Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Create Graphite Memory 10 Atoms Thick

CWmike writes "Researchers at Rice University have demonstrated a new data storage medium made out of a layer of graphite only 10 atoms thick. The technology could potentially provide many times the capacity of current flash memory and withstand temperatures of 200 degrees Celsius and radiation that would make solid-state disk memory disintegrate. 'Though we grow it from the vapor phase, this material [graphene] is just like graphite in a pencil. You slide these right off the end of your pencil onto paper. If you were to place Scotch tape over it and pull up, you can sometimes pull up as small as one sheet of graphene. It is a little under 1 nanometer thick,' Professor James Tour said."

135 comments

  1. Pessimists? by Warll · · Score: 5, Funny

    As an optimist myself I would have said that it was 10 atoms thin!

    1. Re:Pessimists? by aztracker1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was told thicker is better... ;)

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    2. Re:Pessimists? by NerdyLove · · Score: 2, Funny

      More to love :-)

    3. Re:Pessimists? by Mozk · · Score: 5, Funny

      When cornered into a room by ninjas with nothing separating you from them but a door of wood, yes, thicker is better, but you will die regardless.

      --
      No existe.
    4. Re:Pessimists? by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm not sure thicker is better. I remember hearing that churches in northern England replaced their super-thick oak doors with thinner planks riveted together in a cross-ply design, as this provided better protection against the axes of marauding Vikings.

      Of course, Ninjas are a different proposition, and five minutes googling gives me no citation for the monastic plywood theory, so perhaps direct experiment is the only way to settle this one - just make sure you have plenty of emergency Pirates on hand for back-up and it should be safe enough.

      --
      [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
    5. Re:Pessimists? by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 1

      So this is telling me overclocking with a pencil also increase the amount of memory I have? Excellent! :)

      --
      Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
    6. Re:Pessimists? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      And catapults charged with monkeys!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    7. Re:Pessimists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the plywood thing isn't so much a theory as it is an application of two simple observations:

      1. It is easy to cut wood parallel to its grain.

      2. It is hard to cut wood perpendicular to its grain.

    8. Re:Pessimists? by dissy · · Score: 1

      Researchers at Rice University have demonstrated a new data storage medium made out of a layer of graphite only 10 atoms thick.

      640k of atoms should be thin enough for anybody!

  2. Finally.. by jmerlin · · Score: 3, Funny

    I store data using just a pencil, paper, and some tape. I knew there was a way. Oh wait...

    1. Re:Finally.. by onion2k · · Score: 1

      What's the tape for?

    2. Re:Finally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Compression.

      You fold the paper in half, and then tape the ends. Voila! Same information, half the size!

    3. Re:Finally.. by jmerlin · · Score: 0

      Remember post-it notes?

    4. Re:Finally.. by Todd+Fisher · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah but you can only do that 8 times. Pfft some technology!

      --


      --I'm not talking about dance lessons. I'm talking about putting a brick through the other guy's windshield.-
    5. Re:Finally.. by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      - You repeat this process infinite many times, thus solving the problem once and for all.
      - But, but...
      - ONCE AND FOR ALL!

      (Also, about 37 foldings of it would make the paper so high to reach the moon).

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    6. Re:Finally.. by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      7 times - try it.

    7. Re:Finally.. by Arterion · · Score: 1

      I think he means that $width_of_paper ** 37 >= $distance_between_earth_and_moon.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    8. Re:Finally.. by vux984 · · Score: 3, Funny

      (Also, about 37 foldings of it would make the paper so high to reach the moon).

      No problem. Just bend the resulting column in half 37 times.

      ONCE AND FOR ALL!

    9. Re:Finally.. by volsung · · Score: 2, Informative

      Almost. That should be $width_of_paper * 2**37.

    10. Re:Finally.. by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      7 times - try it.

      more than 7.

    11. Re:Finally.. by ecalkin · · Score: 5, Informative

      you should watch some mythbusters!

      i think they managed 12 or 13 folds.

      of course they started with a sheet of paper the size of a house and made the last fold with the help of heavy machinery!

      eric

    12. Re:Finally.. by setagllib · · Score: 3, Funny

      Every time you use an unspecified unit as the base in an exponential function, baby Newton cries.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    13. Re:Finally.. by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      I can do at least 25 folds.

