Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Discover a New Kind of Magnet (ieee.org)

Wave723 shares a report from IEEE Spectrum: A new kind of magnet, theorized for decades, may now have been experimentally proven to exist. And it could eventually lead to better data storage devices. In a normal magnet, the magnetic moments of individual grains align with each other to generate a magnetic field. In contrast, in the new "singlet-based" magnet, magnetic moments are temporary in nature, popping in and out of existence. Although a singlet-based magnet's field is unstable, the fact that such magnets can more easily transition between magnetic and non-magnetic states can make them well-suited for data storage application. Specifically, they could operate more quickly and with less power than conventional devices, says Andrew Wray, a materials physicist at New York University who led the research. Now, Wray and his colleagues have discovered the first example of a singlet-based magnet that is robust -- one made from uranium antimonide (USb2). "It ends up taking very little energy to create spin excitons for uranium antimonide," Wray says. "This is essential for the singlet-based magnet, because if it took a lot of energy, then there wouldn't be enough spin excitons to condense, stabilize one another, and give you a magnet." The research has been published in the journal Nature Communications.

42 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. Fucking magnets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    How do they work?

  2. Not a monopole by gtwrek · · Score: 4, Informative

    TL;DR - Not a monopole (Sadly)

    1. Re:Not a monopole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Short version: the fact that electric charge is quantized is extremely hard to explain without the existence of quantized magnetic monopoles (Dirac quantization condition).

      Generally when our best physics equations require a particle to exist, that's a good sign it exists.

    2. Re:Not a monopole by Jacked · · Score: 1

      Dammit, I knew I should have skimmed the comments first. The only reason I read the summary was to see if it was a monopole lol.

    3. Re:Not a monopole by careysub · · Score: 1

      Yes, but perhaps there is only one in the entire Universe.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    4. Re:Not a monopole by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Ditto. I was hoping they were going to be able to shoehorn "singlet-based magnet" into a monopole. Oh, well, back to the ring.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  3. Advanced motors? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    So....does this advancements in elector motors?! Other than storage, what other practical application would this serve?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Advanced motors? by ganv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like this is some pretty basic science. If the only material this is somewhat stable in is Uranium Antimonide, we're still a long way from applications. Basically they found a new mechanism by which electrons in this rare material create magnetism. It looks like cool quantum mechanics, but not the path to near term applications.

    2. Re:Advanced motors? by tsa · · Score: 2

      Uranium is very toxic, even if it’s not a radioactive isotope. Not sure I’d like to have that in my house.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:Advanced motors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uranium is very toxic, even if it’s not a radioactive isotope. Not sure I’d like to have that in my house.

      Uranium antimonide, not pure uranium.
      Remember, chloride is also very toxic by itself but that doesn't mean that you need to throw out all your table salt.
      You also have plenty of arsenic in all your LEDs that you put everywhere but it is mixed with gallium.

      I would worry more about anything old enough to still contain large amounts of lead.

    4. Re:Advanced motors? by careysub · · Score: 1

      Uranium is very toxic, even if it’s not a radioactive isotope. Not sure I’d like to have that in my house.

      It is not as toxic as lead. The OSHA permissible exposure limit for insoluble uranium compounds is five times higher than lead. Lead is still commonly used in solder, where it is exposed, and in fishing weights, and so forth (some people use lead glass for fancy goblets and drink out of it). Any uranium antimonide used in a magnetic platter is going to be a tiny amount in thin film (about 40 nanometers thick) in a sealed unit. The total amount a magnetic material in a 3.5 inch disk is just a few milligrams. The radioactivity of this would be thousands of time less than the radioactivity in an ionization smoke detector.

