Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Carbon Nanotube-Based NVRAM In 2-3 Years?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the nano-ram dept.

According to NanoWerk, UC Riverside researchers have come up with a memory device based on telescoping multi-walled carbon nanotubes. According to one of the researchers, 'This finding leads to a promising potential to build ultrafast high-density nonvolatile memory, up to 100 gigahertz or into the terahertz range" and a prototype could be demonstrated "in the next two to three years.' Similar devices from UCLA and Caltech based on bistable rotaxanes are farther along in being integrated into actual memory circuits, but tend to break after a fairly small number of position changes. Carbon nanotubes may promise more durable switches.

66 comments

  1. Forgot to post link to paper by Stile+65 · · Score: 5, Informative

    So here it is...

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-4484/18/9/0957 05/

    --
    I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
  2. So, if this were extended to a... by StressGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Backend Architecture, Nano-RAM, type A" it would be called BA-Nano-RAM-A? ....it's ok....I'll just go now....

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
    1. Re:So, if this were extended to a... by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I wish I could mod your post down and then mod it back up funny again, just because it needs more funny mods.

      -stormin

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    2. Re:So, if this were extended to a... by Randall311 · · Score: 1

      It's a cruel, cruel gate switch

    3. Re:So, if this were extended to a... by ashridah · · Score: 4, Funny

      It could be worse, it could be a gate and switch scam

  3. Carbonite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather be frozen in carbonite!

  4. Simulations or something concrete? by haluness · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A brief scan of the paper seemed to indicate that their results were based on simulations. Do they have some working model that justifies it coming out in 2 or 3 years?

    Or did I read the paper to fast (hey, at least I *did* RTFA)?

    1. Re:Simulations or something concrete? by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative
      The working model would be the prototype that they are speculating could be built in 2-3 years. From TFA:

      Jiang predicted a likely functioning prototype of a molecular processor could be demonstrated in the next two to three years.
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Simulations or something concrete? by Shad_the_protector · · Score: 3, Informative

      The title is sightly wrong here, they plan on having a proto in 2 or 3 year..... not a wide-spread product.

      But it is still a good news to know that there is something coming for NVRAM better than flash memory

    3. Re:Simulations or something concrete? by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      So, I can expect it in mass production, say, in time for my second-next computer.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  5. who knew by President_Camacho · · Score: 5, Funny

    According to NanoWerk, UC Riverside researchers have come up with a memory device based on telescoping multi-walled carbon nanotubes.

    Who would have guessed that, in the future, your computer would be a series of tubes?

    --
    Wizard Needs Food, Badly
    1. Re:who knew by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      Who would have guessed that, in the future, your computer would be a series of tubes?

      Yeah, but I'd rather it were a big truck--something I can just dump something on.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:who knew by sokoban · · Score: 1

      ultrafast high-density nonvolatile memory
      Apparently it will be a series of tubes which you will be able to just dump something on, because the tubes will be able to store an enormous amount of material, enormous amount of material.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    3. Re:who knew by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      That's what ENIAC was.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    4. Re:who knew by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      ENIAC's tubes were in parallel.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:who knew by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our high-density, nonvolatile, terahertz memory nano-tubular overlords!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    6. Re:who knew by Stitch_Surfs · · Score: 1

      Well, at least we know that it - like the Internet[s]- is not a dump truck.

      --
      There is no "I" in B-O-R-G.
    7. Re:who knew by ch-chuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it did a lot of work as a serial processor. From this description:

      "The ENIAC was controlled through a train of electronic pulses."

      --and--

      "because the various units of the ENIAC could operate simultaneously, the ENIAC could perform calculations in parallel. (BUT!) ENIAC programmers tended to avoid this use because the impressive but limited reliability of the ENIAC favored the use of as few units as possible for a given application."

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  6. Nano Abacus? by Radon360 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It looks to me like they've essentially created what could be compared to a nano-abacus. I wonder how immune this system would be to physical movement (i.e. jarring). In a similar vein, I would imagine that it would be just as static sensitive as most other memory devices even though.

    Did I miss something, though? How is the position of the telescoping tube read? Applying a current to it would change the position, would it not?

