Live data from Hacker News

447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

zenodo.org

121–130 of 169 posts

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it causes problems in this increasingly narrow situation. Massive storage that takes a month to fully read is acceptable in a wide variety of use cases. If it's cheaper than hard drives it'll get a huge amount of users.

It's notable that 'time to read/write entire device' has been creeping up for any storage device you can buy off the shelf for the past ~40 years. Reading a floppy disk took around 30 secs for example. A whole CD took 5 mins. My whole 1TB SSD takes 10 mins.

A modern hard drive (36TB @ 280MB/s) can take more than a day. If you treat a bank of tapes as one device this can get even more extreme.

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#122

Every year or so there's a new article about some new spectacular storage medium. Crystals, graphene, lasers, quartz, holograms, whatever. It never materializes. Demonstrating 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…

Well, yeah. It takes a heck of a long time to pull something out of the lab, let alone theory, into the real world, and there's a ton of ways that it can die along the way. But you do need people to be pursuing these things to actually get something into production, else there really would never be any progress. To me this reaction feels a bit of a misunderstanding about why it's worth discussing these ideas at all: it's not meant to be a forecast of where technology is definitely going in the future, it's a potential direction that some people think is worth pursuing, and even if the odds are low for any given idea it doesn't make them worthless. (I've worked for near 10 years to turn something that 'worked in the lab' when I joined into an actual product, for example, and it's still not quite standing on its own feet in production yet).

I'm not familiar enough with the space to know how this idea rates compared to alternative options at similar levels of development: the density is obviously extreme (but probably not the biggest advantage), and it makes sense to me that the underlying physics could work robustly, but the practicalities of how you read and write seem pretty difficult (and I think the paper kind of glosses over this: read caching and defect mapping could be trickier than it implied. Accessing the tape from both sides also seems like it will make the engineering more difficult).

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#123
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What advantage would hovering have?

No Street Infrastructure needeed to drive anywhere (kinda).

Ok, and where does the energy to consistently keep a weight in the air come from and is it really worth spending?

I know flying cars are some sort of futuristic trope, yet I cringe at it every time I see it. They always assume magical infinite power. In the real the reason we do not have flying cars is the same why you don't use a drone as a coat hanger at home: It is just more practical to use a mechanical solution that holds your coat for infinite time without any energy use or noise/heat emissions and it is much cheaper.

Lifting stuff against gravity is not free, but a piece of wood, a brick or a rubber wheel does a pretty good job at it. One way to do it is magnets, but that means you need even more complicated roads.

We are living on a warming planet where only the naive and the evil pretend that energy use is something only the poor have to think about. We all have to think about it.

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No lab — the work is computational. All calculations run on a Dell Precision workstation with ORCA (quantum chemistry) software. An experimental collaborator is now preparing the C-AFM validation. The solo approach is a consequence of the work spanning multiple fields that don't share a single department.

Couldn't you potentially get some smaller grants from each of the fields? Or is that too much paperwork. It always seems so much work to get those grants.

It's a near full-time job in and of itself, and the nature of them means that you really want to get a grant for something you've already done and use the scraps from it to fund the new stuff.

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#125
post #95

I don’t understand the comments here. They say in the last paragraph: > A scanning-probe prototype already constitutes a functional non-volatile memory device with areal density exceeding all existing technologies by more than five orders of magnitude. Are we supposed to read all these stories as lies? Now it doesn’t say that this is easy to produce, but if those claims are true, it doesn’t really matter if it is ver…

By itself the density of such a system would just be an interesting superlative: the paper itself references people who have achieved similar densities in the lab, but it's not necessarily useful if the read and write are slow and the total addressable area is miniscule: both things I would expect from the described proof-of-concept (the main point of which would be to demonstrate that the storage works at all, and maybe to evaluate its robustness to some degree).