      Don't let the occurrence of the word "uranium" throw you into a tizzy. If you own anything made of granite weighing more than a few ounces, you have more uranium in that than would be in a hard disk.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    5. Re:Advanced motors? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Might do - especially nanotechnology. If you need to fit 300 loops of wire and you have 2 cubic millimeters of space, things get tricky, Or if you need the device to have reconfigurable magnetic field orientation; instead of mounting the magnet on a rotary disk, use this thing and just "reconfigure" it whenever need arises.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  4. Miracles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Insane Clown Posse is really going to be confused now.

  5. One Major Flaw Though.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Limitations of USb2 will be its 480mb/s transfer rate. And how I keep plugging it in the wrong way. USB-C is way better solution in both regards. :X

    1. Re:One Major Flaw Though.. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Most USB-C devices operate at USB 2 speeds. USB C is a port, cable, and butt shaving spec. "USB 3.2 Gen 2x2" is the latest USB protocol spec.

    2. Re:One Major Flaw Though.. by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      I'd think the bigger flaw might be that we'd need USB sticks made out of uranium. But that's just me.

    3. Re:One Major Flaw Though.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure. USB-C solved the 'plugs in wrong way' problem.

      In return, any given USB-C system may or may not support fast charging. Audio may or may not be supported. Cables are frequently proprietary to specific devices. You say USB-C is faster, but that faster speed is also optional. Low quality USB-C cables abound. Even the name has gone off the rails, with USB 3.2 Gen 2 Revision 5 Update 7 Amendment 9 Subchapter 16. Real consumer friendly there!

      https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/276820-2-years-after-apple-killed-the-headphone-jack-usb-c-audio-is-a-disaster
      https://www.extremetech.com/electronics/239142-caveat-emptor-usb-c-cable-compatibility-safety-turning-nightmare

      The theory of USB-C is great, but the reality is far less grand. USB is supposed to be Plug and Play, but it has turned into Plug and Pray with USB-C. No thanks, not until they get their sh*t together. And it has been long enough to do that yet it still hasn't happened.

    4. Re:One Major Flaw Though.. by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Yeah, sure. USB-C solved the 'plugs in wrong way' problem.

      In return, any given USB-C system may or may not support fast charging. Audio may or may not be supported. Cables are frequently proprietary to specific devices. You say USB-C is faster, but that faster speed is also optional. Low quality USB-C cables abound. Even the name has gone off the rails, with USB 3.2 Gen 2 Revision 5 Update 7 Amendment 9 Subchapter 16. Real consumer friendly there!

      Fixing the problem of which way is up is worth a lot of the other problems. I hate USB-A and the difficulty to tell which way is up.

      The theory of USB-C is great, but the reality is far less grand. USB is supposed to be Plug and Play, but it has turned into Plug and Pray with USB-C. No thanks, not until they get their sh*t together. And it has been long enough to do that yet it still hasn't happened.

      It helps if you don't buy cheap shit cables. So long as they comply with the spec there should be little confusion. Part of complying with the spec is proper labeling on the connectors. The symbols on the cable should show what the cable is capable of doing, which includes both max rated data speed and amperage.

      The alternative to these different cable types is requiring all cables to support every feature. That would mean the cables would be very expensive. A USB-C Thunderbolt cable (which supports 40Gbps and 5 amp power) is about $25, even though it's less than a meter long. A 2 meter long USB-C cable that supports 3 amp power and only USB 2.0 speed is about $8. Getting a cable that is both 2 meters long and supports Thunderbolt 3 would cost about $60.

      Maybe you can argue about my prices a bit but the general relationship among them will be about right. A fast and short cable will cost about three times a slow and long one. A fast and long cable will be about three times the cost of the fast and short one. A 5 amp rated cable could cost as much as double that of a 3 amp cable. I'll put up with some of this confusion so I can get some quality "charge only" cables (which might really mean they support USB 2.0 for the power delivery negotiation) for only $8, and not have to spend $80 for a cable that does it all.

      Oh, and I'm with you on the stupid speed naming conventions. They should have just labeled them by max data rate, such as 1.5M, 12M, 480M, 5G, 10G, and 20G.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    5. Re:One Major Flaw Though.. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      You are blaming the consumer with "It helps if you don't buy cheap shit cables."

      I'll admit to being a bit rude about it but all I'm really saying is, "buyer beware". Be careful of what you buy from whom, which is just generally good advice.

      Here's a thought. USB-A works, all the time. Leaving aside micro USB connectors which are terrible (too easy to break), USB-A is cheap, reliable, and always works.

      I may be mistaken but I'm quite certain that USB-A continues to be part of the spec. Leave aside the micro connectors if you like, and the USB-C connectors too. If you want to stick to just USB-A then be my guest.

      No, it wasn't worth solving the upside down problem. Not even close. The people who designed USB-C are techno-nerds who are willing to fiddle around with something for half an hour. They broke a viable USB ecosystem and justify it based upon minor wins that don't move the bar on anything important.

      That's your interpretation of events. Here's mine. I believe the USB Promoters Group (which is an unusual name for the publishers of the spec, but whatever) are a group of people that spent a good deal of time figuring out how to balance price, ease of use, and capability. I believe they did a fine job of it too.

      Where the problem lies is in the large number of people that make look-a-likes that confuse the public with poorly designed shit. Buy the stuff with the USB trademark on it, from dealers with a good reputation, and you won't be setting your house on fire from an overloaded wire. The USB spec allows the use of only 6 plug types and 5 port types, the size and shape of each are quite easily identified. Each port and cable is required to be labeled to match it's capability. If there is no such label then they violated the spec. If you can't understand the labels then I question your intelligence, it's not all that hard.

      It's just "buyer beware". Taking what I wrote as anything more is making a mountain out of an ant hill. If USB-C confuses and angers you so much then just avoid it as best you can. USB-C "broke" nothing. If you don't like it then don't use it.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  6. Better Storage Devices by jwhyche · · Score: 1

    How can this lead to better storage devices? The only thing I can think of is another way to coat platters in a spinning physical HD. The last time I checked spinning HD where on the way out.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    1. Re:Better Storage Devices by AndyKron · · Score: 1

      +2 HA!

    2. Re:Better Storage Devices by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 2

      maybe this tech could be used in some thing like bubble memory but at a size, speed, and density that makes it equal or better to existing nonvolatile memory storage tech.

    3. Re:Better Storage Devices by bferrell · · Score: 1

      Spinning HD are on the way out... If yu don't mind that SSDs WILL fail catastrophically in 3 to 5 years of heavy use.

      Some people like built in failure. Go figure

    4. Re:Better Storage Devices by bferrell · · Score: 2

      Uh... no. Current gen under heavy use, when they exhaust the replacement blocks, fail dead.

      It's really quite nasty in industrial high performance appliances.

      First gen went read only unexpectedly... "locked". I still see this in SD and micro SD. The Raspberry Pi community is just now coming to grips with the issue.

    5. Re: Better Storage Devices by bferrell · · Score: 2

      True... If the utility is run. And when 100 percent of the spare storage cells are used, the next to fail means fail dead.

      I speak of I have seen. Not marketing theory or wishful thinking.

    6. Re:Better Storage Devices by blindseer · · Score: 2

      There's a number of different kinds of magnetic memory systems that don't involve spinning discs. One I saw is just a micro version of the old core memory from way back when. Instead of a bunch of ladies weaving core memory like beaded jewelry the wires and magnets are printed out like an integrated circuit. There's also magneto-resistive RAM. These are not the spinning platters we've known.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:Better Storage Devices by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The last time I checked spinning HD where on the way out.

      Check the yearly Backblaze report.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Better Storage Devices by careysub · · Score: 1

      They will likely be on the way out for a few more decades.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    9. Re:Better Storage Devices by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Possible but the same is said for spinning HD too. I've rarely had a spinning HD last more than 5 years. Most of the die after about 2 to 3 years. As for SSD dying, the rate of death of SSD deaths are greatly exaggerated. Even under heavy use a SSD will usually out last the point where its obeisance. One of the best things about SSD is being solid state devices they have a better chance to tell you when they are going to die than a HDD does. I've only had one or two HDD tell me they are going to croak with the SMART report. Most of them just fall over and die.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  7. glowing glowing gone by AndyKron · · Score: 3, Funny

    So our hard drives will be coated with uranium antimonide? That sounds like fun.

  8. So... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    We have finally found a place to dump all the nuclear waste! It's going to our next gen data centers!

    I see a glowing future ahead of us.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:So... by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Naturally occurring uranium has a half life of billions of years. It is effectively inert. It's so very much NOT radioactive that uranium is used to make radiation shielding. Putting yourself in a uranium lined room would actually reduce your radiation exposure as natural background radiation from the sun, stars, dirt, bananas, and table salt is higher than that from uranium.

      Nuclear waste is radioactive not because of the uranium but because of what uranium splits into when in a reactor, stuff that's not uranium any more. Once you remove the uranium from that stuff it's not all that different from the natural uranium mined from the ground.

      Sure, you could use uranium from nuclear waste for the memory in your data centers. What you won't see is any real increase in your radiation exposure. Even if the uranium decays it produces an alpha particle, a sheet of paper would stop that radiation. An alpha particle becomes helium once it grabs a couple electrons. Maybe your voice might get a bit higher from it, that's all.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:So... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      For alpha particles to be harmful you'd have to eat the material producing them. A few inches of air, our clothes, and even the thin dead layers of skin on our bodies, is enough to stop the alpha particles from doing harm. Inside the body though they can cause harm. So, don't eat the uranium.

      Read a bit on it, here's a place to start:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Due to the short range of absorption and inability to penetrate the outer layers of skin, alpha particles are not, in general, dangerous to life unless the source is ingested or inhaled.

      Don't eat the uranium and you'll have nothing to worry about.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  9. uranium antimonide by rv6502 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't wait for USB sticks to come in 12" thick lead-lined concrete cases with free shipping from Alibaba.

    Let's see the delivery guy try throwing that package across the front yard.

  10. Link to actual article by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  11. Magnetic properties by xluap · · Score: 1

    If the magnetism goes away quickly, the material wouldn't be suitable for mass storage such as a harddisk of magnetic tape. However, then it could be suitable as a core of a coil, the same as a coil with a ferrite core.

    Is this material diamagnetic, paramagnetic of ferromagnetic?

    1. Re:Magnetic properties by mentil · · Score: 1

      Useful for write-only memory.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  12. Re:uranium antimonide by jouassou · · Score: 1

    The half-life of U-238 is roughly the same as the age of the Earth. I think we can handle that.

  13. Re: Oblig by careysub · · Score: 1

    Given that someone made the device this AC comment is idiotic. Of course it has been touched by human hands, it did not materialize out of thin air. The people who touched it before knew what the heck they were doing, wore gloves, if that was necessary, etc.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  14. Re:uranium antimonide by careysub · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for USB sticks to come in 12" thick lead-lined concrete cases with free shipping from Alibaba.

    Let's see the delivery guy try throwing that package across the front yard.

    Says someone that knows nothing of radiation. Uranium produces only alpha particles which would be easily stopped with a thin plastic case....

    Says someone who know way less about radiation than they think. The amount of uranium that would used in a magnetic storage device would be a tiny, insignificant amount true, but uranium absolutely emits gamma rays (the most common is an energetic 2.5127 MeV). Not only that, but the two immediate daughter products of U-238 decay (Th-234, Pa-234) have very short half-lives and also emit gamma rays (along with their beta emissions).

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  15. Next version USb3 by technosaurus · · Score: 1

    I suspect the hard drives based on this would be 10x faster if they used USb3 instead of USb2.

  16. Re:Holes? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    in the new "singlet-based" magnet

    They're hardly new, singlets have been around for years.