      Think accordian...

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    14. Re:Finally.. by hvm2hvm · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, the huge thin sheet only got to 8 and they needed a forklift to fold it. 12 folds would take an extremely large (or very thin) sheet of paper. That's because folds make the paper exponentially thicker and smaller. So, for the same thickness for each new fold you need to make the paper 2 times exponentially larger. I'm too lazy to think whether it's something like x^2^2 or (x^2)^2 (or just x^2 since you fold it along width and height alternatively). Anyway it grows fast since an A4 sheet can be folded 7 times and a warehouse sized thinner sheet gets to 8.

      --
      ics
    15. Re:Finally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      x^2^2 = (x^2)^2 = x^4.

      The equation you want is 2^x. A paper folded eight times is 2^8 = 256, and so (using an extremely simple mathematical model of folded paper) would be 256 times as thick as it started, though the front face would have 256 times less area (so the overall volume is unaffected). 12 folds would be 2^12 = 4096, meaning paper initially 0.1 mm thick would now be a stack ~41 cm thick.

      Disclaimer: IAAM, although this problem doesn't really require one.

      Oh, and related:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auhHl5-6VdY

    16. Re:Finally.. by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      "$distance_between_earth_and_moon."

      European or African moon?

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    17. Re:Finally.. by Guignol · · Score: 1

      half twelve times is less than 7 times.
      this is not very convincing

    18. Re:Finally.. by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      "A special kind of $85 toilet paper"

      I'm glad she didn't use the regular $85 toilet paper. But outside of paper-folding experiments, who actually uses this? Does it really feel so much better?

    19. Re:Finally.. by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      2**37 = 137438953472 layers

      divide by 500 to get packs of paper = 274877906

      Approximate thickness of a pack of paper is 6cm, multiply and transform to km = 16.492

      Wikipedia puts equator-moon at about 378.000 km

      Reversing the calculations yields 58 folds to be a lot closer, at 345.876,45138 km.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    20. Re:Finally.. by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      The force required to deflect/bend a beam is proportional to the cube of the thickness. Each time you fold the paper you make it twice as thick, and therefore 8 times stronger.

    21. Re:Finally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch the episode again. They got to 11 folds on the football field sized sheet. They managed eight on the standard A4 sheet.

    22. Re:Finally.. by DarthJohn · · Score: 1

      By that methodology your only limiting factor on the number of folds is the length of the material. If your paper were 1km long, you could get nearly 100,000 folds spaced 1cm apart. Of course, it is only nearly 100,000 because of the one or two mm lost in each fold.

      The important issue addressed by the MythBusters was "how many times could you fold, in half, a piece of paper." They folded the paper end over end, reducing the footprint of the paper by half each time. Each fold made the paper twice as thick therefore reducing its pliability and eventually resulting in a wad of paper that is unfoldable.

      - Summer Glau

      by the way... I could kill you with my brain

    23. Re:Finally.. by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

      The whole thing about not being able to fold paper more than 8 times is just nonsense. The folding ability depends entirely on thickness, size, and pliability of the sheet. If you use a 5x3" super heavy and glossy photo paper I doubt you can get more than 5 folds, on the other hand if you use a huge sheet of very thin pliable paper you will easily get 8 folds and beyond. She proved it already, before the mythbusters: http://pomonahistorical.org/12times.htm

    24. Re:Finally.. by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      But outside of paper-folding experiments, who actually uses this? Does it really feel so much better?

      It's so good, it actually does my calc homework for me.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    25. Re:Finally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The WIDTH of the paper is an "unspecified unit"?

      WTF?

    26. Re:Finally.. by setagllib · · Score: 1

      Yes; mm, cm, m, what are you measuring from? It could be the standard m, but then **37 it would get smaller, not larger.

      Remember that in physical calculations, the unit is multiplied as well, not just the value. That's why acceleration is measured in "meters per second per second". If you differentiate one step further, it'll be "meters per second per second per second", and so on. If you don't specify the unit you're working with from the start, the values are *meaningless*.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
  3. Space Exploration by Szentigrade · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This could be a real boon to space exploration. Temperature extremes and radiation are two of the most common problems that must be dealt with when designing exploratory vehicles. This could simplify things greatly.

