Carbon Nanotube Memory on the Way

Cyberherbalist writes "Nantero, a nanotechnology company, is expecting prototypes of products using NRAM technology (nanotube-based, non-volatile random access memory) to be available in 2006. In the article at nature.com, it says that 'the company has succeeded in making circular wafers, 13 centimetres in diameter, that hold 10 gigabits of data.' And they are ten times faster than 'flash' memory."

Comments

Wafer?

[slashflood]

A 13 centimeter wafer that can hold 1.25 gigabyte of data? That's not impressive.

Re:Wafer?

[SonicBurst]

It's a prototype for Christ's sake....it'll get smaller with time. You ever see a string of iron core memory? That stuff was big too, but it got smaller.

Re:Wafer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how new the "nano"-technology is compared to silicon based technology, I'm impressed they even made it as far as a press release.

Jon Jungel

Re:Wafer?

[alexatrit]

And how thick is a wafer, exactly? compared to say, a disk platter? If they attain the access time mentioned in TFA, it is rather impressive. High-capacity, fast, thin, and preferably shiny things are always impressive.

Re:Wafer?

[photon317]

For one, it's first-gen stuff. It will likely gain density quickly in the future. Also, don't forget this is basically NVRAM: way faster than a hard-drive, and way more permanent than DRAM. It fills a unique niche and cannot directly be compared to or replace either of the two. (Well, it could replace hard drives, if it shrunk enough). The day is coming (slowly) when the primary storage on any computer system will probably be some sort of nonvolatile solid-state device. Hard drives with spindles will be for bulk data (music, movies, documents), while the OS goes on the nonvolatile ram which is neccesarily much smaller in size, but more reliable and faster to access. You can do things that way now under Windows or Linux by buying a 1-4 GB-ish solid state flash disk for your root disk (or C: drive) and then putting in a large normal hard drive for all your bulk data, but current SSD technology is overpriced and suffers from various little problems, both of which make it impractical for mass deployment even if the OS vendors put more thought into supporting the setup.

Re:Wafer?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're overlooking the retro market. Can't you just see it? 2007: Apple announces the iWalk, a moderately bulky portable player that holds -- get this -- 90 minutes of music! It'll be cool, though, since it will be in rainbow colors (so 70's) and it will be hip since it features Carbon Nanotube Memory. (Of course, /. will totally rave about it when it comes out.)

Re:Wafer?

[qray]

I wonder how thick these things are. Layering them might prove interesting, assuming they don't generate a lot of heat.
--
Q

Re:Wafer?

[elgatozorbas]

Indeed, but if I had a server I'd want one of these for RAM.

That would make you a 100% technology elitist. If I, for one, would build a server, I would make it out of small, cheap, proven reliable, available components that I know rather than (presumably) expensive, large, unavailable non-field-tested new technology for which the only incentive to buy them would be they are 'cool'...

Re:Wafer?

[aug24]

Ah... ferrite core. I remember being shown a 4 inch square of that stuff that held... a kilobit. Yes, that's right, 256 bytes filling the size of your hand. 32 copper wires across and down, with a little lump of black ferrite core at each junction, like the ugliest jewellery you ever saw.

When they got bugs in the system, they could correct the memory by hand with a magnet...

Ah, those were the completely off-topic days.

Justin.

Re:Wafer?

[InvalidError]

Why would you do that?

Current DRAM chips were there years ago: current DRAM chips are around 1Gbit per square centimeter. On a ~5" wafer, this means ~40 potentially working chips per wafer and 40Gbits/wafer, four times as much.

And as far as downtime reduction goes, NRAM would be no good unless the server has time to suspend-to-RAM... so you would still need an UPS or ultra-capacitors to cover this.

Re:Wafer?

[Laaserboy]

For one, it's first-gen stuff. It will likely gain density quickly in the future.

It may gain density, but gain little in reliability. I have a Ph.D. in solid state physics, so I should respond. The carbon nanotubes bend to make connect with an electrode, so something moves. This is usually a bad sign for long-term reliability. Ask telecom technicians if they would like to replace their solid state transistor-based switches with moving switches. Their answer will be that these moving parts wore out.

This memory might not improve to the point that it becomes more reliable than your present NVRAM.

It is very easy for a scientist to produce one working device in the lab. We call these hero devices. The rest of the world does not know this. When engineers get ahold of these claims, though, they tear them up, since the process might not be cheap, reliable or scaleable.

So yes, it might get better, but I wonder if this group and the related scientist have invented new physics. Have they fundamentally changed the way mechanical switches make contact, the way electrons move and are held in capacitors, and the way domains set up in magnetic memory? I think not. I think this is a step backwards towards old mechanical swithces made smaller and reliable memory made unreliable.

Re:Wafer?