You should not expect that even the best of ideas at this stage are going to turn into products on any reasonable timescale, this is at a super early level of development and there are probable more things that can go wrong than you are imagining. But the paper shows there has been a good amount of effort at this stage to evaluate the robustness of the storage: the whole reason for this particular arrangement seems to be that it's pretty robust while still being writable. (though anything nanoscale is not something you're going to be able to handle directly)

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#126

Every year or so there's a new article about some new spectacular storage medium. Crystals, graphene, lasers, quartz, holograms, whatever. It never materializes. Demonstrating 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…

I have no idea if this is practical but I remember when flash memory was this suspicious semi-science fiction thing too. There are probably some people on this site that remember the same for DRAM. There have been loads of things in between that didn't make it. Some of them were semi-crackpot, some actually went into production like bubble memory and Optane. Few of them have met the sweet spot of the market in a way…

Most kinds of memory devices are based on old principles of making a memory device, which are applied to new materials.

I do not think that any new memory device principles have been invented after WWII. Already by 1940, the inventor of DRAM, John Vincent Atanasoff, had enumerated almost all principles that can be used to make a memory device.

The first DRAM of Atanasoff was made with discrete capacitors, then 5-years later von Neumann proposed to use iconoscope cathode-ray tubes instead, which were used for a few years, before being replaced by magnetic core memories. The Intel company was formed for the commercialization of the first (1-kbit) DRAM integrated circuit made with MOS transistors.

The memory described in TFA is in principle equivalent with a memory made with mechanical toggle switches or latching relays with mechanical latching, where the 2 stable states are maintained by elastic forces and you can toggle the state if you apply a force great enough on the switch.

Reducing a mechanical bistable device to the size of a few atoms reaches the possible limit of memory density. As described in the parent article, this device should be able to store information safely and it should be able to switch is state quickly.

The difficulties are not in the memory cell itself, but in how to enable fast and accurate reading and writing. While the memory cell itself may have the minimum size permitted by the atomic structure, there is no way to miniaturize to the same extent any kind of reading and writing interfaces, so that they could be incorporated in the memory cell, like in an SRAM cell.

Therefore the only solution that can preserve the high cell density is to have a read/write head that is shared by a great number of cells, i.e. which must be moved in order to access different cells.

So the memory, at least within some block, must have mechanical access, so it must be implemented as a tape or a disc. Multiple heads could be used to increase the read/write speed, like also for magnetic memories.

So I do not think that there is much to criticize in this paper, it makes sense and it identifies a new material that is suitable for implementing a known kind of memory cell at an atomic scale, even if it is unlikely that a practical memory based on this concept will become possible any time soon.

Microsoft has worked for many years on their glass memory devices, which have much more important advantages, and they are still far from being able to sell such devices, mainly due to the cost of the required lasers, for which there is a chicken-and-egg problem, they are very expensive because they are produced in very small quantities and they cannot be incorporated in a device intended for mass production, because they are too expensive.

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were the topics and titles of your dissertation in the first two PhD? Were they related to this topic or totally different? Edit: https://www.mathgenealogy.org/id.php?id=61429 It looks quite unrelated

This is their referenced 2013 paper on the subject: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258423577_Data_Stor... Clearly they have been working on this for over a decade.

I wanted to check the journal where it was published, there are good journals and bad journals.It's very strange that the doi is dead. I found this http://www.aspbs.com/graphene/contents_graphene2013.htm but it's also full of dead links.

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#128

Every year or so there's a new article about some new spectacular storage medium. Crystals, graphene, lasers, quartz, holograms, whatever. It never materializes. Demonstrating 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…

Every article like this there is someone that points this out. Not hard to do but sure is reliable.

The hard work would be maintaining a database of ideas which were similarly hyped over the past (say) couple centuries - including details on if/when each idea worked out, or fell out of hype-space, or was proven useless.

From that, you might be able to draw useful conclusions. Well...you'd also need correction factors for how profitable the hype itself was, over time, in the various scientific & technical fields.

The business model would be selling db access to VC's, R&D managers, and other folks making decisions about real money.

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were the topics and titles of your dissertation in the first two PhD? Were they related to this topic or totally different? Edit: https://www.mathgenealogy.org/id.php?id=61429 It looks quite unrelated

This is their referenced 2013 paper on the subject: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258423577_Data_Stor... Clearly they have been working on this for over a decade.

The journal (Graphene, ASP) ceased operations and the DOI infrastructure went dark. The paper itself is archived at ResearchGate: researchgate.net/publication/258423577. The content is independently verifiable.
Post reply on HN