    --
    When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up... reading.-Henny Youngman
    1. Re:Space Exploration by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, we can use the graphene in space if it survives the X-rays from the tape.

    2. Re:Space Exploration by psymonet · · Score: 1

      I bet it's good for making space elevators.

    3. Re:Space Exploration by dakup · · Score: 1

      they used graphite in space once before and we know what happend...

  4. 10 Atoms thick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As per wikipedia,

    Diameter range: 62 pm (He) to 520 pm (Cs) (data page)

    Atom @ Wikipedia

    It seems that the "thickness" of an atom varies. I've never understood why it is used as a unit of measure.

    1. Re:10 Atoms thick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In this instance, it seems highly likely that they're referring to atoms of carbon as those are the atoms which compose the material involved.

    2. Re:10 Atoms thick? by treeves · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'll notice from the data you found that they vary by less than one order of magnitude so it's still a useful approximate measure. Other "measurements" vary as well, for example "floors" to measure the height of a building, "blocks" to measure distance in a city or town, "car lengths" to measure tailgating, "gnat's asses"...oh never mind.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    3. Re:10 Atoms thick? by fucket · · Score: 1

      It's like a double-wide mobile home; It's pretty obvious that the "double" refers to width of one mobile home.

    4. Re:10 Atoms thick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In this instance, it seems highly likely that they're referring to atoms of carbon as those are the atoms which compose the material involved.

      Interesting, let me see.

      Carbon

      They say an atom of Carbon is about 80 pm (picometers) in diameter. A picometer is one trillionth (1/1,000,000,000,000) of a metre.

      The sheets were roughly 5 nanometers in diameter. Graphene is a form of carbon.

      Google tells me that 5 nanometers = 5000 picometers. Is my math off? It seems like there is a factor of 10 between how thick this stuff is and how thick Carbon is.

    5. Re:10 Atoms thick? by maglor_83 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which is why everything should be measured in Libraries of Congress.

    6. Re:10 Atoms thick? by tylerni7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your math is correct, your chemistry isn't.
      A carbon atom has a covalent radius of about 80pm, but the atoms in sheets of graphite aren't bonded together. I don't know how far apart the atoms would rest, but it's going to be much farther than they would bond.

    7. Re:10 Atoms thick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like a double-wide mobile home; It's pretty obvious that the "double" refers to width of one mobile home.

      Yea, I guess the "wide" in double-wide does make it ambiguous, eh?
      What do you reckon, Captain Obvious?

    8. Re:10 Atoms thick? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Informative

      The sheets were roughly 5 nanometers in diameter. Graphene is a form of carbon.

      Google tells me that 5 nanometers = 5000 picometers. Is my math off? It seems like there is a factor of 10 between how thick this stuff is and how thick Carbon is.

      One is talking about thickness, the other a diameter. The next paragraph of the article it says the sheets are a little under 1nm thick, and 10 C atoms would be around 800pm so that's a little under 1nm. The 5nm diameter would then be the other dimensions, these grown sheets are presumably circular. That dimension is important because that indicates how densely you could pack them on a surface.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:10 Atoms thick? by Strep · · Score: 1

      Um. They said Graphite, so we can assume it's a carbon atom.

    10. Re:10 Atoms thick? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not that much farther apart, since the article says that the sheets are less than 1nm thick.

      The figure he's quoting is a diameter, which would be the 2d dimensions of the sheet on the surface of the silicon they grew it on. It's the 5nm diameter that makes this exciting as a memory technology since that is very dense.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:10 Atoms thick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank you, that makes much more sense. I think I've got it now. Let me try explaining it with a holiday metaphore:

      What they have created is, say, like a cookie. Each of these little cookies are 5 nanometeres in diameter. It's important to know that, because it lets us know how many cookies we can fit on our cookie pan. Each of these cookies are about 1nm tall. This is important because it affects how many of these cookie trays we could stack on top of each other in the oven.

      I was having a problem conceptualizing exactly what we were talking about until you described it as you did.

    12. Re:10 Atoms thick? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      So if I have a Library of Congress and I fold it in half 7 times...