[robj]

And as far as downtime reduction goes, NRAM would be no good unless the server has time to suspend-to-RAM...

Well, unless the server was written using memory transactions, which are starting to look like a good idea for other reasons also. If you had a transactional layer on top of your NVRAM, then you could structure things to allow crash recovery as well; then you could recover from any crash at any time.

Re:Wafer?

[Just Some Guy]

The carbon nanotubes bend to make connect with an electrode, so something moves. This is usually a bad sign for long-term reliability.

I'm not a materials researcher, but I could imagine reasons why macroscopic phenomena like "wearing out" don't apply to nanomaterials. It seems at least remotely possible that these nanotubes are small enough that their mechanism of movement is completely understood, and there aren't any nonreversible reactions taking place.

Re:Wafer?

[fossa]

Indeed. I am a materials researcher (a very young and uneducated one however), and "movement" may have several definitions... in a paperclip for example, bending it back and forth inches crystal planes over one another until dislocations pile up and the whole thing is too brittle to bend anymore (planes don't slide well through dislocations). In a ceramic, flexure causes intrinsic pores and cracks to propagate until a large fracture forms. In a ferroelectric, ions move back and forth from their rest position under an applied field to store charge. In everything, atoms and ions diffuse over time leading to likely degradation of properties. I wouldn't really consider diffusion or ion polarization "movement", but in the case of a ferroelectric you are repeatedly straining the crystal in each charge/discharge cycle even if nothing is "moving".

In a metal (and other materials), there are both elastic strain: reversible stretching of bonds between atoms, and plastic strain: irreversible crystal planes inching and sliding over one another. (side note: metals are not as "strong" as ceramics in that a ceramic strains less under a given stress, but metals enter the energy absorbing plastic strain region while ceramics undergo brittle failure). If the movement is entirely elastic, then it's possible that diffusion is the only potential killer, or crack propagation; crack kills. I don't think a single walled perfect carbon nanotube could even strain plastically nor fail from crack propagation, but multi-walled tubes could strain plastically I imagine, and I don't think there are perfect (crack free) nanotubes.

Re:Wafer?

[Bloater]

It may gain density, but gain little in reliability. I have a Ph.D. in solid state physics, so I should respond. The carbon nanotubes bend to make connect with an electrode, so something moves. This is usually a bad sign for long-term reliability. Ask telecom technicians if they would like to replace their solid state transistor-based switches with moving switches. Their answer will be that these moving parts wore out.

A mechanical moving switch (which is the type of switch I imagined you were talking about) has problems of shear forces on the contacts wearing them down rapidly until they no longer contact. Or other forces deforming whatever is used to form the fulcrum. Nanotubes are held together by covalent bonds and (importantly) free electrons spread over the bonds like a benzene ring. Even long straight chain hydrocarbons don't spontaneously crack - and they bend and flex many more times a second than a carbon nanotube will in an electric field. The only problem then is the contact that it meets where it is probably held in place by Van-der-Waals forces. The nanotube will pull on the contact until the Van-der-Waals force is broken (it will break *way* before the covalent bonds in the nanotube) - but the forces binding some of the surface atoms of the contact could break first or at about the same time. There are very hard conducting surfaces that can be made and these will probably not fail for many years. I would not be suprised if they have or can make a device that is reliable enough for nearly any purpose, and certainly reliable enough for consumer and office electronics and short term (few years) space missions.

Re:Wafer?

[Bloater]

Yeah, although, looking at the flash intro, it says "Unlimited Lifetime". Which would suggest that it is pretty reliable, or at least that the life is not related to the number of times it switches as it is with flash.

Transistor

[mysqlrocks]

He says they still have to check that the chips can be reliably produced on a large scale

When the transistor replaced vacuum tubes it only became economically viable when it was produced on a large scale.

wow!!

[Lucractius]

It looks like they have a fnatastic new use for it too
these guys [ http://atomchip.com/_wsn/page4.html ] would love it ! it sounds like the perfect complementary technology to their unique advancement of computing!

Seriously, this nanotech stuff kicks ass, if it doesnt have the same write burn flash memory has, then this stuff would make solid state storage possible and FAST :D no more noisy hard drive... Perfect. No more worrying about over using your iPod Nano, changing your songs to often. All those nagging hassles GONE :D

Hype?

[mothlos]

Is there anything you can't do with carbon nanotubes?

So far I have heard that they will be the next steel, the next silicon, the next communication line, the next display medium, the next fabric, the next medicinal treatment. I just want to know is will this change the world in the same fundamental way that mineral oil did in the 20th?

Re:Hype?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you saw this one? : Defective carbon nanotubes

Re:Hype?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to know is will this change the world in the same fundamental way that mineral oil did in the 20th?

Or the way snake oil did in the 19th?

Re:Hype?

