Slashdot Mirror


NCSU's Fingernail-Size Chip Can Hold 1TB

CWmike writes "Engineers from North Carolina State University have created a new fingernail-size chip that can hold 1 trillion bytes (a terabyte) of data. They said their nanostructured Ni-MgO system can store up to 20 high-definition DVDs or 250 million pages of text, 'far exceeding the storage capacities of today's computer memory systems.' Using the process of selective doping, in which an impurity is added to a material whose properties consequently change, the engineers worked at nanoscale and added metal nickel to magnesium oxide, a ceramic. The resulting material contained clusters of nickel atoms no bigger than 10 square nanometers — a pinhead has a diameter of 1 million nanometers. The discovery represents a 90% size reduction compared with today's techniques, and an advancement that could boost computer storage capacity. 'Instead of making a chip that stores 20 gigabytes, you have one that can handle one terabyte, or 50 times more data,' said the team's leader, Jagdish 'Jay' Narayan, director of the National Science Foundation Center for Advanced Materials and Smart Structures at the university."

23 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Finger nail-sized chip? by vertinox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are we talking in units of man hands or lady hands?

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    1. Re:Finger nail-sized chip? by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mama was apparently wrong about nailbyting.

      --
      Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    2. Re:Finger nail-sized chip? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are we talking in units of man hands or lady hands?

      I asked a female co-worker to help me compare, and she obliged......by flipping me off. At least I got a good look at her nail. The things we nerds endure for science.
           

    3. Re:Finger nail-sized chip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That reminds me of a true story.

      A few years ago I received my first PDA phone. It was HTC through AT&T and it did have a camera. I went through the office asking people for a picture for my phone. Explaining that when they dialed me, I could see their picture instead of the phone number. I went through about 20 offices and cubicles on my break to get those pictures.

      They ALL GAVE ME THE FINGER. Every single one of those comical bastards. No prompting, No hesitation. It was, "Can I get a picture of you for my phone?". They all turned around and flipped me off. Women as well as men.

      Even the owner of the company was there that day. He flipped me off too.

      Could it have been me? Nah.

    4. Re:Finger nail-sized chip? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      It was memories of the Vista you installed on all PC's.

    5. Re:Finger nail-sized chip? by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Men have short wide fingernails on large hands. And women have long dainty fingernails on small hands. I wonder if statistically the area works out to be about the same.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  2. Dang it! by mhajicek · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm going to have to buy The White Album again!

  3. There is no chip. by victim · · Score: 5, Informative

    They have made a material which could if you designed a suitable chip and associated circuitry, and figured out how to manufacture it at large scale, would let you store a terabyte of data on a fingernail sized chip.

    The whoever wrote the article title should be embarrassed, as should timothy for propagating it.

    1. Re:There is no chip. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Two better words: Huge tits.

      I even re-used a lot of your letters...

    2. Re:There is no chip. by Phat_Tony · · Score: 4, Informative

      I found an even more impressive material, and I can already manufacture it myself in bulk.

      Each base of DNA can be AGT or C, so that's 2 bits worth of data per base pair.

      A terabyte = 1.1259E+15 bits, so a terabyte of DNA is 5.6295E+14 base pairs.

      For mass, [5.6295E+14 base pairs] x [660 daltons per base pair] = [3.71547E+17 daltons] = 6.169686786411827E-7 grams = .62 micrograms per terabyte.

      That's smaller than my fingernail by a pretty good margin. In fact, my actual fingernail already contains maybe a petabyte of storage.

      Unlike their new super material, I've already developed (well, OK, discovered. Well, no, read about other people discovering) techniques for reading, writing, and copying data with this storage medium.

      However, like them, I haven't worked out any computer interface yet.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    3. Re:There is no chip. by marcansoft · · Score: 4, Interesting

      These days the quality of memory is crap though. Just look at NAND flash: there are hundreds of failed blocks on most chips, and these days sectors with a bad bit or two are used and just error corrected. Same with hard disks. You work around this by shoving large amounts of error detection, correction, and relocation logic into the controller.

      Let's say each individual bit (!) can be manufactured reliably 99.99% of the time. For a 2048-byte sector (typical for NAND flash), using sector-granularity remapping, there's a ~20% chance of a sector being good. That's not very good, but it still gives you 19% usable capacity. At a terabyte per chip, that's still 190GB of storage. If you add single-bit error correction, you'd get 500GB of storage. At 2-bit correction, 750GB. Current generation Flash memory already uses multiple-bit ECC for MLC level flash memory (where typically 2 bits will fail at once), and sectors with one bad bit(pair) are considered "good enough" and corrected away. If you can manufacture this 1TB storage chip at 99.99% per bit, and especially if most of the failures will happen at manufacture time and not develop later during use, I'll gladly take it given a reasonable amount of error correction wrapping it. It's not like we don't already rely on ECC for our day-to-day storage.

      Yield issues affect mainly things like CPUs with no redundancy. With memory, you just lose the damaged parts. Even RAM these days is manufactured with spare blocks that can replace blocks that came out wrong, to increase yield (though it's usually only a few and the remapping is burned in at the factory).

  4. Re:Trollin'. by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Informative

    TB:1,000,000,000,000
    TiB:1,099,511,627,776

    Different notations as to whats a Terabyte, the second one being the binary notation.

    But more importantly, the summary* doesn't say which notation they're using, but because they say trillion we can assume the former. Why is that important? Look at the numbers.Thats 99 Gigs of difference.

    *(Because I wouldn't read the full article)

  5. Re:Is this a real writable chip? by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

    The actual press release does not claim that they "made a chip". That's a fabrication of the ComputerWorld reporter.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  6. nanotech on its way by dissy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While they are light on details, the article implies this is a long term storage system (IE a flash chip replacement)

    One would think creating RAM with a similar density would be possible as well.