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    13. Re:10 Atoms thick? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I too read TFA and it seems to me they are leaving out the most important part(unless I missed it, which is: How many read/writes can they get out of this before it is toast? Because it can be the smallest, toughest little chip in the world but if you only get a couple of dozen read/writes out of it before it is toast than it'll be pretty damned useless. current read/write for NAND flash is up to,what, 1 million? So at the very least they'll need to shoot for that, and if you want to use it in space exploration you will want that number even higher if you can get it, due to how many years those deep space probes can run.

      So does anybody here have any idea what kind of read/writes we could expect from this? How about cost? How difficult will it be to ramp up production? Because for this to truly unseat NAND flash and become "the next big thing" they'll have to be able to really crank this stuff out due to the myriad of uses we have today for flash. And while I can see how this would have plenty of uses I just don't see this taking out NAND flash in the consumer market anytime in the foreseeable future.

      Hell NAND flash already survives longer than the device is considered useful right now. I have a handful of 64MB to 256Mb flash drives in my drawer that have survived more abuse than a device ever should and I just gave away an old Lyra 256Mb MP3 player that survived many years of being dropped, chunked, and having tunes tossed and put on pretty constantly for years. Damned if the thing ain't still just purring along. So in the consumer space I just don't see the need as NAND flash is pretty hard to kill and dirt cheap now. But in aerospace I bet this will be a Godsend.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:10 Atoms thick? by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      80 pm vs. 1nm isn't a big difference? 1nm=1000pm, and 1000/80= 12.5X. That's an order of magnitude, and on the quantum scale, that's huge.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    15. Re:10 Atoms thick? by elashish14 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Graphene is an array of sp2 hybridized carbon, meaning the HOMO is the pi bonding orbital, and the LUMO is the pi* orbital. The average electronic radius in the p orbital is a bit under 4 times the Bohr radius = 4*53 pm ~ 200 pm and it's safe to assume that the average distance of the pi bonding orbital is close. Since bonding must take place in the higher energy pi* orbital, it must be >>200pm. 1000pm sounds about right.

      The math isn't hard, but I have to take a shit so I can't do it right now.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    16. Re:10 Atoms thick? by elashish14 · · Score: 2, Informative

      In case you didn't RTFA, NAND technology is predicted to reach its size limit in 2012 at 20nm. Graphene can reach much smaller than that. Additionally, they mentioned that it can already run at 100ns (read speed I assume) whereas MLC (current SSD bleeding edge) reads at 50ns right now.

      The current things that are holding it back right now are probably mass distribution and reliability. Honestly though, it will take a lot more to convince me that we'll be using graphene-based memory chips someday.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    17. Re:10 Atoms thick? by kyc · · Score: 1

      Just to give an idea for us to see the colossal difference between the 'everyday experience' and the atomic world.

      There's really no difference between Hydrogen (Z=1) and Ununoctium (Z=118) when you peek at them from a dimension that is 10 billion times (say the inter-atomic distance is about 1 Angstroms and we live in the meters range) larger than those.

      --
      There's plenty of room at the bottom! Richard P. Feynmann
    18. Re:10 Atoms thick? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are 10 atoms, so that's 800pm, which is close to 1nm yeah. :)

      Which, uh, you figured out to much greater accuracy than I know how to in another post. Hehe.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    19. Re:10 Atoms thick? by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      No! there aren't 10 atoms! I said in the other post that the bonding between graphene and some other surface parallel to the plane of the atoms is >>200 pm. It makes sense for a bond to be this thick, especially since the pi* orbital is very poor at overlapping (which is favorable for bonding).

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    20. Re:10 Atoms thick? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Why exactly do we NEED flash to get any smaller? So we can snort flash like lines of coke? Seriously we have multi-Gb MP3 players now that are smaller than my pinkie finger, and there are plenty of 4, 8, 16Gb+ flash "sticks" that are so damned tiny they could easily get lost in the couch or sucked up into the vacuum, so why exactly do we need them to get any smaller? And I did readt TFA but my question didn't have anything to do with size. My question concerned read/writes which IMHO is a whole hell of a lot more important than size or ns speed. After all, what good does it do to have an uber tiny little flash stick if the thing burns up in a week or two of use?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    21. Re:10 Atoms thick? by Born2bwire · · Score: 1

      You know, you would think if we were to standardize to a particular unit we would choose a unit more constant than the Library of Congress. Perhaps we need to agree on a historical Library of Congress for parity, say the Library of Congress of 1910.

