The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Join the dots: Magnetic “nanodots” made of nickel could help improve the capacity of memory chips. A new technique for growing them using lattices of titanium nitride as a template (shown here as the lighter regions) allows the dots to be organized with their magnetic fields all pointing in the same direction.
Jay Narayan
Nanoscale magnetic particles could give data storage a boost.
A more reliable way to grow magnetic nanoparticles could help create the densest form of computer memory yet. The new technique, developed by researchers at North Carolina State University, makes it possible to arrange magnetic "nanodots"--particles around six nanometers wide--in orderly arrays, making it easier to use them to store bits of information magnetically.
Jay Narayan, a professor of material science at North Carolina State University who led the work, says that a nanodot chip measuring one centimeter square could, in theory, store a terabit of data--50 times more than flash, the densest form of memory currently available.
Narayan's group measured the magnetic properties of individual nanodots to show that they could hold magnetic information reliably. Talks are under way with memory manufacturers including Hitachi and Seagate to commercialize the technology, he says.
"The primary innovation is that we can keep all these dots ordered and aligned in the same way," says Narayan. This applies not just to their physical alignment but also their magnetic orientation, which is crucial for switching their magnet states and reading them, he says.
Other researchers have created nanodots similar in size to Narayan's. Mark Welland, head of Cambridge University's Nanoscale Science Laboratory in the U.K., leads a group that has developed nanodots in hexagonal arrays. The trouble for Welland's group is that the magnetic orientation of a nanodot is determined by its physical orientation; since the arrays were hexagonal, their magnetic fields were not all pointing in the same direction.
Guest (aarontco)
The article says these need to be cheap and thermally stable to be competitive with traditional magnetic storage. If they have to move to iron-platinum to achieve thermal stability then one wonders if they lose cheapness. Platinum currently costs about $1900 per ounce, given that it is used in many high tech applications. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just keep these devices cool, or to find another material not as good as platinum thermally, but still less expensive?
For years everyone has been asking for a persistent storage medium and magnetised loops or something similar was touted decades ago.
It would be nice if this research is towards a persistent memory storage with fast RAM speed access.
Becuase all we wont is a computer we turn off, and when we turn it on its in exactly the same place we left it. So we never have start-up rubbish ever again.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
National Instruments has gathered customer information and data regarding some of the cost differences between building a custom solution versus using NI off-the-shelf tools. Using this data, we built the Graphical System Design ‘Build vs. Buy’ Calculator. The calculator can help show the financial differences between building a custom solution versus buying an off-the-shelf system. This paper discusses the benefits and drawbacks of both a traditional custom design approach and off-the-shelf embedded tools.
View full PDF >Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
Elroch
54 Comments
Nanodot versus flash
I suspect the specification for flash used for comparison may be out of date. Samsung have recently moved to a 20nm class manufacturing, with 32Gb microSDHC flash cards are now available that are the size of a fingernail. This article suggests that would require 12.8 square centimetres, which is probably assuming an older manufacturing process. I imagine the main point that nanodot memory is smaller would still be valid, but it would be interesting to hear the correct comparison.
Reply