Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    31,709
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2,060 times in 719 posts

    News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    Using nanoscale molecular switches.
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    511
    Thanks
    24
    Thanked
    27 times in 22 posts
    • cameronlite's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P5K Premium
      • CPU:
      • Intel Q6600
      • Memory:
      • 4GB Corsair 1333mhz
      • Storage:
      • 128GB Corsair Force 3 SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI Twin Frozr AMD 5850 1GB
      • PSU:
      • XILENCE 600W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li P50r AMD Limited Edition
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8 Professional 64 bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer 243W 24", HP LA2405 24", Dell 2405 24"
      • Internet:
      • Virgin - 30Mb

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    Did anybody else pick up on the fact that they are saying 1 bit per molecule and the current tech is on 1 bit per 3 million atoms. It's not a like for like comparison...
    Currently studying: Electronic Engineering and Artificial Intelligence at the University of Southampton.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,894
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked
    84 times in 64 posts
    • miniyazz's system
      • CPU:
      • Acer Aspire 8920G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Optoma HD700X projector @ c. 90"
      • Internet:
      • Really, really ****

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    51 atoms per molecule apparently.

  4. #4
    Gentoo Ricer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Galway
    Posts
    11,048
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    944 times in 704 posts
    • aidanjt's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Strix Z370-G
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-8700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB Corsiar LPX 3000C15
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 960 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0
      • PSU:
      • EVGA G3 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define C Mini
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus MG279Q
      • Internet:
      • 240mbps Virgin Cable

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    Of course the problem with nano-scale storage is the data is much more readily corruptible. Genetic coding had to evolutionarily bulk up to protect itself for a very good reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    ...every time Creative bring out a new card range their advertising makes it sound like they have discovered a way to insert a thousand Chuck Norris super dwarfs in your ears...

  5. #5
    Senior Member Hicks12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Plymouth-SouthWest
    Posts
    6,586
    Thanks
    1,070
    Thanked
    340 times in 293 posts
    • Hicks12's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z68-V
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 2500k@4ghz, cooled by EK Supreme HF
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Kingston hyperX ddr3 PC3-12800 1600mhz
      • Storage:
      • 64GB M4/128GB M4 / WD 640GB AAKS / 1TB Samsung F3
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Palit GTX460 @ 900Mhz Core
      • PSU:
      • 675W ThermalTake ThoughPower XT
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-A70 with modded top for 360mm rad
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H IPS
      • Internet:
      • 10mb/s cable from virgin media

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    yup indeed, im not really sure how to take that comparison... its completely wrong . If it was 1 bit per atom then id say, great stuff
    Quote Originally Posted by snootyjim View Post
    Trust me, go into any local club and shout "I've got dual Nehalem Xeons" and all of the girls will practically collapse on the spot at the thought of your e-penis

  6. #6
    mush-mushroom b0redom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Middlesex
    Posts
    3,438
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked
    362 times in 279 posts
    • b0redom's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Some iMac thingy
      • CPU:
      • 3.4Ghz Quad Core i7
      • Memory:
      • 24GB
      • Storage:
      • 3TB Fusion Drive
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nViidia GTX 680MX
      • PSU:
      • Some iMac thingy
      • Case:
      • Late 2012 pointlessly thin iMac enclosure
      • Operating System:
      • OSX 10.8 / Win 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2713H
      • Internet:
      • Be+

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    Obligatory physics joke:

    Two atoms walking down the road. One says, "Wait I've dropped an electron we need to go back."
    The other replies, "Are you sure?"
    The first answers, "Yes. I'm positive."

  7. Received thanks from:

    aidanjt (05-07-2012),CAT-THE-FIFTH (06-07-2012),crossy (05-07-2012),mikerr (06-07-2012),Noxvayl (05-07-2012),Output (05-07-2012)

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    524
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked
    40 times in 34 posts

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    I suspect it may be quite some time before an STM becomes a component of common desktop systems.

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Kingdom of Fife (Scotland)
    Posts
    4,991
    Thanks
    393
    Thanked
    220 times in 190 posts
    • crossy's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS Sabertooth X99
      • CPU:
      • Intel 5830k / Noctua NH-D15
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 850Pro NVMe, 1TB Samsung 850EVO SSD, 1TB Seagate SSHD, 2TB WD Green, 8TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix GTX970OC
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX750 (modular)
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster HAF932 (with wheels)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit, Ubuntu 16.04LTS
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG Flattron W2361V
      • Internet:
      • VirginMedia 200Mb

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    I'm cynical today - surely this is the latest in a long line of data storage "perpetual motion machines"?

    I remember IBM claiming years ago that we'd all be storing Terabytes of data in something the size of a sugar cube - optically I think - by 2015. Can't see that prediction coming to pass.

    So yes, from the physics point of view this latest achievement is very impressive, but I'll be more impressed when they've got something that can RELIABLY store something approaching the massive amounts of data promised.

    That said, the growth in data storage is fascinating - I came across a 3.5" Seagate 40MB drive at the weekend, (ex Amiga boot drive), and sitting on my mouse pad at the moment is an old uSD card - 6,000MB.

    Career status: still enjoying my new career in DevOps, but it's keeping me busy...

  10. #9
    Raging Bull DeludedGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,594
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked
    76 times in 55 posts
    • DeludedGuy's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte H87M-HD3
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 4440
      • Memory:
      • 8GB DDR3 1800mhz
      • Storage:
      • 250GB Samsung 840 SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte R9 270 OC 2GB
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet Pure Power L8 600w
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24" Dell U2414H
      • Internet:
      • 75Mb BT Infinity

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    Heh, I remember getting a 10GB drive and thinking I would never fill it up...