    22. Re:10 Atoms thick? by cnettel · · Score: 1

      If you shrink the size by a factor of 10 and are worried by the number of write, just do wear levelling over a memory ten times the size. As long as it hasn't failed, and you also don't care about speed, write it redundantly with loads of ECC. This is possible if the memory is damn small and damn cheap.

    23. Re:10 Atoms thick? by dakup · · Score: 2, Informative

      they vaporize it on another material. sorry.

    24. Re:10 Atoms thick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      meaning the HOMO is the pi bonding orbital

       
      No, UR the HOMO.

    25. Re:10 Atoms thick? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Whatever you say, I have no idea, I suck at chemistry. All I know is the article says it's 10 atoms thick. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    26. Re:10 Atoms thick? by nasch · · Score: 1

      There are always applications found when something gets smaller (physically), bigger (storage), faster, or cheaper. It will be the same with this. When we reach the limit of storage density for flash memory, people will still want and expect bigger drives (capacity), but they won't want them to be physically bigger. Thus, we'll need some other technology to satisfy that market. There will be money in it, so somebody will find a way, whether it's graphene or something else.

    27. Re:10 Atoms thick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A single layer of graphene is 0.34 nanometers thick if measured via STM or AFM.

      --- does graphene research.

  5. Re:piss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Budweiser?

  6. So if I cons up an 11 atom list ... by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 0

    my Lisp program dies?

    '(one two three four five six seven eight nine ten ...?)

    *duck*

    1. Re:So if I cons up an 11 atom list ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're doing it wrong, you should have counted from zero.

  7. Who needs new graphite memory? by bugnuts · · Score: 4, Funny

    You slide these right off the end of your pencil onto paper.

    You know, pencils make pretty good r/w memory, too, although the number of r/w cycles is limited.

    1. Re:Who needs new graphite memory? by jmerlin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who knew? The most advanced memory created yet was invented far before the computer...

    2. Re:Who needs new graphite memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, pencils make pretty good r/w memory, too, although the number of r/w cycles is limited.

      Your comment is clearly funny, but I wonder how these last compared to other forms of graphite.

      The article doesn't seem to mention anything about this memory's reliability or wear -- even theoretical stuff would be fine considering that the technology is relatively new.

    3. Re:Who needs new graphite memory? by quenda · · Score: 1

      You know, pencils make pretty good r/w memory

      You can prototype this new technology at home. All you need is a 4000H pencil, a laboratory-grade pencil sharpener, a microscope, and a steady hand.

    4. Re:Who needs new graphite memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, pencils make pretty good r/w memory, too, although the number of r/w cycles is limited.

      Please explain to me how my pencil can do the read part of r/w memory.

    5. Re:Who needs new graphite memory? by revoldub · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who would have thought, thousands of years later, thousands of advancements in technology, and we're back to writing on rocks.

    6. Re:Who needs new graphite memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know, pencils make pretty good r/w memory, too, although the number of r/w cycles is limited.

      Please explain to me how my pencil can do the read part of r/w memory.

      Well look at you, you're all the fun at parties, aren't you?

    7. Re:Who needs new graphite memory? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Please explain to me how my pencil can do the read part of r/w memory.

      Well, if it's that hard and sharp, you could electrify the end and read the charge differences as you move in a raster pattern, moving across atoms and atom-free zones on a substrate layer. Try it by writing "IBM" on silicon in individual atoms, then using the same method to scan the area. Would probably be a destructive read, but you could probably do it. You could keep the excess atoms in a bit bucket.

      NERD = Nerd Emulating Recursive Datum

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    8. Re:Who needs new graphite memory? by rcw-home · · Score: 1

      Try it by writing "IBM" on silicon in individual atoms, then using the same method to scan the area

      "Details of the implementation have been left as an exercise to the reader" isn't a particularly good way to get R&D funding.

