Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Researchers Achieve Amazing Memory Density

Posted by kdawson on Sun Oct 28, 2007 08:10 PM
from the line-forms-here-for-flash-replacements dept.
Mr. Fahrenheit writes in with a Wired story on research out of Arizona State, where researchers have "developed a low-cost, low-power computer memory that could put terabyte-sized thumb drives in consumers' pockets within a few years... The new memory technology — programmable metallization cell (PMC) — comes as current storage technologies are starting to reach their physical limits." PMC involves the on-demand creation of copper nano-wire bridges. It's said to promise memories that are 1/10 the cost and 1/1000 the power consumption of conventional Flash memory. Three memory manufacturers have licensed the technology and the first chips are expected on the market in 18 months.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Other specs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:12PM (#21152681) Homepage Journal
    How about speed, durability, mean time before failure, etc.
    • FTA: "Kozicki says the process is like condensing a crystal from a solution, except that the process is almost infinitely reversible." Remember that gargoyles episode where like half of australia gets covered in nano crystals? That's what your room looks like after a drive failure.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      How about letting them build the thing first? Or do you suggest we form a statistical opinion based on the two or three prototypes that might exist?
      #places in circular file under vaporware for 18 months.
    • Re:Other specs? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday October 29 2007, @05:12AM (#21155255) Homepage Journal

      How about speed, durability, mean time before failure, etc
      Man, you guys are a tough crowd. This is a breakthrough for chrissake. I can imagine if Slashdot had been around when they reported Alexander Graham Bell's famous "Watson, come here I need you" experiment. You'd have been saying "But will he be able to get speech enhancement using minimum mean-square error log-spectral amplitude estimators?" And asking about Wiener filters.

      But that's why I love you.

      [he said "Wiener" filter, heh-heh]
      • Re:Other specs? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Danny Rathjens (8471) <slashdot2&rathjens,org> on Sunday October 28 2007, @09:57PM (#21153403) Homepage
        I was curious as to your claim of "shelf life of like forever" for the InPhase disks, so I checked them out.

        50 year media archive life
        http://www.inphase-technologies.com/products/default.asp?tnn=3 [inphase-technologies.com]

        Among the manufacturers that have done testing, there is consensus that, under recommended storage conditions, CD-R, DVD-R, and DVD+R discs should have a life expectancy of 100 to 200 years or more
        http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub121/sec4.html [clir.org]

        Plus InPhase only sells the 300GB version now. Your claim to be able to call up and get the 1.6TB discs must have been made 3 to 4 years in the future since that is when their website says they will make the 3rd generation disks that are 1.6TB.
        Plus one of those drives costs $18,000! (and the 300GB disks costs $180). I could build a RAID and replace hard drives every few years and still come out ahead price-wise.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            I hope you realize that wasn't his point. His point was, he could build a RAID setup to get 1.6TB, replace the drives once a year and still come out ahead when the 1.6TB single drive comes out. RAID 1 is not the only RAID out there.

            I also get your point. RAID 1 is fault tolerance, not backup solution.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        You know why? Cuz right now I can pick up the phone and get a functional drive and disks that can hold 1.6TB each with a shelf life of like forever. And of course speeds of 120 MB/s reading. This 18 months stuff isn't going to cut it.

        This article on inPhase [macworld.com] from a few months back says "InPhase plans a second-generation 800GB optical disc with data transfer rates of about 80MB/sec., with plans to expand its capacity to 1.6TB by 2010." (emphasis mine) So unless by "today," you mean "3 years from today," th

          • Re:Other specs? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by pushing-robot (1037830) on Monday October 29 2007, @12:09AM (#21154133)
            I dunno, a cheap, low-powered memory technology should be good regardless of the speed. For one thing, you can RAID any number of individual cells, for another, most drive space in PCs and handheld devices today is used for music, photos, and video, none of which are especially disk-intensive. Even 1080p Blu-Ray is only ~5MB/s.

            But that doesn't mean I have high hopes; /. rarely goes a week without some miracle new storage technology yet I'm still using hard drives and the odd flash chip.
            • Remember young one, there was once a time, in ages long past, that hard disks and flash were wild dreams, even perhaps vaporware.

              These took ages too develop to maturity as well, and many techs that once were introduced just fizzled away.

              Too often we make the mistake of thinking things should be happening now. IT moves fast, but not all that fast. How long does it take for MS to come up with a new version of their software? Let alone actually do the things they once promised?

              Hardware is the same, we see something intresting and want it now. Doesn't work like that, and then when it finally arrives, we are so used to it already that we just go "meh".

              We got harddrives of HALF A TERRABYTE being the most effective money/gigabyte buy right now. Think about that for a second. How many years do you have to go back when you would have had to stuff a server full of hardware to get that kind of storage you can now find in basic desktops?

              How many years ago is it that people were excited about flash storage of 32 megabytes that was slow as hell?

              All these advances are possible because of those stories like these you read about, and then forgot when the actuall technology arrives that uses them.

              Offcourse we get a lot of vapor, hologram storage seems to be one, but a lot of the stuff does eventually, slowly emerge. Take e-paper. Been around for years, but there are now actuall products out there that use it. By the time it will become widely available it won't be worthy of a headline anymore, and slashdot will be reporting on the next hot thing that might one day be.

  • by Daimanta (1140543) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:12PM (#21152685) Journal
    Togheher with your flying car. No. Really.
  • Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)

    by thatskinnyguy (1129515) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:13PM (#21152691)
    Who on earth would ever need more than a terabyte?
  • Vaporware. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Iso (1088207) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:13PM (#21152693)
    We've all seen this a dozen times before. All "amazing density storage" is vaporware, even if we'll be able to buy it real soon now.
    • Re:Vaporware. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:24PM (#21152755) Journal
      Are you kidding me? putting 1.44 Mb on a 3 & 1/2 inch disk still blows my mind. If there is a nuclear holocaust, and I'm the smartest person left alive, I'd consider myself a genius if I could get to that stage. Or I suppose, as the smartest person alive, I could just invent a clay tablet and They'd worship me as a god. yeah, that seems easier. But still, man 1.44 mb! un-freaking-believable.
      • Re:Vaporware. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rbarreira (836272) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:36PM (#21152853) Homepage
        I don't think most people nowdays appreciate how much 1.44 MB is...
        • by jollyreaper (513215) on Sunday October 28 2007, @09:46PM (#21153323)

          I don't think most people nowdays appreciate how much 1.44 MB is...
          They will if you make them copy it out in punch cards. My high school computer teacher used that as a threat. Then again, she also warned us to keep those little plastic sleeves on the 3.5 disks to prevent the spread of viruses. *shakes head sadly*
        • Re:Vaporware. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Kjella (173770) on Sunday October 28 2007, @10:01PM (#21153419) Homepage
          It reminds me of an episode from Futurama:
          Fry: "That clover helped by rat fink brother steal my dream of going into space! Now I'll never get there ..."
          Leela: "You went there this morning for donuts."

          I mean, take for example flight. It's one helluva achievement isn't it, to fly like a bird. Ever since the dawn of man we've dreamt of it, like the legend of Icarus, Leonardo da Vinci's attempts at a flying machine and so on until finally some daredevils like the Wright brothers actually did it. I should be thrilled to fly, right? Well, last time I was just annoyed at the security checks, bored by the safety lecture, disgusted by the food and spent most of my time reading a book waiting for time to pass.

          Or this little magic thingie I have that lets me speak to anyone in the whole world, through thin air (not all the way, but I'll skip the details). I mean, would you believe it? Instead I'm mostly annoyed on how it can't always get through walls, that I have to recharge it every so often and that it's part of the "always on" stress of modern life.

          For that matter, that I can post this comment on a website halfway around the globe is a wonder of technology itself. That doesn't stop me (or everyone else, it seems) from complaining about their ISP and prices, support etc. or some shortcoming of the applications or protocols or whatever.

          I think the point is that if you went around like "oh wow" appriciating common things that much, you'd never do anything but get dazzled all day long. Then again, it probably wouldn't hurt to enjoy what we have a little more, but still... and "how much 1.44 MB is" is rather far down on my list.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            I remember when I first got a 1200 baud modem and was ecstatically excited to have a piece of communications technology that could actually send text faster than I could read it. It was like science fiction!
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              I recall the 5MB hard drive in an early generation IBM PC. Took something like four hours to run a format cycle, which even then seemed outrageous compared to 360KB floppy disk write speeds. Hated that machine. By the time you installed a compiler or two, no room left to do any work. On the 10MB machine, you could compile a program, *and* generate some listings to help debug the compiler (errors in the compilers of that era were almost as frequent as errors in my own code). One I recall from a C compil
  • Almost Infiniate? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WillRobinson (159226) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:15PM (#21152703) Journal
    "Kozicki says the process is like condensing a crystal from a solution, except that the process is almost infinitely reversible. If the PMC is fed a positive charge, the copper atoms return to their previous free-floating state, and the nanowires disassemble."

    I would like to know the exact number of cycles this will take, plus or minus a few million times.

    The technology looks like it would eventual deplete the material used for the interconnect. But than again I am not a physicist.
    • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Monday October 29 2007, @12:27AM (#21154209) Journal
      This sounds suspiciously like "whiskers".

      These little puppies were first discovered by accident back when AT&T was "The Phone Company". If I've got this right: Bell Labs had come up with a new alloy for terminal blocks that they thought would have some advantages. Western Electric made some up and the Bell Systems deployed them.

      Some time later they started running into trouble. Linemen would try to turn the nut and it wouldn't turn. So they cut some out and sent 'em in for analysis.

      These long, thin, crystals of metal had grown through the boundary of the thread, welding the nuts onto the bolts. They were extremely pure and very strong - in the general neighborhood of the theoretical strength of the material, when things fabricated by normal processes fell short by a "factor of many" (more than one power of ten).

      They cristened them "whiskers". I'm not aware of anything that came of that at the time.

      But when the early satellites were going up (back when the very early printed circuits were the cutting edge of hi-tech), whiskers showed up again - growing between the lines of the printed circuit board exposed to vacuum and zero g, shorting things out. This is why early US satellites (heavily miniaturized to go on the small boosters) tended to flake out while early Russian stuff (big discrete components on terminal strips lifted by their big boosters) kept working - and why that reversed later, when the US had the problem solved and the Russians started miniaturizing and had to go through the same learning curve.

      Once they figured out what was happening and came up with an alloy that didn't whisker, they played around for a bit with self-healing printed circuit boards. These had conductors of a whiskering alloy with a plating of non-whiskering stuff. Idea was that if a trace broke due to vibration during launch, the exposed core would whisker across the gap and make things run again (until it whiskered over to another wire and shorted things out.) During that time they also played with self-healing aluminized mylar capacitors, designed so that if the mylar developed a hole the cap would discharge through the hole, vaporize the aluminum around the hole, and things would then go back to normal operation.

      I'm not sure that any of this actually worked out.

      If these ARE whiskers-on-demand as storage elements, it's nice to see whiskers actually do something useful. B-)
  • Finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by WK2 (1072560) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:18PM (#21152727) Homepage
    Finally, they will have a viable means to distribute Duke Nuke'm Forever!
  • Cost vs. Price (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Boogaroo (604901) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:40PM (#21152909) Homepage
    It may cost 1/10th the cost to make, but I submit that we'll be charged double the current price simply because it's "new and improved." Just look at CDs vs. Tape or VHS vs. DVD.
  • by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:45PM (#21152941)
    Conventional memories rely on moving electrons in and out of insulating wells. This works both reliably and quickly. Reliable because it's a simple electrical process. Quickly because electrons are very light.

    Now building copper bridges is a whole different kind of animal. It's more akin to chemistry. Reliability is likely to be poor, as impurities and dust bollix things up. Speed and power consumption are not going to be great, as you're moving copper atoms, many thousands of times heavier than electrons.

    This device may be more in the running as a disk-drive replacement than as a substitute for flash memory.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      If I'm not mistaken, the signaling delay of conventional circuits is dominated by the reactance of the electromagnetic fields, not by the momentum of the electrons. Therefore, there's not much basis to conclude that the momentum of copper atoms moving over a couple of nanometers distance will cause a significant delay reletave to an electronic circuit saddled by its capacitance and inductance.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Actually the technology they present is quite realistic. I did look at the article and the technical paper available on their website. They are talking about building the conducting bridge in an heavily doped material where the conductible material are sphere of approximately 20nm with a spacing of approximately 2nm(approximately 2 atoms diameter).Submitting such a solution even if it a "solid material" to a differential potential will create a field who could cause something like electro migration. Dependi
  • by SamP2 (1097897) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:52PM (#21152993)
    Cheap? Cool. Large size? even better. Energy efficient? Meh, I'm not in Greenpeace, but sure. And I'm even willing to believe it's reasonably reliable.

    But how come nobody's concerned aobut the the IO speed? I wouldn't be too concerned about reading, but if writing/rewriting requires real-time rebuilding of gates, wouldn't it be snail-slow?