    I've used a super computer that had 74 TB of main memory, but clearly is something one can not afford nor fit in the home, to put it mildly. In a few years, will we have 1tb dimms at home? That would be sweet.

    Even lacking that, a 1tb flash-like chip (not as in technology, but as in purpose/use) is still a huge improvement.

    Let's just hope it doesn't go the way of the 100tb optical discs that are 'going into production within a year' for the last 10 years.

    On a happier note, just imagine the reactions the RIAA/MPAA lawyers would have to such a thing existing!
    "Now all of your 'IP' fits on a nine finger-nail-sized set!"

  7. Wait!!! by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

    can store up to 20 high-definition DVDs or 250 million pages of text

          Wait, how many Libraries of Congress is that??? Now I'm totally confused, you keep switching the units on me!

          On second thoughts, it can probably store 1 copy of Windows 8.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  8. The good news by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

    It will be commercially available by January. The bad news is, this is a write only memory device.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:The good news by OnlyPostsWhilstDrunk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, it's for classified documents.

      --
      Sig: I don't spell check and this is legit. This was written while I was drunk, and quite possibly with m eyes closed, b
    2. Re:The good news by fractalspace · · Score: 5, Funny

      Workaround is to make a backup of your data before writing to this device, just in case you need it again.

  9. Can someone explain to me... by Gordo_1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how we go from the below scientific journal abstract to the Slashdot headline: "NCSU's Fingernail-Size Chip Can Hold 1TB"?

    We have investigated the magnetic properties of the Ni-MgO system with an Ni concentration of 0.5 at.%. In as-grown crystals, Ni ions occupy substitutional Mg sites. Under these conditions the Ni-MgO system behaves as a perfect paramagnet. By using a controlled annealing treatment in a reducing atmosphere, we were able to induce clustering and form pure Ni precipitates in the nanometer size range. The size distribution of precipitates or nanodots is varied by changing annealing time and temperature. Magnetic properties of specimens ranging from perfect paramagnetic to ferromagnetic characteristics have been studied systematically to establish structure-property correlations. The spontaneous magnetization data for the samples, where Ni was precipitated randomly in MgO host, fits well to Bloch's T3/2-law and has been explained within the framework of spin wave theory predictions.

    Seriously, do you see anything about a chip in there? Anyone? Bueller?

  10. Harnessing energy from an electron's spin??!!! by flajann · · Score: 5, Informative
    I find this article a bit confusing, because it speaks of "harnessing the energy of a spinning electron":

    "Most energy used today is harnessed through the movement of current and is limited by the amount of heat that it produces, but the energy created by the spinning of electrons produces no heat," the university state in a press release.

    Anyone who knows anything at all about quantum mechanics knows that the spin of an electron is quantized and cannot change.

    The Wikipedia article has this to say about spintronics:

    Electrons are spin-1/2 fermions and therefore constitute a two-state system with spin "up" and spin "down". To make a spintronic device, the primary requirements are to have a system that can generate a current of spin polarized electrons comprising more of one spin species—up or down—than the other (called a spin injector), and a separate system that is sensitive to the spin polarization of the electrons (spin detector). Manipulation of the electron spin during transport between injector and detector (especially in semiconductors) via spin precession can be accomplished using real external magnetic fields or effective fields caused by spin-orbit interaction.

    This makes MUCH more sense! Reporters are always notorious for getting the science wrong.

  11. Re:Trollin'. by maxfresh · · Score: 5, Informative

    The confusion probably arises because not all countries and languages use the same terminology for large numbers.

    There are two naming conventions in general use, short-scale, and long-scale. In the short-scale countries such as the US, UK, etc, Trillion = 10^12, but in the long-scale countries, Trillion = 10^18. Obviously, if you are in a long-scale country, a Trillion (10^18) bytes is a (10^6) times more than a Terabyte (10^12 bytes). You can see this article for more on short and long scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales

  12. Another bogus materials-science article by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is yet another of those articles where somebody did something vaguely promising in materials science, and it's immediately being touted as if it were a product.

    They're not talking about a "chip" at all. The material they've produced sounds more like something that might work as a disk surface. "Under these conditions the Ni-MgO system behaves as a perfect paramagnet." It's not clear what you'd use as a read/write head, even if they can create a surface of "nanodots".

  13. Re:Trollin'. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If there's a B, b, or a reference to bits or bytes, then it's in powers of 2.

    Not for bandwidth. Base-2 units have never been used to describe bandwidth. (If you have a 1MB per second connection, that's exactly 1,000,000 bytes per second.)

    Not for hard drive capacity at any time later than ancient history.

    Not for floppy disks, which were always in ridiculous mixed units of 1024*1000.

    Not for optical media, which come in sizes like 4,700,000,000 bytes.

    Not for file sizes reported in any non-braindead application.

    In fact, not for anything other than solid state RAM.

    So your assertion that "there is no confusion" is 100% false. The explicit distinction between TB and TiB should be strictly enforced in all contexts due to the historical abuse of SI terminology by people like you.

    It is IMPERATIVE to measure bits in (base 2) exponential terms because bits are quantum logical units. We count them, and we are concerned with possible comibnations in a given number of bits.

    This statement makes zero sense. You're confusing the number of permutations that "n" bits can denote with the number "n" itself. Just because the number of permutations of n bits happens to be 2**n, that property in no way constrains us to denote measurements of the number n itself in some strange hybrid derivative of base 2 and base 10. (Which is only slightly more convenient to do arithmetic with than Roman numerals. Quick: how many 100 MiB files fit onto a 4.377 GiB DVD?)