    9. Re:Who needs new graphite memory? by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      The written part will be slightly smoother. Slide the pencil over the part written on and analyse drag for a destructive read. Alternatively, pick up and drop the pencil a very short distance and measure the shock.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    10. Re:Who needs new graphite memory? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Try it by writing "IBM" on silicon in individual atoms, then using the same method to scan the area

      "Details of the implementation have been left as an exercise to the reader" isn't a particularly good way to get R&D funding.

      (sigh) sorry, this was done long ago by IBM labs using a scanning tunnelling microscope. http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20360.wss/ I thought that was fairly well known by now.

      For the rest of you, apologies for the explanation.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    11. Re:Who needs new graphite memory? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Crud. It's 3am, apologies for the broken link. Please copy and paste, I'll just stuff it up again. Goodnight.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  8. So.... by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 4, Funny

    no more microwaving your hard drive to aid in data destruction.

    1. Re:So.... by Firehed · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm pretty sure that microwaving your hard drive only aids in microwave destruction.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:So.... by Therefore+I+am · · Score: 1

      It all depends on how you do it. If you put the HDD in with the electronics facing up, a 10 second burst will ensure that not a single semi-conductor or chip on the board will ever operate again. No amount of extra microwaving will destroy the data on the platters unless you open up the drive. Then, you might as well use a hammer. Your graphene memory chip would also be a smoking mess after 10 seconds of microwaving.

    3. Re:So.... by IDKmyBFFJill · · Score: 0

      use rubbers instead

    4. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, I do it all the time. Just don't leave it in for too long :P

    5. Re:So.... by scarroll9 · · Score: 1

      Well, I've microwaved a stick of ram on a tea saucer.

      Didn't damage the microwave, but it completely shattered the tea saucer.

      SCIENCE!

    6. Re:So.... by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      No amount of hammertime will completely erase a HDD platter. I could imagine that if surface plamsons occur on the platter while exposed to 700 watts of destruction, the EM field gradients would be so strong that the sticky bits would just evaporate. Microwave radiation isn't high-frequency enough to directly cause this, but with all that power you're damn sure to do more damage than a hammer will

      And opening a HDD is trivial, as all geeks know. :)

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
  9. Graphene for write-only memory by gluefish · · Score: 5, Funny

    The problem with using Graphene for write-only memory is that you need Pink Latexene to delete it. Fortunately they've discovered how to make extremely tiny cylinders of Pink Latexene, mounted on the end of yellow wooden sticks, to do such work. The combination of the graphene on one end of the stick and the pink cylinder on the other promises to allow nearly unlimited read-write capabilities, for mere pennies, distributed easily worldwide.

    --
    I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a prefrontal lobotomy.
    1. Re:Graphene for write-only memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what you're saying is... you want stacks and stacks of scan-tron answer sheets from high schools so you can make #2 compliant motherboards?

    2. Re:Graphene for write-only memory by famebait · · Score: 1

      The combination of the graphene on one end of the stick and the pink cylinder on the other promises to allow nearly unlimited read-write capabilities

      Are you sure you don't mean "unlimited write-delete capabilities"? If you start with write-only memory, and then add the ability to delete it, you still can't read it.

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_Only_Memory

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    3. Re:Graphene for write-only memory by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I have even heard of a company called Enron that employed a bulk-erase mechanism to vastly speed up the delete cycle, it was called the Arthur Anderson, but it self-destructed

    4. Re:Graphene for write-only memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My eraser is white, you insensitive clod!

  10. A marketer would have written that differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    A marketer would have phrased that "Researchers Create Graphite Memory 10 Atoms Thin"

    Seriously, fuck marketing.

  11. Graphene balloons by graft · · Score: 2, Funny

    For those who missed it, since it's not linked, a relevant story about researchers creating atom-thick graphene balloons that can hold several atmospheres of pressure. Made with Scotch tape. Yowza! http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/08/192227&from=rss

    1. Re:Graphene balloons by oasisbob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've worked with graphite before in a lab (we used it as a substrate for STM.

      Using scotch tape to pull up layers of graphite must be a common technique: we used it too. There are many kinds of graphite. Using crystalline graphite (found in nature), you could use the tape to pull up a nice thin layer.