[Spy der Mann]

I just want to know is will this change the world in the same fundamental way that mineral oil did in the 20th?

It's an interesting fact that carbon is the key component for mineral oil.
Carbon, just like silicon, has 4 electrons in their outer orbit.
Carbon is one of the 4 components for life (C,H,O,N).

So, yes, why not?

But here's something *VERY* interesting: There has been research on nanotubes made with transition metals. As well as DNA-based nanotube-like structures.

I think this is just the beginning. This week physorg reported bioelectronical components using bacteria. Who knows what the future holds for us? of course, assumming we don't destroy ourselves before we get there.

Yes, but...

[wootest]

...does it scratch easily?

"On The Way"

[LesPaul75]

They should call it DNFRAM, because I heard that each DIMM will come bundled with Duke Nuke-em Forever. I also heard that their first major customer was the Phantom game console.

And ferromagnetic RAM (FRAM) technology shows promise for making faster non-volatile components: it uses the orientation of crystal atoms to store data.

But both flash and FRAM chips wear out over time and lose the ability to store information. FRAM chips, adds Schmergel, cannot be made as small as NRAM ones.

How long have people been announcing that a new, non-volatile, and/or huge-capacity, and/or incredibly fast memory technology is on the way, and soon to be released, and just going through the very last stages of entering mass production? Has even one of them made it to store shelves? The last real revolution in storage technology that I know of, that actually went anywhere, was "spintronics." And that has turned out to be practical only in hard drives, even though it was claimed by some that it would completely revolutionize memory in general.

Re:"On The Way"

[LiquidCoooled]

Hey, innovation comes along.

I remember hearing about Perpendicular drives. You can buy them now.

(Ok, I know its not a huge advance, but I like the marketting, so its mentioned here)

Perhaps RAM isn't the ideal application...

[Spy der Mann]

Ever heard of the FLASH hard drives? Well, think about it. 10 times faster than flash drives, no limit to the number of write operations... this has the potential to become the *ultimate* hard drive technology. Silent hard drives, which can be operated no matter the humidity conditions (7500+ RPM hard drives don't operate very well in places with high humidity and heat, i.e. coasts)...

Only one thing concerns me, tho. 2 years ago, Nantero had announced the fabrication of their nanotube memory. I was skeptical then, and I'm still a bit skeptical. What if their prototypes don't work? Will Nantero suffer the fate of so many dot-com's we all (don't) know about?

Only time will tell.

Re:Perhaps RAM isn't the ideal application...

[rodwthompson]

I am an old timer, been through the tube age, then on to transistors with tubes, then transistors then the first chips and on and on... All new technologies have a rough start, I know we will soon have solid state memory that is cheap, reliable and non-volatilse that will allow our computers to be instant on instead of loading all of the crap we now have to. Do prototypes work to begin with, hell no, but give it all a chance. A techno nerd before they were words... Rod

Not viable

[8086ed]

He didn't say viable, he said reliable. There's a big difference. If they can't be produced reliably, why would they waste their time mass producing them.

Re:More nano hype.

[amliebsch]

Actually, they're still mving forward on holographic storage.

Recent story

That prototype is 2 years old

[hyc]

See Nantero's press releases; they announced their 10Gbit wafer in May 2003. Their partnership with LSI Logic isn't news either, that was announced June 2004. The fact that they're still signing new partnerships on a steady basis tells me this technology is not a dead-end (yet).

Yeah, and optical disks that hold gigabytes...

[Belial6]

I hear you, I remember when they were promising optical disks that would hold as much data as hundreds of floppy disks, and would be 100x bigger than that 5 megabyte hard drive in your PC. Where are they?!?!?!

Then you had promises that they would release optical disks that would hold gigabytes...that's right GIGABYTES, of data. Did they ever show up?

Even just a few years ago, we heard about this 'pixie dust' stuff for hard drives. This technology was supposed to make hard drive density high enough that you could go down to your local Fry's, and for a few hundred dollars buy a terrabyte drive. When will the empty promises end?!?!?!

That's it?

[KidSock]

10 gigabits in a 13cm diameter wafer? Does this really sound that good to anyone? I mean a little flash card is like 3cm wide and holds a gigaBYTE. This wafer holds 10gigabits/8bits = ~1.2 gigabytes. Harddrives? Assuming you have a bunch of these wafers for "platters" the size would still be pretty limited.

Down the tubes!

[VegeBrain]

So finally when the system crashes we can say it went down the tubes and really mean it!

Re:It's a bad idea to pick up where you left off

[ZenShadow]

Ah, but how much more often would you turn off your desktop if it were guaranteed to be as you left it when you turned it back on -- and there was no delay in getting to that state?

Think of the power savings if computers only had to be on when we were actually *used* them... :-)

--S