Slashdot Mirror
Nanotech To Replace Disk Drives Within Ten Years?
Ian Lamont writes "An Arizona State University researcher named Michael Kozicki claims that nanotechnology will replace disk drives in ten years. The article mentions three approaches: Nanowires (which replace electrons/capacitors), multiple memory layers on silicon (instead of a single layer), and a method that stores multiple pieces of information in the same space: 'Traditionally, each cell holds one bit of information. However, instead of storing simply a 0 or a 1, that cell could hold a 00 or a 01. Kozicki said the ability to double capacity that way — without increasing the number of cells — has already been proven. Now researchers are working to see how many pieces of data can be held by a single cell.'"
"Nanotechnology will replace Hard drives in 10 years"
That's meaningless.
I think "Nano-technology will double disk capacity in 10 years" would be better, but still pretty silly.
As apposed to those giant 1s and 0s we use now.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Whether or not nanotechnology replaces disk drives and digital storage media in ten years is only part of the question. What is likely is that one or more different technologies will start edging out typical magnetic storage in the coming decade. I am still waiting for my holographic storage media the size of a postage stamp.
Ok, the article is talking about science fiction solutions that have been demonstrated for single bits at universities, but nobody has any idea how to mass produce it.
Meanwhile flash memory in production is approaching feature sizes of 30 nanometers with 2 or even 4 bits stored per cell. Also stacking of several memory layers on the same die has been demonstrated.
oh nanotech is there anything you can't do ? oh except actually materialise into an actual product
That is the highest precision ever achieved in a binary digit.
Typically these are people looking for attention or funding. Most never deliver on their predictions. I have stopped listening a long time ago.
When some manufacturer announces a product to be shipped within a month, that is of interest. This "story" is not.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
... .. . .. . . ... .
You see periods are a lot smaller than zeros and spaces - which could be used as 1s - don't take any space at all.
Traditionally, NAND flash memory that uses a single cell to encode two bits as one of four voltage levels is called "multi-level cell" (MLC) flash memory. MLC typically performs more slowly than single-level cell for two reasons: the amplifier attached to each bit line takes longer to settle to a specific value, and the error correction takes longer to process.
I'm thinking that they left off the permutations of 10 and 11. So you could have:
00
01
10
11
as options in the cell.
Sounds like a two-bit technology to me.
A cell that can hold two bits holds four times as many possible values as a cell that can hold one bit.
[0] [1]
[00] [01] [10] [11]
Of course, two one-bit cells hold the same number of values.
[0][0] [0][1] [1][0] [1][1]
Two one-bit cells = one two-bit cell. Twice the capacity. Not that the article is terribly clear-- if their "miracle device" can really only hold 00 and 01, they've just invented a crappy new notation for binary.
The original generic sig.
By comparison, nano-blaah is a long way off being able to demonstrate even a 1Mbyte storage, yet alone making it cheaply enough to be a mass storage player. I figure flash has a long life yet.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The impact of this article is based on the vagueness of the term "nanotechnology".
Much like the term "robot" which now includes radio controlled toy cars which it specifically did not include 15 years ago, Nanotechnology is a word which has developed a broader and broader meaning over time.
Nanotechnology used to be specific to microscopic moving parts. Micromachines. As people started to work on it they began to attempt to create parts using techniques from the silicon chip industry. the silicon chip industry therefor became nanotechnology as well, which is how those "memory cells" got into the whole thing.
These days it just means really really small stuff. If this is true wouldn't modern disk drives be nanotech too since the memory blocks are microscopically small?
To take it even further, you cold even include some kinds of paint and adhesive tape due to the way the glue and pigment particles adhere to surfaces or reflect light.
The word nanotech when used in this way is becoming so broad as to stop being useful. The word nanotechnology originally meant nanobots and that is what the term is most popularly accociated with in the public mind. It is the flavor of wild over the horizon borderline magic technology. people like to attach the word to whatever they are working on because it associates thier work with these feelings. It's not science it's brand recognition.
To use another term which was the ultra hip over used buzz word word back in the 70's, a more accurate way to describe the content would be to substitute the term "solid state". This merely says containing no moving parts. That wouldn't be particularly cool thoroughly since anyone looking at the laptop and smartphone industry can tell this is already happening.
instead of storing simply a 0 or a 1, that cell could hold a 00 or a 01.
I'm sure it will be even better once they figure out how to make it store 10 and 11.
Any device made out of nanotechnology that serves the same function will be called a "disk drive" even if there's no disk in it.
USB connected flash memory is called a flash disk even today... etc.
I really hate articles where they say "plastic will replace cars" or "prefab concrete will replace houses". They're incompatible nouns. Try "Cars will be made from plastic" or "Houses will be made from prefab concrete" or "Disk drives will be made using nanotechnology".
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Gives new meaning to, "but this one goes to 11"
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
Hard drives are based on nanotech - They have features on the nanoscale.
What the submitter may mean is that magnetic storage might be supplanted by storage based on other state variables than magnetic domain orientation, or that non-binary storage (4-bit, etc.) may eventually supplant binary storage.
Duh.
Numerous entities are pursuing solid state storage (no moving parts), and have been for years. Flash, NAND, FeRAM, MI transition layers, phase change storage, and on and on...
But the fact is that currently, hard drives are the most cost-efficient mode of permanent data storage in most applications. In some cases, solid state is more advantageous. As those technologies are developed, one or more will eventually replace hard drives.
It will be solid state. It may or may not be binary. But it will be nanotech, just like hard drives.
"Someday you'll store all your music, movies, photos and favorite TV shows on something the size of an iPod. It'll all be right there,"
No. Someday, I will mostly store software on my equivalent of an iPod, media will be stored by Google (who everyone hates by then, since microsoft has become insignificant) in a semi-p2p network based on both servers and users. My download speed will be good enough to stream anything I want.
Basically, there are two trends I see i personal computing: Computers are becoming smaller and more portable (duh) and internet services are in increasing demand. This means the optimal future computer will be a tiny device with an extremely high speed internet connection. That is the opposite of great amounts of storage. Who needs to have music, movies, photos and TV shows when you can just have good internet access? You still need that if you want the very latest of anything anyway.
It took me a minute to spot it, but you're absolutely right. It's a law of the internet that if you correct somebody, you'll make a mistake yourself in the correction.
Four possible values, not four times as many values.
Apparently, I can't count.