    1. Re:Nano Abacus? by unc0nn3ct3d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I imagine this would be just as immune to physical jarring as say blood cells in your blood vessels would be wouldn't it? Or as resiliant as the atomic bond in elements are.. At this scale the physical movements that we create as humans wouldn't be felt, similar as the molecules in your hand don't feel it when you wave at someone, but the hand as a whole feels it.. or at least that is what I would think

    2. Re:Nano Abacus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F=m*a=V*q*a; Resistance force drops with x^3. That's why ants survive multimeter drops and that's why everything in microcosmos needs very large acceleration to get the same force as large bodies. And materials on nano level are more "pure" and have even better strength than macro level objects.

      I really apologize for my bad english. And for anon post.

    3. Re:Nano Abacus? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Ehm, just a thought: first you put a possitive V on one side, making it go to the right (picture b). After that you put a (higher) possitive voltage to the outer tube (note that it is also connected, initially to the ground). The left simply acts as ground, not atracting the inner tube. Could this work? This would also mean that the tube would stay attracted to the right, solving the first problem you came up with.

  7. Oh my! by mikkelm · · Score: 1

    A new take on an old concept? Using nanotubes?! Who'da thunk it!

  8. Where bandwidth is of concern... by Silas+Palmer-Cannon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I believe these tubes need to get bigger, not smaller. One knows you can push more internets through bigger tubes!!1!

  9. It's a good idea... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Carbon's pretty good. I assume you could use diamond in it's purest form to make the basis of a processor after doping it properly to make it a transistor. Thermal tolerances for these would be excellent. But I think I'll wait for Ovonic Unified Memory. It's already technology in use today, just done a bit differently for the applications I'm waiting for it to be used for.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:It's a good idea... by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      Diamond as semiconductor has been studied for some time. There are some progress recently. But it is not easy to make big single crystal diamond yet, not to mention single crystal diamond wafer. Just imagine how difficult it could be to polish the diamond wafer without introducing many defects, and how hard could it be to characterize how many defects you get in the wafer.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    2. Re:It's a good idea... by Verte · · Score: 0

      Diamond makes a fantastic semiconductor, and it's more heat tolerant than silicon. The drawback, however, is that it's not easy to make diamond slivers :P

      --
      We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
  10. Weren't we supposed to have this last year? by shbazjinkens · · Score: 1

    As I recall.. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/ 08/139206

    1. Re:Weren't we supposed to have this last year? by chrisb33 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wouldn't condemn Nantero to vaporware status just yet - it seems that they've been making progress. Here's a list of their press releases - notice that they successfully fabricated a switch in April and have made their processes compatible with current CMOS fab lines.

  11. 2-3 years? Vapourware alarm! by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I've just seen that figure too many times now... 2 years is still a short enough time that it might seem feasable but still long enough away that by the time it has gone by, most everybody will have forgotten about it and moved on to something else.

    It'd be really neat if this turns out to be genuine, but I'm not holding my breath. Been disappointed too many times already.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  12. Prescient SF FTW by JesseL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds vaguely similar to the nano-scale rod-logic of Neal Stephenson's stories.

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    1. Re:Prescient SF FTW by adamofdoom · · Score: 0

      (w00t, Young Lady's Illustrated Primer reference! Loved that book...) That's the same thing I thought of when I first saw this.

    2. Re:Prescient SF FTW by JesseL · · Score: 1

      Before someone jumps all over me, I should mention Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    3. Re:Prescient SF FTW by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

      Let me correct you here: Sounds vaguely similar to the nano-scale rod-logic of K. Eric Drexler's Nanosystems.

      Credit's due where credit's due, after all.

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    4. Re:Prescient SF FTW by JesseL · · Score: 1

      That's exactly why I posted this comment directly above yours. I not sure how you missed seeing it.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    5. Re:Prescient SF FTW by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

      Because I browse at +3.

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
  13. How will they make them? by Ramble · · Score: 0

    I'll bet £50 it'll be as expensive as anything. They still haven't got a way to manufacture nanotubes to exact specifications cheaply, so good luck to those researching this.

    --
    "Oh boy"
  14. How do you interface with a 100Ghz device? by LM741N · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Memory and/or processors running at 100Ghz sounds great, but how is such a chip going to be connected to the outside world of peripherals? Beams of light? Waveguides? Or will everything have to be contained on one chip?

    1. Re:How do you interface with a 100Ghz device? by JesseL · · Score: 1

      I/O should never happen at the same speed as the processor. It has to be this way in order for the processor to actually process anything fast enough to keep up with whatever it's connected to.

      So the answer to your question is: The same way it always has, through things like buffers and UARTS.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    2. Re:How do you interface with a 100Ghz device? by SpeedBump0619 · · Score: 1

      entwined pairs of course! duh!

    3. Re:How do you interface with a 100Ghz device? by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that whatever you interface it to has to be incredibly broadband. To achieve the edge-times on those 100GHz square pulses, you'd need a hell a lot of harmonics.

  15. And flying cars too? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    I dont doubt it might be cool technology, but 2-3 years isnt too realistic...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  16. Pronunciation: bistable rotaxanes by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1
    Thank you for the link to the Wikipedia article on rotaxanes.

    The name, rotaxane, is derived from the Latin for wheel (rota) and axle (axis).

    Ah, so I must have been incorrect in initially parsing it as being pronounced with a silent- or H-like X. Am I the only one to read it that way?

    It also took me a moment to parse "bistable" as "bi-stable" instead of "bis-table". (Don't tell me it should be "bist-able".)
    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re:Pronunciation: bistable rotaxanes by Rethcir · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rotaxaaaaane! You don't have to put on the red light!

  17. Rotaxane?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wasn't that the song The Police played to open the Grammys? Damn, those guys were years ahead of their time!

  18. Double walled only. by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

    This model is double walled nanotube only, any body know any method to grow specifically double walled carbon nanotubes?

    --
    There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
  19. Expensive? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    You oust an existing technology, you need more than a high coolness factor. NAND flash costs less than 2c per MByte and falling. There are plenty factories set up to produce it, it is fast enough and low power enough for most mobile applications.

    In 2-3 years there might be a nanotube demo, but that's a long way from being something that you can mass produce for significantly lower cost than NAND.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Expensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look it up. It's also known as Phase-Change memory. The same Chalcogenide (sp?) glass used in rewritable optical discs can be manufactured in MUCH higher densities than standard silicon, and instead of using light, we can use electricity to transform the glass from amorphous to crystalline, and back, at rapid speeds, with on the order of 10 trillion read/write cycles, compared to current Flash RAM, which is on the order of only a few hundred thousand read/write cycles. In that way, it's very comparable to current DRAM. This technology MAY even replace SRAM beforehand since it will theoretically take up a much, MUCH smaller area which made DRAM unlikely to be used as processor cache memory.

      Read about it here... http://www.ovonyx.com/tech_html.html

    2. Re:Expensive? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Better check yourself before you wreck yourself, Khyber. You're talking about a silicate glass technology that's just now maturing. If what you say IS true with this technology, then we will indeed have massively faster drives and storage access, not to mention the size (I can forsee these drives exceeding any physical steel platter solutions) since this technology you mention results in far smaller sizes die-wise for memory.

      While I'd hope for this as a replacement for SRAM, since it's nearly as fast, I'm still not going to hold my breath, AC. Even I'm smart enough to realize the potential physical limitations, no matter what the source. I love the idea, and I tout it around on my own chain, but it's still not mature enough nor widespread enough to garner attention.

      This technology needs more exposure to be worth a damn. I'm just showing the technology, you're just pushing the technology as the next best thing when it's not even matured.

      You'd make a great marketer, AC, but you'd SUCK at delivering the final point.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:Expensive? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, /. crowd, yes, I am talking to myself. I'm MPD-diagnosed, and I argue with myself on this simple shit all day long. Ignore my other self and relax, guys. We're not taking over the world like the daydream version of myself wants to. It's all good. Just play some Cypress Hill and he'll be subdued. He's a stoner, a bright one, but the fucker just jumps to far too many conclusions to have a rational stoned mind like Einstein and many other great intoxicated scientists. I can't believe I share his fucking body with that wrecked mind he has, but the poor kid got badly abused as a child. No wonder he's stuck cowering with several hidden personas. I'll save you as much as I can from himself, but no guarantees. It's either trollville or insightvile for this version, but I think he's too uneducated to keep his faux-intelligence up much longer. ~Khyber's legal medically-altered alter-ego, struggling to communicate thru the lithium.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  20. carbon nanotubes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't know if this is what they mean by "carbon nanotubes", but this is what i know:
    if we speek about C84, in 2004 were produced 3.5 kg. price 2000 euros/gramm
    in 2003 in all_the_world were produced 1500kg of C60, and in 2004 something like 3000kg. they price actually is 20 euros/gramm
    and there are 4 major companies producing this, 3 in the USA, 1 in Japan.

    carbon nanotubes are great tecnology, but i still think is sonehow expensive... guess we'll have to wait more for mass-production.

    1. Re:carbon nanotubes? by daverabbitz · · Score: 1

      Damn, I've snorted coke cheaper than that.

      -Actually no, I haven't snorted coke at all, but it makes for a good joke

      --
      What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
  21. Slightly OT by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    This is a growing problem. Far too many terms are being introduced with uncertain pronunciation, and the initiators really should provide phonetics. (It's interesting that even the NATO/ITU alphabet needs phonetic explanation because it uses words like "Charlie" and "Whiskey")

    Apart from Linux (Linnux? Leenux? Lie-nux?) there are the old saws of schoolteachers - words like periodate, unionised, benzoyl - and even simple looking words like "kilometre" - kilo-metre or kilom-eter?

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  22. Movements wouldn't bother it at all by IdahoEv · · Score: 3, Informative

    At the nano scale, momentum of objects is near zero and friction forces, van der waals, and the like dominate entirely. Macro-scale motion, and even intense vibration, simply won't move things around relative to each other.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
    1. Re:Movements wouldn't bother it at all by Verte · · Score: 0

      Is that a strong enough argument for introducing moving parts into an otherwise solid state system? I know that wasn't what was said above, but does this fix the issues introduced by that?

      --
      We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
    2. Re:Movements wouldn't bother it at all by salec · · Score: 1

      We've already passed that introduction stage. You have been able to buy "solid state" commercial of-the shelf parts (high speed, very high rewrite endurance non volatile memory... and even microcontrollers) based on similar processes of molecule reshapings (no carbon nanotubes in them, though) for years. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferroelectric_RAM

  23. Monty Python reference by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    What part of 'This finding leads to a promising potential to build ultrafast high-density nonvolatile memory, up to 100 gigahertz or into the terahertz range" and a prototype could be demonstrated "in the next two to three years".' reminds me of the Monty Python comment in a spoof ad that "up to" includes zero?

    When a paper is as full of weasel words as this one, reach for your Dilbert collection.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  24. Nantero in 2007... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

    http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/03/nantero_cnt_memo ry/

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  25. Of course! by NerveGas · · Score: 0, Redundant


        Just like that holographic storage that was going to replace hard drives "in 2-3 years"... almost a decade ago.

        That's not to say that this *won't* happen, just that it's yet another "We're going to change the world in a few years!" idea, which should really be a "We'll wake you up if anything ever becomes of this." sort of message.

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  26. direct/random/sequential access? by Major+Disaster,+here · · Score: 1

    Did noone else notice that TFA referred to hard disks as "sequential access"? I thought that was tape...

  27. Re:2-3 years? Vapourware alarm! by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

    This technology http://www.nantero.com/mission.html is suppose to be ready some time this year. It use cnt as lever in a small relay. They call their memory nram and it is suppose to be very fast access and non-volatile. There is a video at their site explaining how its memory works.

  28. Nanotechnology! AWESOME! by InadequateCamel · · Score: 1

    Wow. It's been a long time since I've read an abstract with that little information in it. What a vapid piece of fucking trash. I'm sure that the next paper out of that research group will be "Telescoping carbon nanotube (CNT) space elevators in 3-5 years".

    No data. No numbers. No quantification, no discussion of advantages or difficulties with the technology. No discussion of the fact that it is quite frigging difficult to get relatively defect-free nanotubes in any sort of practical volume. Something tells me that Y-branched nanotubes will not work all that well in a telescoping system... /cue cries of Niche market! Tech will catch up in a year or so! Supply and demand!

    Whatever. There's been a BIG demand for nanotubes for a very long time, and we are now realising the physical impacts of the fact that no reaction goes to 100% completion: a site defect that only occurs 0.01% of the time occurs in every 10,000 sites, and this is simply unacceptable for a material that is supposed to save the world.

    Fuck "nanotechnology". /end angry_chemist_rant

    Cheers!

  29. Don't hold your breath. by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1

    It's one thing to make one of them. Economically making arrays containing enough working components to provide commercially viable products is another thing altogether.

  30. Re:2-3 years? Vapourware alarm! by Kjella · · Score: 1

    I've just seen that figure too many times now... 2 years is still a short enough time that it might seem feasable but still long enough away that by the time it has gone by, most everybody will have forgotten about it and moved on to something else.

    2-3 years to early prototype
    5 years to well working prototype
    7-8 years to get it to mass production
    10+ years to consumer markets ...even if this stuff is true, it's far off in the future. But, I guess we can hope...

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings