Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Create Graphite Memory 10 Atoms Thick

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the comes-with-convenient-pink-rectangular-prism dept.

Data Storage 135

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."

cancel ×

135 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pessimists? (5, Funny)

Warll (1211492) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167381)

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

Re:Pessimists? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26167761)

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

You're not an optimist. You're just morbidly obese.

Re:Pessimists? (4, Funny)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168499)

I was told thicker is better... ;)

Re:Pessimists? (2, Funny)

NerdyLove (1133693) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168959)

More to love :-)

Re:Pessimists? (5, Funny)

Mozk (844858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26169143)

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.

Re:Ninjas? (5, Funny)

aywwts4 (610966) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170963)

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.

Finally.. (4, Funny)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167387)

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

Re:Finally.. (1)

onion2k (203094) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167513)

What's the tape for?

Re:Finally.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26167673)

Compression.

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

Re:Finally.. (3, Funny)

Todd Fisher (680265) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167819)

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

Re:Finally.. (5, Informative)

ecalkin (468811) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168581)

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

Re:Finally.. (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170339)

I can do at least 25 folds.

Think accordian...

Re:Finally.. (5, Informative)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170659)

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.

Re:Finally.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26170817)

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

Re:Finally.. (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167871)

- 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).

Re:Finally.. (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167943)

7 times - try it.

Re:Finally.. (1)

Arterion (941661) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167983)

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

Re:Finally.. (2, Informative)

volsung (378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168221)

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

Re:Finally.. (3, Funny)

setagllib (753300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168705)

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

Re:Finally.. (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168569)

7 times - try it.

more than 7. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Finally.. (3, Funny)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168209)

(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!

Re:Finally.. (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167741)

Remember post-it notes?

piss (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26167389)

frosty piss

Re:piss (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26167419)

Budweiser?

Space Exploration (5, Insightful)

Szentigrade (790685) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167397)

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.

Re:Space Exploration (3, Funny)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168505)

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

Re:Space Exploration (1)

psymonet (828844) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168631)

I bet it's good for making space elevators.

10 Atoms thick? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26167415)

As per wikipedia,

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

Atom @ Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

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

Re:10 Atoms thick? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26167493)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26167843)

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 [wikipedia.org]

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (3, Informative)

tylerni7 (944579) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168021)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (3, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168127)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168665)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (2, Informative)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168897)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26169775)

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?

Re:10 Atoms thick? (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170509)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168711)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (2, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26169239)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26169565)

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).

Re:10 Atoms thick? (4, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168105)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26168255)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (2, Interesting)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168857)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (2, Interesting)

treeves (963993) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167665)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (2, Funny)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167933)

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

Re:10 Atoms thick? (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168603)

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

Re:10 Atoms thick? (1)

Born2bwire (977760) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170029)

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.

Re:10 Atoms thick? (1)

fucket (1256188) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167731)

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

Re:10 Atoms thick? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26168039)

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?

Re:10 Atoms thick? (1)

Strep (956749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168117)

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

Re:10 Atoms thick? (1)

kyc (984418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168951)

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.

So if I cons up an 11 atom list ... (0)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167437)

my Lisp program dies?

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

*duck*

Re:So if I cons up an 11 atom list ... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26167855)

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

Who needs new graphite memory? (4, Funny)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167443)

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.

Re:Who needs new graphite memory? (5, Funny)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167475)

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

Re:Who needs new graphite memory? (3, Funny)

revoldub (1425465) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168595)

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

Stone tablets (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170313)

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".

Re:Who needs new graphite memory? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26167639)

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.

Re:Who needs new graphite memory? (1)

quenda (644621) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167799)

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.

Re:Who needs new graphite memory? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26167829)

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.

Re:Who needs new graphite memory? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26168963)

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?

Re:Who needs new graphite memory? (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26169431)

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

Re:Who needs new graphite memory? (1)

rcw-home (122017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26169693)

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.

Re:Who needs new graphite memory? (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170585)

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.

So.... (4, Funny)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167449)

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

Re:So.... (4, Funny)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167713)

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

Re:So.... (1)

Therefore I am (1284262) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168633)

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.

Common Rule of Microwavery: (1)

whohou (1434521) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168867)

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.

Re:So.... (1)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170855)

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. :)

Re:So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26169305)

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

Re:So.... (1)

scarroll9 (1117633) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170331)

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!

Re:So.... (1)

IDKmyBFFJill (1428815) | more than 5 years ago | (#26169157)

use rubbers instead

Graphene for write-only memory (5, Funny)

gluefish (899099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167463)

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.

Re:Graphene for write-only memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26169895)

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?

Re:Graphene for write-only memory (1)

famebait (450028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170681)

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 [wikipedia.org]

A marketer would have written that differently (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26167485)

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

Seriously, fuck marketing.

Graphene balloons (2, Funny)

graft (556969) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167507)

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 [slashdot.org]

Re:Graphene balloons (2, Interesting)

oasisbob (460665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168069)

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

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.

Vaporware (5, Funny)

BlackSabbath (118110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167545)

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

Literally, vaporware.

Re:Vaporware (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167775)

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

Phew! (2, Funny)

powerslave12r (1389937) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167551)

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

im going to be rich! (0, Redundant)

Conditioner (1405031) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167651)

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 !

Re:im going to be rich! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167757)

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 guess soon (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26167695)

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

Re:I guess soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26169893)

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

She told me size doesn't matter... (5, Informative)

psnyder (1326089) | more than 5 years ago | (#26167703)

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."

Re:She told me size doesn't matter... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168157)

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.

Re:She told me size doesn't matter... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26168935)

it doesn't "leak" from an 'on' state. The on state is defined as the high current state. You don't say the faucet is leaking if water comes out when it's on. You're a retard with a very low UID.

Re:She told me size doesn't matter... (0, Flamebait)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26169551)

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.

"Though we grow it from the vapor phase" (2, Interesting)

NinthAgendaDotCom (1401899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168049)

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

Re:"Though we grow it from the vapor phase" (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168667)

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.

Every now than then (1)

FunkyRider (1128099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26168615)

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

Graphene/Graphite (5, Informative)

kyc (984418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26169001)

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.

Finally... (2, Funny)

NotPeteMcCabe (833508) | more than 5 years ago | (#26169125)

Finally, memory you can erase.

So many comments... (1)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170001)

So few memristor comparisons.

Altered Carbon (1)

GrpA (691294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170041)

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

GrpA

How would you dispose of such a thing? (1)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170213)

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...

Re:How would you dispose of such a thing? (2, Funny)

3.5 stripes (578410) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170323)

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

Practical application for laptop users (1)

neonux (1000992) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170375)

"...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.

That's very interesting, but... (1)

famebait (450028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26170629)

...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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>