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    474
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    26 times in 26 posts
    • pipTheGeek's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P6T Deluxe
      • CPU:
      • Core i7 920 @ 3.6GHz
      • Memory:
      • 3 * 2Gb Corsair XMS @ DDR3 1800
      • Storage:
      • 300GB 15K SAS + 500Gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX570
      • PSU:
      • corsair 760i
      • Case:
      • Corsair 550d
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell Alienware 23"
      • Internet:
      • VM 50Mb

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    I remember being totally in awe of a 40mb SCSI HDD at school. Then being amazed when the first 120MB drive became available for my Atari ST. Not that I could ever afford one.

    Some years ago I asked my geek friends how long they thought it would be before these new fangled flash cards / sticks replaced CDs as the re-writable media of choice. The consensus was that the flash memory was never going to get cheap enough to displace CDs. Now companies give away 2gb memory sticks like they used to give away pens.

    Back on topic, what every happened to carbon nano-tube RAM? Wasn't that meant to be mainstream by now?

  12. #11
    A shadowy flight. MSIC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    London/Herts
    Posts
    3,413
    Thanks
    394
    Thanked
    229 times in 168 posts
    • MSIC's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock H170M-ITX
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 6500
      • Memory:
      • 2 x 4GB Corsair Veng DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 240GB SSD (boot) +1TB Samsung F3
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GeForce 750Ti
      • PSU:
      • Silverstone 450W ST455F
      • Case:
      • Silverstone SG06-450
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2309W
      • Internet:
      • PlusNet FiberTTC

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    1 bit per molecule? Hah. Old news.
    I think we should be aiming to use Mr Higg's very own Boson now....
    I'm commenting on an internet forum. Your facts hold no sway over me.
    - Another poster, from another forum.

    System as shown, plus: Microsoft Wireless mobile 4000 mouse and Logitech Illuminated keyboard.
    Sennheiser RS160 wireless headphones. Creative Gigaworks T40 SII. My wife.
    My Hexus Trust

  13. #12
    Registered+
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    5 times in 5 posts

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    Quote Originally Posted by aidanjt View Post
    Of course the problem with nano-scale storage is the data is much more readily corruptible. Genetic coding had to evolutionarily bulk up to protect itself for a very good reason.
    When you say bulk, yes there is some spare stuff that doesn't encode for anything, however it is important for the evolution of proteins, allowing proteins to be relatively modular. Also when you think that your DNA effectively codes for everything about you biologically for however long you live, its not too bad, and it does it using a simple 3 part rule.

    DNA is interesting as it has its own inbuilt repair system (the base pairing) which only goes wrong when a lot of single nucleotide polymorphisms happen.

  14. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,894
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked
    84 times in 64 posts
    • miniyazz's system
      • CPU:
      • Acer Aspire 8920G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Optoma HD700X projector @ c. 90"
      • Internet:
      • Really, really ****

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    If it used RAID 5 it would be a lot more efficient

  15. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Kingdom of Fife (Scotland)
    Posts
    4,991
    Thanks
    393
    Thanked
    220 times in 190 posts
    • crossy's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS Sabertooth X99
      • CPU:
      • Intel 5830k / Noctua NH-D15
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 850Pro NVMe, 1TB Samsung 850EVO SSD, 1TB Seagate SSHD, 2TB WD Green, 8TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix GTX970OC
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX750 (modular)
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster HAF932 (with wheels)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit, Ubuntu 16.04LTS
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG Flattron W2361V
      • Internet:
      • VirginMedia 200Mb

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    Quote Originally Posted by miniyazz View Post
    If it used RAID 5 it would be a lot more efficient
    At the risk of getting yelled at as an idiot by the folks that know more about this than I do - which, let's be honest, is just about everyone else - here's a question.

    If the current tech stores 1 bit in 3 million atoms and this new one stores it in 51, then surely that gives enough "spare" space to put in some staggeringly impressive ECC and still demonstrate some pretty impressive density increases. E.g. use 51 atoms to store one bit, use another 400,000 to store error correct/parity information and still get a six-fold increase in data density.

    Apologies if this is a "Sun reader" level of stupidity, but I've only got dimly remembered high school physics to fall back on.

    Career status: still enjoying my new career in DevOps, but it's keeping me busy...

  16. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    167
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked
    13 times in 8 posts

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    Quote Originally Posted by crossy View Post
    If the current tech stores 1 bit in 3 million atoms and this new one stores it in 51, then surely that gives enough "spare" space to put in some staggeringly impressive ECC and still demonstrate some pretty impressive density increases. E.g. use 51 atoms to store one bit, use another 400,000 to store error correct/parity information and still get a six-fold increase in data density.
    We haven't heard anything about the molecular density or indeed the distance between each molecule required to prevent them from involuntarily switching states and - to keep it short - we don't have nearly enough data to support any such claims either way. We're left with having to trust the researchers it's indeed a data density breakthrough and they wouldn't have published their findings if it weren't so. As for your figures - my guesstimate would be you were roughly 6.000 times humbler reading this news article than I was.

  17. #16
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,459
    Thanks
    1,539
    Thanked
    1,024 times in 868 posts

    Re: News - Data storage miniaturisation; how about one bit per molecule?

    Misread FTW.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •