New Storage Device is Very Small, as in 12 Atoms(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
New Storage Device is Very Small, as in 12 Atoms
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/science/smaller-magnetic-materials-push-boundaries-of-nanotechnology.html?hp
7 comments
12 atoms is the quantity used to store a single bit (~100 atoms / byte) near absolute zero. As usual that important nugget was buried in the middle of the article; just reading the first 3 paragraphs, one would think they had fit an entire floppy into 12 atoms.
I'm not sure how you got that impression. I only skimmed the article, and picked up the one bit per 12 atoms detail, thinking, "Well, it's not quite memory diamond, but it's as close as we've ever come."
I think it's worth noting that this was an experiment done as part of a research paper. The HN title basically implies that it's something ready for production. Nonetheless very impressive.
Extrapolating this, wouldn't that mean we could possibly get as much as 6.02e23 / (12 + C) bytes per mol of storage material?
Where C is the number of atoms required to communicate with that segment of memory. It might be (6.02e23 / 12) + C, even!
That's a terrifying 5,569,618.84 petabytes for what could amount to a few hundred grams of materials (assuming it's a compound, and not just iron (at approx 56 grams a mol)).
Perhaps even many thousand petabytes in a storage space the size of a paperclip.
The potential is incredible; and it makes me worry: what will developers waste that space on next?
Where C is the number of atoms required to communicate with that segment of memory. It might be (6.02e23 / 12) + C, even!
That's a terrifying 5,569,618.84 petabytes for what could amount to a few hundred grams of materials (assuming it's a compound, and not just iron (at approx 56 grams a mol)).
Perhaps even many thousand petabytes in a storage space the size of a paperclip.
The potential is incredible; and it makes me worry: what will developers waste that space on next?
The article is about arranging atoms on a surface with a scanning tunnelling microscope. You you don't seem to be counting this required surface it in your "storage material". And that's still ignoring all the machinery needed to actually arrange/detect the atoms.
The reading material was considered with the C at the end of the calculation; but even still, if it takes 100 times as much equipment to read and write as it does to store, those are still ridiculous numbers. That was my point.