Slashdot Mirror


NVRAM With Disordered Assemblies (Smaller/Cheaper)

chadjg writes " Jim Tour, of Rice University says "Our research shows that ordered precision isn't a prerequisite for computing. It is possible to make memory circuits out of disordered systems." The article on www.e4engineering.com says the team has made "NanoCells", self assembled devices made from gold nanowires and organic conductive molecules. These NanoCells are the first devices of their kind to be made into working microelectronic devices, apparently." Yep. Let an untold number of machines try to create NanoCells, and statistics says you'll find the most efficient kind.

7 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Just a thought... by whig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this a step towards creating quantum-effect neural networks (i.e., thinking machines)?

    --
    Peace and love, y'all
    1. Re:Just a thought... by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Probably not. When I was learning about logic circuits way back when we tried wiring circuits completely at random just to see what would happen. Almost invariably the initial chaos of the breadboarded circuit would stabilise either into a static state or oscillation between two or three set states within a dozen clocks. The longest times to stabilisation that we got were in the mid twenties. A simple demonstration of the principle that inside every chaotic system is order trying to get out.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:Just a thought... by Zan+Zu+from+Eridu · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Then chaos is an illusion, right?.

      Nope, chaos means that the system responds with big changes in its output to very small changes in its input.

      If you're a little into math Verhulst' model of biologic growth might help. This model is simply: x(n+1) -> a * x(n) * (1 - x(n)), an iterative model where x(n) is a number between 0 and 1 that indicates the population density at a given step n and a (the Malthusian factor) represents the fertility, a number between 0 and 4.

      If you choose a factor a <= 1, the model simulates a dying population, no matter what x(0) you put in, after some iterations it will become 0.

      If you pick 1 < a <= 2 the model simulates a stable population, no matter what x(0) you put in, after some iterations in will become 1 - 1/a.

      If you pick 2 < a <= 3 the model is still striving for a value of 1 - 1/a but now it will oscillate around this value at an ever smaller absolute distance.

      Models with 1 < a <= 3 are balanced, but the interesting stuff starts happening when we pick 3 < a <= 4, because now the model starts behaving chaoticly. If we take a = 3.2 for instance, the model will alternate between the values 0.51304451 and 0.79945549, a lot like the original posters' two alternating states.

      Now let's take a = 4 for the sake of argument because the model is then completely chaotic. If we start this with model with x(0) = 0.6875 -> x(12) = 0.925930303 but if we add just 0.0001 x(0) = 0.6876 -> x(12) = 0.5676923. That's a big change in output for a small change in input.

      Write a little program and play with this model to really see how randomly it seems to behave, while it's still ruled by a simple deterministic formula.

      Maybe they are just words, but I always thought that chaotic and deterministic were opposites.

      Not really, chaotic in the mathematical sense means hard to predict, while non-deterministic or random means impossible to predict.

      If you're saying that chaos is never truly chaotic, and that it is instead ALWAYS deterministic, then some belief systems (mine actually) will have to be rethought because if there is no such thing as chaos, then there is no such thing as free will.

      I'm not saying there is no randomness in the world, I'm only saying that you can't generate true randomness with deterministic systems (like computers) alone, you need a truely random source (like the clicks of a geiger counter) for that.

      As for free will, I think Hume's compatibilism could be helpfull to you. Hume very oversimplified defines free will as the freedom to do what one feels like doing (meaning you're still a slave of your passions and feelings, but that's what defines you).

      Is free will an illusion or is there really things that are non-deterministic?

      The generally accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics claims there is true randomness in the world. However, I personally really don't see how non-determinism would help you in creating a rational definition of free will. If your free will is driven by truely random processes in nature, "rational thought" itself becomes no more than a blind man lead by a fool.

      I personally think that (the concept of) "free will" was a nescessary step in our evolution to unify the various unconcious processes in our minds that drive and define us (that generate our feelings, inspirations and insights). It's natures way to assure you that it's really your ideas and feelings, no matter you don't know how exactly they came into being.

  2. 2D nearly-ordered arrays by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some of the more interesting bulk nanochemical processes create fairly ordered 1-D patterns (like zebra stripes). I'd bet that people are working to create orthogonal 2-layer structures of 1D patterns to create a nice lattices. Sandwich in the appropriate inter-layer, splice in connections at the edges and you have the makings of a 2D array of memory locations.

    Nanocore memory anyone?

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  3. same old stuff, new name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The real problem is the need to "train" the cells to do anything usefull. With a collection of cells of any decent size, the computing power needed to teach the system what to do would be enormous. This is the same situation that the project was in 3 years ago when I was involved with it, only then the nanocells were called nanoblocks, and now things are even more dis-ordered. From the sound of the article, they're still spinning the same thing with a new name, only 3 years later. I can only hope a whole bunch of grad students got their degrees off of this work.

  4. Isn't this like the brain? by Fex303 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It is possible to make memory circuits out of disordered systems.

    This might seem really dumb, but surely this is self evident to some degree. After all, isn't that what our mind does on regular basis? Evolution has beaten us to the punch and created a self-assembled, disordered system: Our central nervous system.

    The description of the system in the article with islands of gold foil and connections of nanowire seems very vaguely analogous to neurons with cell bodies and axons... I wonder if the system functions in a way similar to a group of neurons...

  5. The key is mass production and reliability by StandardCell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't dispute that this is a great discovery, but there's a difference between the chemistry of the process and the chemical engineering for the process. One can reproduce conditions in a lab environment, whereas the other is designed to take the process into mass production. I've seen so many unique technologies in the last few years that are great ideas but don't necessarily translate to something that can be mass-produced. Materials and process costs, materials handling, integration into production lines, packaging, built-in self-repair strategies and off-device drive are all pretty important factors, yet I really didn't see a whole lot on this in the article.

    The other factor is reliability, both in the short term and the long term. Yes, the device seems to retain memory for a week without power at room temperature, but what about other factors? Alpha particle and EM sensitivity, thermal cycles and other long-term reliability issues all have to be investigated. Before I get jumped on, let me give a concrete example of a new technology: low-k dielectric. Low-k dielectrics (SiLK, Coral, Black Diamond) are materials on silicon devices used as insulation between layers of wires that connect circuits and were hailed as miracles a few years ago. However, many manufacturers (most notably TSMC with Nvidia) were having major problems where they would have void formation failures at the vias or inter-layer connections. The scariest part is that these were forming in simulated long-term accelerated tests, implying failures in the field after several years! Now, these failures have supposedly been addressed, but that's a concrete example of reliability issues with a conventional technology.

    We need to tread lightly towards radical new technologies if only so that we don't get burnt down the road. I definitely believe there's room for these types of technologies, but the most essential parts of these reports are so often missing because the focus is on getting this to work in a lab, not on making money. And, as someone who worked in the field of technology commercialization in the past, it's sadly more often the case than not.