Nickel Sensors Could Raise Hard Disk Capacity
Makarand writes "Tiny filaments of nickel, thinner than a wavelength of visible light, acting as magnetic
sensors may expand the storage capacity of hard disks many times. Although, technologies
exist to increase hard disk capacity, reading data bits reliably from such disks has proven
difficult because as data bits become smaller their magnetic fields are weaker and difficult
to pick up. Nickel filaments are capable of picking up of these weak magnetic fields
using a phenomenon called "ballistic magnetoresistance" which is not completely understood.
As the sensors are only a few atoms wide the electrons travel along a straight line
in the conductor greatly enhancing the binary signal picked up from the data bits.
These sensors could also be used to detect biomolecules in low concentrations."
Tiny filaments of nickel, thinner than a wavelength of visible light,
:)
Is it just me or are we getting too clever?
Soon we'll be storing gigabytes on a single atom...
Get your own free personal location tracker
That depends on how many spins an atom can have at once:) Welcome to the world of quatum mechanics.
To store critical (or any data of some value ie: not junk) data on technology that is so vunurable to external forces if the technology is so small/fragile ?
wouldnt it be better to concentrate on more reliable rather than greater storage ?
Tiny filaments of nickel, thinner than a wavelength of visible light
Then how do we know they're there?
I dunno... First we had giant magnetoresistance, then colossal magnetoresistance... Ballistic just doesn't seem to fit. We should call it gargantuan magnetoresistance, or Herculean... I know! Let's call it "humongous magnetoresistance"!
...as I had the first HDD failure warning this evening on my "auto destruct after 12 months" IBM 60GXP. I wouldn't mind so much if it had been hammered, but it's in a PC that gets used about twice a month. Does 99.9% of the population care less about the availability of 200GB hard drives? Surely the priority should be data security, then speed (it's the biggest bottleneck in your PC), then capacity?
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Where and when will I - a normal consumer - be able to notice all those fantastic advances, like pixie dust, nickel filaments etc.? Sure, I notice a nice increase in storage capacity, a decrease in cost (and a warranty decrease;) - but nowhere I can see fantastic, large changes!
If I had a nickel for every time...
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Phhh. I knew that and I'm not even American...
Cheers,
Ian
Though the data storage application could certainly serve to fund the development and popularisation of this technology, it seems possible that in the long term the quoted "secondary" application may actually be the primary one. If the device can be tuned to detect virtually anything, it has obvious applications in industrial processes, bomb detection, and so on. This is incremental to existing efforts in these areas.
However, if it can be further trained to distinguish, it essentially amounts to an electronic "sense of smell". This is very exciting and has innumerable applications, especially in combination with other sensor devices and realtime feedback mechanisms involving both software and hardware.
A hypothetical consumer application might be to control the temperature that a bread product is grilled at, bringing it to a perfect (and user-selectable) stated of brownness, while turning down the heat in individual spots at the slightest hint of burning. Wonderful development
Could I interest anyone in some toast?
Last time a drive failed on me, I made it go ballistic too, and it offered little resistance (however the concrete offered considerable resistance). Is this a similar thing?
What chafes my drawers is that fact that we're looking to increase capacity and not reliability. Isn't the average life span of a hard drive only about 5-7 years? What ever happend to solid state storage??
I agree. I think that the hard drive manufacturers need to stop focusing on how big they can make drives, and to start focusing on ways to make drives more reliable. A 200 GB drive is useless if it dies after six months.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I've got a bad 41GB IDE HD with bad sectors, a bad 30GB with bad sectors, a dead 20GB HD and a 60GB IDE HD that is acting irrational. I've also RMA'd three 30GB IDE HDs in the last year.
The ironic thing is I've got five 5.25" full height 9GB SCSIs that are 10+ years old and they work PERFECTLY!
Before increasing capacity, I'd rather see them increase RELIABILITY. I don't care what they specs say about MTBF. I want real world reliability because I am tired of restoring or having to recover failing drives.
What we do need is faster access/read times, and an easy way to get that is a solidstate HD. Not a huge amount of storage, maybe about 5-10 gigs worth. Enough to hold the OS and commonly used apps. With RAM prices as low as they are now, where are these things?! I want nano-second access times, not miliseconds! Imagine booting your computer in 3 seconds. Now that would be progress.