The AFM mechanism described as “tier 1” (very strong LLMism, btw) is somewhat optimistic but realistic. The fields needed are large compared to usual values in solid state…
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#55Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#56Perhaps title had a typo? fluorographane -> Fluorographene Can't find a single page about fluorographane https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=fluorographane&t... But this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorographene
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people do not need to worry about material possessions as much as some others because of the random birth wealth lottery. Then they can pursue interests in less goal driven ways than it would otherwise seem wise
In many European counties it's easily feasible to just study all your life while working ~20 hours / week. I won no lottery but had no issue spending a decade of my life pursuing interests at universities while working 20-30 / hours a week in a comfortable software dev job. If I'm paying for "free" education with my tax euros, I might as well use it.
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tier 2 requires near-field infrared optics at sub-10 nm resolution — that's active research in several groups but not commercially available yet. The immediate next step is Tier 1: one C-AFM image proving the read, one voltage pulse proving the write. That's $300 in materials and access to an AFM. Already in progress with a collaborator.
at that level (Tier 2) we're basically talking plasmonics, right? optics + antenna theory for the uninitiated. SPR, quantum plasmonics, active nanophotonics.. that's some advance shit from the (hopefully near) future, man. This is mostly in semiconductor research now, right? maybe biology?
Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#59Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane
#60Demonstrating this stuff is possible isn't the hard part, it seems. Productionizing it is. You have to have exceedingly fast read and write speeds: who cares if it can store an exabyte if it takes all month to read it, or if you produce data faster than you can write it? It has to be durable under adverse conditions. It has to be practical to manufacture the medium and the drives. You probably don't want to have to need a separate device to read and a device to write. By the time most of these problems are worked out, most of these technologies aren't a whole lot better than existing tech.
Stick this on the "Wouldn't it be nice if graphene..." pile.