      Being around improvised solutions using common materials was one of my favorite things about lab work.

  12. Vaporware by BlackSabbath · · Score: 5, Funny

    "...we grow it from the vapor phase..."

    Literally, vaporware.

    1. Re:Vaporware by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      By the time this new storage technology becomes practical, they'll be able to distribute Duke Nukem Forever on it...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  13. Phew! by powerslave12r · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank god I didn't invest in SSD. Those are so obsolete.

    --
    Real men read Slashdot articles at -1, bottom up.
  14. im going to be rich! by Conditioner · · Score: 0, Redundant

    holy crap! I am setting up a graphite memory chip manufacturing plant at home tonight. I just need to stop by staples and pick up some supplies !

    1. Re:im going to be rich! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      holy crap! I am setting up a graphite memory chip manufacturing plant at home tonight. I just need to stop by staples and pick up some supplies !

      Make sure to go to the right Staples. The article says you need 10 thick Adams to get a flash.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  15. I guess soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    the RIAA et al will be wanting royalties off every pencil sold and Canada will have a pencil tax?

    1. Re:I guess soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but we'll be able to download all the music and movies we want legally for free :)

  16. She told me size doesn't matter... by psnyder · · Score: 5, Informative

    Reading the articles, it appears the size is nice, but it isn't the biggest deal here. They're projecting a bit smaller than 10nm, which is twice as small as next-generation flash drives that "projections show ... will reach its limit of 20nm by around 2012."

    The biggest deal here seems to be power management.

    What distinguishes graphene from other next-generation memories is the on-off power ratio - the amount of juice a circuit holds when it's on, as opposed to off. "It's huge - a million-to-one," said Tour. "Phase change memory, the other thing the industry is considering, runs at 10-to-1. That means the 'off' state holds, say, one-tenth the amount of electrical current than the 'on' state."

    Current tends to leak from an "off" that's holding a charge. "That means in a 10-by-10 grid, 10 'offs' would leak enough to look like they were 'on.' With our method, it would take a million 'offs' in a line to look like 'on,'" he said. "So this is big. It allows us to make a much larger array."

    1. Re:She told me size doesn't matter... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Current tends to leak from an "off" that's holding a charge. "That means in a 10-by-10 grid, 10 'offs' would leak enough to look like they were 'on.' With our method, it would take a million 'offs' in a line to look like 'on,'" he said. "So this is big. It allows us to make a much larger array."

      Er, I'm don't get that, since if this is going to be memory then you have to account for the fact that it's possible every single bit could be a 1. And current certainly leaks from the higher-voltage 'on' state.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:She told me size doesn't matter... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Just mentioning UID means you're an idiot and a sad sack of crap. So I thought they were talking about leakage storing high vs low values instead of a read cycle vs not. Oops. I will now commit sepuku for the error.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  17. "Though we grow it from the vapor phase" by NinthAgendaDotCom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting. That is how artificial diamonds are formed too... vapor forming around a diamond seed in a vacuum chamber.

    --
    -- http://ninthagenda.com/
    1. Re:"Though we grow it from the vapor phase" by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      Interesting. That is how artificial diamonds are formed too... vapor forming around a diamond seed in a vacuum chamber.

      Chemical vapor deposition. I don't think it's in a vacuum though. A vacuum (by definition) is an absense of matter. Chemical vapour deposition works (IIRC) by having a gas (such as methane... i.e. matter) which is heated and then doing magic to seperate carbon from diamond deposits.

  18. Every now than then by FunkyRider · · Score: 0

    There are some scientists claiming they found some big super freaky scientific breakthrough that is going to blow you away, but when are we going to actually see it? I used to be so excited seeing news like this but now.... man maybe I'm too old

    --
    just wonder why there are so many anonymous cowards in this world....
  19. Common Rule of Microwavery: by whohou · · Score: 1

    after 10 seconds of microwaving.

    Overkill; five or six seconds are almost always enough to make a smoking mess out of most anything worth putting in there, but only when the item in question should never be microwaved in the first place(tm).

    Which is to say; "food (and so on) should be taken to, at least eleven(tm) , (..and possibly beyond.)

    - You're welcome.

