Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

zenodo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 169 posts

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

#151

Post by Keyframe »

atoav wrote: post #150
Keyframe wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

smoother ride, no need for wheels so no road friction and fewer parts that wear, no need for shock absorbers as well, no need for roads clean of snow and ice which would make them both more practical and safer.. if we're talking star trek hovering, not rotor blade / hovercraft noisy shit with rotating parts that waste a ton of energy.

Aha, and which of the fundamental forces in our universe would it work with?

You asked what advantage would it have over rolling rubber, not how would one do it (you wouldn't with current understanding of physics and energy density/portability). Any at advantage vehicle like that is still in the realm of scifi.

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

#152

Post by tw04 »

skycrafter0 wrote: post #86
tw04 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You probably don't want to have to need a separate device to read and a device to write. I don’t think this would bother the average enterprise in the least. We used to have entire rooms dedicated to tape libraries that housed dozens of tape drives and thousands of tapes each. The read and write speed are absolutely critical but having to utilize multiple devices isn’t anything new at all.

Used to? We absolutely still do. LTO is a widely used format, and as far as I'm aware, it is "picking up more steam" each year.

I didn’t mean to imply that tape is dead despite the 40 years of insert new technology claiming they’ve finally killed tape.

I more meant we no longer have room sized libraries unless the cloud providers have commissioned something custom and not available to the public. I believe the last installed powderhorn I’m aware of was decommissioned almost a decade ago now.

https://www.iscgroupllc.com/products/storagetek/storagetek-p...

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

#153

Post by bastawhiz »

tngranados wrote: post #142
bastawhiz wrote: post #60

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 remember my father showing me one of those articles when I was a kid about a postal stamp size, thin and lightweight new memory system. I remember we were as doubtful then as you are now. A few years later I remember that moment while switching the micro SD card of a camera… Sometimes this breakthroughs turns out to be exactly as they are told

I remember reading the same stories about 5D optical storage. In 1996. It's still the same vaporware.

Flash, on the other hand, had made steady incremental progress from the time it was first described until it was fully commercialized.

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

#154

Post by bastawhiz »

moconnor wrote: post #104
bastawhiz wrote: post #60

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…

Very large, fast, read-only memory now has an incredible use-case: NN weights.

And that's described in this article is the opposite of fast! All of these technologies are

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

#155

Post by bastawhiz »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #113
bastawhiz wrote: post #60

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.

And the failure of the technologies to deliver is equally reliable!

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

#156

Post by bastawhiz »

staplers wrote: post #89
bitexploder wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels a little disjointed to compare old tech. Computing tech iteration cycles and adoption rates seem more interesting than things at the dawn of communications technology.

Communication technologies have been evolving for billions of years

Amazing how technology existed before sentient life!

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

#157

Post by bastawhiz »

nine_k wrote: post #85
bastawhiz wrote: post #60

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…

It took 15 if not 20 years to commercialize even such obvious, low-tech thing as radio telegraph, which can literally be built form common house supplies. It happened about 60 years after Maxwell predicted the electromagnetic waves theoretically. Red LEDs were invented / discovered in 1920s, became commercially successful as indicators in 1960s. Optical fibers were invented in 1920s or so, became a commercial success…

It's a good physical effect that doesn't obviously solve any real problems. Consider: 5D optical storage is thirty years old and SOTA transfer speed is about as many megabits per second. By the time it's fast enough to even approach a speed that's commercially useful, all of the other tech we have will have continued to progress. That's not to mention how fragile the quartz disks are. It's a real physical effect that doesn't solve problems.

We already have zero retention energy storage. The phenomenon in this paper isn't even all that new by the author's own admission—that's how it got to the fifty third revision. The tier 2 setup described here is purely speculative. Producing a single square centimeter of pure "fluorographane" (sic?) is still a task that would be exceedingly challenging for a research lab. And it's not clear how much energy it would take to read and write the data, or support the hardware necessary to do it at a speed that's makes it uniquely useful. Even if all of these problems are solved, and the cost is made reasonable, it's still completely unclear if it would be substantially better than what we have today.

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

#158

Post by foota »

Firerouge wrote: post #81
loneboat wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who cares if it can store an exabyte if it takes all month to read it To be fair, if I'm reading an exabyte in a month, my hardware's pushing >3 Tbps, which I'd be very happy with.

Plus just put 32 in stripping RAID if you really need to read an exabyte a day

Eh, that doesn't math out. It's the bandwidth per storage density (or ultimately per price) that matters.

If you have great cost per byte but your bandwidth per byte is bad enough that the price per byte doesn't make up for it then you have an issue.

They've started making hard drives with multiple heads because of this issue, they increased density to the point where it's not useful to continue adding density if it doesn't come with more bandwdith.

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

#160

Post by shiroiuma »

atoav wrote: post #123
mastermage wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

No, they assume magical anti-gravity technology. "magical infinite power" implies they're basically a hovercraft, forcing air downwards to hover. Without a shroud, even with infinite energy available, this means constantly blasting high-speed air all around the vehicle, which has some really obvious practical problems. It works for drones because they're small and lightweight and not near the ground and not even that close to each other.

>Lifting stuff against gravity is not free

It's close to free when you have magical anti-gravity technology. Similarly, traveling to other star systems hundreds of lightyears away in a couple days isn't so hard when you have magical FTL propulsion technology that somehow warps spacetime.

Post reply on HN