    The IO of even regular hard drives already becomes a significant factors as drives grow exponentially larger and speed stays the same as always. If this is even slower, it'd become a serious deterrent.
    • by safXmal (929533) on Sunday October 28 2007, @09:02PM (#21153059)
      I went to the website http://www.axontc.com/ [axontc.com] . and found following description;
      "Key Benefits
      PMCm has a number of unique attributes that make it a highly attractive component for future systems on silicon:
      Operation at low voltages ( 0.3 V)
      High speed write and erase operations
      ( 30 ns)
      Low energy to change state ( 1 pJ)
      Physical scalability to tens of nm
      Easy integration with IC logic circuitry
      Operation as a low refresh-rate DRAM or as a true non-volatile memory with high endurance (based on the programming mode).
      These features define a class of devices that are essential for projected electronics systems and which will be difficult to realize using developed versions of today's circuits. "

      Hope that answers some of your questions

    • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Sunday October 28 2007, @09:19PM (#21153157)
      Energy efficiency is not at all arbitrary if it is coming out of a battery.
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Sunday October 28 2007, @10:43PM (#21153665)

    Three memory manufacturers have licensed the technology and the first chips are expected on the market in 18 months.

    Hey, stick to The Rules. No new, paradigm-changing technologies are allowed to be announced as arriving in less than 5 years.

    For that matter, they can't be more than 5 years out either!

  • by Kingrames (858416) on Sunday October 28 2007, @11:33PM (#21153959)
    Since this probably means that game producers will be able to put their games on flash drives instead of CDs and DVDs, it would be even more convenient than having a backup disk.

    That, and they'd be able to shrink down the size of game boxes again, from dvd size to, dare I say it, cigarette pack sized. Your next video game could be dispensed by a vending machine.
    • by Jeremi (14640) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:39PM (#21152891) Homepage
      how to back it all up


      Buy two, they're small.


      how to secure it


      Best way is to build in a Bluetooth interface with encryption, then swallow the memory module. (small grappling hooks will secure it to the lining of your small intestine). That way if the bad guys want your private information, they'll have to (quite literally) go through you to get it.

    • by SamP2 (1097897) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:40PM (#21152905)

      how to back it all up
      I trust the manufacturer's word. I have no reason to believe a solid brand-name disk would ever fail.

      how to secure it
      Nobody needs to hack me, because I have nothing to hide!
    • I use security through clutter. I keep everything in one map. Every file has a cryptic name which only I can decyper, well, most of the time at least, just not on monday mornings. The map contains 10 files that are secret and about 25,000 intresting files I can't do without, I do intent to one day actualy look at them, if I can decyper their filenames at that particular day.
      For backup, well, I have the same files in my gmail account, on 2 online harddisk services, on the 3 other computers I own, some of the files are printed and archived in a neat pile in the corner of my room (sorted from oldest to newest) and I sure my uncle Steve has a few of those files as well. The rest I can redownload if I ever need them and remember ever having them in the first place.
      As for the real mission critical files, I use Kazaa: I put them in a zipfile, add an intresting movie or mp3, then share it. Most of these files are backed up on 125,400 computers, all spread out across the globe. Now who can say that about his backup policy? (other than the RIAA and the MPAA) The files are secure too, since I rename them to "My views on the political situation of flower gardens" and remove the extension.
    • by ScentCone (795499) on Sunday October 28 2007, @08:42PM (#21152923)
      The problem with how memory is that it gives developers no incentive to optimize code to run it faster/better/smaller other then small speed boosts. 1 TB of storage would be nice, but if it means that I have to download 300 GB for a program or a Linux distribution with the same speed of 1 MB/second it would take forever or say a 7 MB web site. We need to see an increase in Internet speeds at affordable prices first before we go overboard with physical storage.

      Um... there ARE other uses for lots of storage, you know? Say, backing up in the field after spending a week shooting a couple thousand images per day with a digital camera that writes 50mb files?

      Video?

      Multi-track digital audio?

      It isn't always about Linux distros, you know?
    • On the other hand, having cheap storage on this scale also means that one of the largest barriers to HD-DVD/BluRay piracy will suddenly vaporize--everyone can have more than enough storage for all those pirated movies. Of course, the bandwidth to download them will still remain the bottleneck...
    • Ummm, why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phorm (591458) on Sunday October 28 2007, @10:29PM (#21153591) Homepage Journal
      When would you ever have to transfer a full terabyte at a time? Unless you're doing a really bigass backup to this thing, you probably won't.
      And if you are, well that's a hell of a lot faster and more convenient than burning 233 standard DVD-R's (about what it would take with non dual-sided discs) or writing the equivilent tape or network-based backup method. Heck, that beats out most disk-to-disk transfers.