
New Storage Device is Very Small, as in 12 Atoms - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/science/smaller-magnetic-materials-push-boundaries-of-nanotechnology.html?hp
======
srl
12 atoms is the quantity used to store a single bit (~100 atoms / byte) near
absolute zero. As usual that important nugget was buried in the middle of the
article; just reading the first 3 paragraphs, one would think they had fit an
entire floppy into 12 atoms.

~~~
rosser
I'm not sure how you got that impression. I only skimmed the article, and
picked up the one bit per 12 atoms detail, thinking, "Well, it's not quite
memory diamond, but it's as close as we've ever come."

------
epenn
I think it's worth noting that this was an experiment done as part of a
research paper. The HN title basically implies that it's something ready for
production. Nonetheless very impressive.

------
sukuriant
Extrapolating this, wouldn't that mean we could possibly get as much as
6.02e23 / (12 + C) bytes per mol of storage material?

Where C is the number of atoms required to communicate with that segment of
memory. It might be (6.02e23 / 12) + C, even!

That's a terrifying 5,569,618.84 petabytes for what could amount to a few
hundred grams of materials (assuming it's a compound, and not just iron (at
approx 56 grams a mol)).

Perhaps even many thousand petabytes in a storage space the size of a
paperclip.

The potential is incredible; and it makes me worry: what will developers waste
that space on next?

~~~
wcoenen
The article is about arranging atoms on a surface with a scanning tunnelling
microscope. You you don't seem to be counting this required surface it in your
"storage material". And that's still ignoring all the machinery needed to
actually arrange/detect the atoms.

~~~
sukuriant
The reading material was considered with the C at the end of the calculation;
but even still, if it takes 100 times as much equipment to read and write as
it does to store, those are still ridiculous numbers. That was my point.