  20. Graphene/Graphite by kyc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Graphene has been studied extensively in the last few years. Carbon Nanotubes were on the rise (which are just rolled up sheets of single layer graphite) but the current difficulties to manipulate those to create devices staggered their advance. Graphene ( or Graphite for that matter) is a little easier to manage because it's like a 2 -D sheet and it can be laid/printed off a substrate more easily.

    The current major problem of graphene is the lack of a sizable band-gap which is typically required for semiconductor modulation. We may see a breakthrough in the following years if people figure out a way to overcome this barrier.

    --
    There's plenty of room at the bottom! Richard P. Feynmann
  21. Finally... by NotPeteMcCabe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally, memory you can erase.

  22. So many comments... by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

    So few memristor comparisons.

  23. Altered Carbon by GrpA · · Score: 1

    I wonder if that means I can get a heap of this and create a stack now...

    GrpA

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
  24. How would you dispose of such a thing? by mi · · Score: 1

    withstand temperatures of 200 degrees Celsius and radiation that would make solid-state disk memory disintegrate

    Securely destroying such a drive before disposing of it may be a challenge...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:How would you dispose of such a thing? by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not really, you'll just need to try and take a very important test with it.. it'll break almost immediately..

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    2. Re:How would you dispose of such a thing? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Not really, you just heat it over 200 degrees celcius, you can get that on most home ovens, you just by burning it.

    3. Re:How would you dispose of such a thing? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Securely destroying such a drive before disposing of it may be a challenge...

      Really? 200 degrees C is only 392 degrees F.

  25. Stone tablets by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    Yes, and they're called stone tablets. Luckily, computer researchers seem to be picking up on this, now that they're using graphite. Unfortunately it sounds like "etched in stone" will soon mean "subject to formatting".

  26. Practical application for laptop users by neonux · · Score: 1

    "...and withstand temperatures of 200 degrees Celsius and radiation that would make solid-state disk memory disintegrate."

    Hooray! At last I'll be able to get a fail-proof SSD in case of battery meltdown in my Sony laptop.

    --
    @neonux
  27. That's very interesting, but... by famebait · · Score: 1

    ...after reading the article I'm still wondering what the storage mechanism is.

    OK, so it's made of graphene, but how does it remember anything, and how do you read and write it? It's like launching a new kind of engine, and only specifying what it's made of.

    Anyone got a more detailed link?

    We are actually given a lot more hints about how the main competitor works, albeit only by virtue of its name, not journalistic thoroughness.

    --
    sudo ergo sum
    1. Re:That's very interesting, but... by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well, my bet would go to the memory being NAND FLASH, with graphene transistors. But I also can't find it anywhere.

  28. Re:Ninjas? by aywwts4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    When cornered into a room by ninjas with nothing separating you from them but a door of wood, yes, thicker is better, but you will die regardless.

    I think you are confusing ninjas with zombies, zombies have thick wood door shredding powers while a ninja is already in the room with you.

    --
    Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
  29. I've been using it for years.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using graphite for memory for years.. I deposit thin layers on a thing and flexible cellulose/rag/clay substrate. The nice thing about it is I don't even need a computer to do the retrieval in that system.. and I can use various content as well as sequential or random
    organizational methods. The substrate tends to degrade after a few years, becoming brittle or even yellowed but for most purposes it works just fine.. It can be erased, rewritten, read many times without the need to refresh... :-D

  30. It doesn't matter - Moore's Law ended this week. by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 2, Funny

    Get over it. There will be no faster computers now that the US Govt has bailed out the DRAM industry. Innovation like this is illegal!

  31. Multiple layers? by linear+a · · Score: 1

    Still making stuff multiple atoms thick? What's next, using bricks?

  32. Re:Ninjas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That, sir, was pure genius. You have beaten the Internet.

  33. Re:Ninjas? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    So does John Wayne.

    In one incident, Bond bet Wayne that they could stand on opposite sides of a newspaper and Wayne wouldn't be able to hit him. Bond set a sheet of newspaper down in a doorway, Wayne stood on one end, and Bond slammed the door in his face, shouting "Try and hit me now!" Wayne responded by sending his fist through the door, flooring Bond (and winning the bet).

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  34. Re:piss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, provided you remove 'frosty'.