Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   IBM succeeds in creating a single bit of storage using only eight atoms, a technical breakthrough with stunning porn-retention implications   (wired.com ) divider line 30
    More: Spiffy, atoms, IBM, refrigerator magnet, scanning tunneling microscope, Hitachi, entailments, outlet store, porn  
•       •       •

3048 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Jan 2012 at 8:34 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-01-12 05:10:39 PM  
Yawn. RTFA. They only got it down to a wasteful 12 atoms per bit, not 8. Call me when IBM gets its act together.
 
2012-01-12 05:25:00 PM  

themeaningoflifeisnot: Yawn. RTFA. They only got it down to a wasteful 12 atoms per bit, not 8. Call me when IBM gets its act together.


Yeah, but if they save 'em as JPGs they can crunch it down some.
 
2012-01-12 05:50:32 PM  

wiredroach: themeaningoflifeisnot: Yawn. RTFA. They only got it down to a wasteful 12 atoms per bit, not 8. Call me when IBM gets its act together.

Yeah, but if they save 'em as JPGs they can crunch it down some.


Those aren't her nipples, they're artifacts of compression.
 
2012-01-12 05:52:06 PM  

Barfmaker: hose aren't her nipples, they're artifacts of compression.


Talk about your "bicubic subsampling..."
 
2012-01-12 06:10:40 PM  
cleverocity.com

What the atoms may look like
 
2012-01-12 06:14:48 PM  
Atomic Porn! Woohoo!
 
2012-01-12 08:05:09 PM  
Nice. I suspect this is one of the ancestors to crystalline storage devices?
 
2012-01-12 08:50:09 PM  
Atoms: is there anything they can't do?
 
2012-01-12 09:17:34 PM  
Now subby can finally back-up all of his tranny/furry pr0n.
 
2012-01-12 09:49:33 PM  
This may seem obtuse, but if those are individual atoms we're seeing, what's the broad smooth stratum they're resting on?
 
2012-01-12 09:57:41 PM  

buckler: This may seem obtuse, but if those are individual atoms we're seeing, what's the broad smooth stratum they're resting on?


Pay no attention to that broad smooth stratum beneath the atoms!
 
2012-01-12 10:09:29 PM  
All they need to do is put it together with this 4 atom wire and they might have something.
 
2012-01-12 10:15:25 PM  
Actually I am more amazed that they can show an actual picture of something made of 12 atoms. Even Farkier: The technology to do so is thirty years old.
 
2012-01-12 10:38:41 PM  

buckler: This may seem obtuse, but if those are individual atoms we're seeing, what's the broad smooth stratum they're resting on?


Regions where the STM tip is too far away from the material to get a signal.
 
2012-01-12 10:56:36 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: buckler: This may seem obtuse, but if those are individual atoms we're seeing, what's the broad smooth stratum they're resting on?

Regions where the STM tip is too far away from the material to get a signal.


Well, okay then. Makes sense to me.
 
2012-01-12 11:13:33 PM  

Zombalupagus: Actually I am more amazed that they can show an actual picture of something made of 12 atoms. Even Farkier: The technology to do so is thirty years old.

Hell, you can get close with this. (new window)... 1936.
 
2012-01-12 11:17:51 PM  

buckler: This may seem obtuse, but if those are individual atoms we're seeing, what's the broad smooth stratum they're resting on?


It's turtles, all the way down.
 
2012-01-13 01:07:01 AM  
Did subby assume the numbers in the article were base 6?
 
2012-01-13 01:17:40 AM  
So, is that a megabyte on your hard drive or are you just happy to see me?
 
2012-01-13 02:03:05 AM  
Just make sure it's '8 Atoms and Eve' not '8 Adams do Steve'.

/Santorum Dept of Straight Atom Alignment
 
2012-01-13 02:38:10 AM  
Almost yesterday, ladies would sew little wires through magnetic donuts for little bits of memory.

read.cs.ucla.edu
 
2012-01-13 05:52:25 AM  

buckler: This may seem obtuse, but if those are individual atoms we're seeing, what's the broad smooth stratum they're resting on?


