New Nanofab Tech Developed by UMass

Atomasoft Corporation writes: "The article available here point out a new tool in nanotechnology: 'Imagine being able to store 25 full-length, DVD-quality movies on a disc the size of a quarter. That amounts to a data storage density of about 1.2 trillion bits per square inch. A recent development by University of Massachusetts researchers may someday enable consumers to do just that. The research is detailed in the Dec. 15 issue of the journal Science and is funded by a National Science Foundation "Partnership in Nanotechnology" grant, the Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, and the U.S. Department of Energy.'"

Comments

Basic Research, Applied Research, and Engineering

[Goonie]

I've seen a few comments talking about this as if it were a new generation of DVD that just needed a few manufacturers to agree on a standard. It's not. This isn't an engineering exercise. This isn't applied research. This looks like basic science to me.

Basic science is the cutting-edge stuff. It's where you do stuff because it's interesting, it's totally new, and it's got maybe a one in 50 chance of leading to a new product. But sometimes, just sometimes, it gets you semiconductors, penicillin, and the theory of relativity. The timeline between such research beginning and products arriving on the shelves is typically a decade, sometimes generations. To use a contemporary computer-related example, research into nanocomputing and quantum computing falls into this category.

Applied research covers the majority of research done by companies (but not all - very large companies do a fair bit of pure research). This is often directed by companies who want to investigate things closely related to their existing products. It typically runs under shorter timelines of maybe 2 - 5 years between research and outcomes. Intel's work on say 0.07-micron processes would probably fall into this category.

Engineering is what happens when companies turn basic and applied research into products.

Now, while these are fairly rough categories (really they represent a continuum rather than strict definitions, and there is feedback in both directions) they are good to keep in mind when examining new developments. Criticising the latest product on the market for really just being a slight refinement on the last one is missing the point. Conversely, criticising this for being "vapourware" is equally silly. It may well take ten years to appear on the market. More likely, you'll never hear of this again. But then again, it might be the foundation of ultra-high-density storage for the computers of 2015.

Magnetic vs. Optical

[NevDull]

Wouldn't it be more useful to pursue optical storage mechanisms than magnetic? Isn't information density going to be best served by three-dimensional storage?

I can see an accident

[OO7david]

magine being able to store 25 full-length, DVD-quaality movies on a disc the size of a quarter

*Pepsi drops from machine*

"Whelp, I've got my drink and my movie, what could be better?"

*looks at machine, realizes that wasn't a quater*