Since the technique they're using is STM, what you're seeing isn't actually atoms, but instead charge density. You can assume a nucleus will have a significant positive charge, which allows us to attribute what we see on an STM to atoms. That sorts out the adsorbate.

The article doesn't mention anything about the substrate, but I will assume it is Copper, since it's a very nice substrate, stable, easy to clean and work with. STM requires the material to be a conductor, since the principle of the technique is the quantum tunneling of a nanometer sized gap between the STM tip and the sample you're looking at. Harping back to my original bit about charge densities, some metals have a large amount of delocalised electrons, a 'sea' of electrons, if you will. This means that since no charge is localised to an atom, all you see is the broad smooth stratum, as you call it. I've seen this kind of thing when I did a baby experiment depositing buckminster fullerene on a copper crystal; I could see the C60 very clearly, but the substrate was just steps and terraces made of a plane with no distinguishable features.

/ Did this stuff for the past 5 years
// And apparently they'll make me a doctor for it
 
2012-01-13 05:59:14 AM  

Sum Dum Gai: buckler: This may seem obtuse, but if those are individual atoms we're seeing, what's the broad smooth stratum they're resting on?

Regions where the STM tip is too far away from the material to get a signal.


Not true. Chances are they operated the STM in constant current mode (since you have a larger chance of crashing your tip when you deposit stuff on a surface and use constant height mode), so the separation between tip and sample would have been constant throughout, being controlled by a feedback loop :)
 
2012-01-13 06:05:18 AM  

Periodic Disorder: buckler: This may seem obtuse, but if those are individual atoms we're seeing, what's the broad smooth stratum they're resting on?

Since the technique they're using is STM, what you're seeing isn't actually atoms, but instead charge density. You can assume a nucleus will have a significant positive charge, which allows us to attribute what we see on an STM to atoms. That sorts out the adsorbate.

The article doesn't mention anything about the substrate, but I will assume it is Copper, since it's a very nice substrate, stable, easy to clean and work with. STM requires the material to be a conductor, since the principle of the technique is the quantum tunneling of a nanometer sized gap between the STM tip and the sample you're looking at. Harping back to my original bit about charge densities, some metals have a large amount of delocalised electrons, a 'sea' of electrons, if you will. This means that since no charge is localised to an atom, all you see is the broad smooth stratum, as you call it. I've seen this kind of thing when I did a baby experiment depositing buckminster fullerene on a copper crystal; I could see the C60 very clearly, but the substrate was just steps and terraces made of a plane with no distinguishable features.

/ Did this stuff for the past 5 years
// And apparently they'll make me a doctor for it


Thanks! I'm learning more about STM than I ever thought I would by asking what I considered to be a dumb question.
 
2012-01-13 06:14:07 AM  

buckler: Thanks! I'm learning more about STM than I ever thought I would by asking what I considered to be a dumb question.


No such thing as a stupid question, only stupid answers! I would suggest reading this for more info. Wikipedia I know, but the amount of information and the images taken from this by some of the lecturers I know is scary! However it is more or less accurate.
 
2012-01-13 07:11:48 AM  
Not bad...for a bunch of two-bit hacks.

/I keed.
 
2012-01-13 07:15:55 AM  
do people that submit headlines ever read articles?
 
2012-01-13 10:00:26 AM  
Maybe next they'll make some new supercomputers that'll help subby with math
 
2012-01-13 11:39:29 AM  
How many Libraries of Congress can we store with this technology? Enough to stretch to the moon and back AND fill 1/13 of the Grand Canyon?

No, seriously, that's pretty damn cool. Great perspective, BitwiseShift.
 
2012-01-13 03:27:09 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: How many Libraries of Congress can we store with this technology? Enough to stretch to the moon and back AND fill 1/13 of the Grand Canyon?

No, seriously, that's pretty damn cool. Great perspective, BitwiseShift.


We'll have to convert the figures to Rhode Islands in order to get an accurate parse of the equation.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report