"Magnetic Tornadoes" Could Offer New Data Storage Tech 109
coondoggie writes to tell us about the latest technique researchers are investigating as a possible means to store data, magnetic tornadoes. "Conventional computer memories store data in "bits" that consist of two magnetic elements that record data in binary form. When these elements are magnetized in the same direction, the computer reads the bit as a '0'; when magnetized in opposite directions, the bit represents a '1,' researchers stated. According to scientists, a vortex forms spontaneously — one vortex per disk — in a small magnetic disk when the disk's diameter falls below a certain limit. Although the vortex does not whirl about like a meteorological tornado, the atoms in the material do orient themselves so that their magnetic states, or 'moments,' point either clockwise or counterclockwise around the disk's surface. At the center of the disk, the density of this rotation causes the polarity of the vortex core to point either up out of the disk or down like a tornado's funnel, researchers stated. Because the vortices that form on the disks contain two independently controllable and accessible magnetic parameters, they could form the basis for quaternary bits that would contain data written as a 0, 1, 2, or 3."
LHC (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We don't. However, we do advertise this as a potential side-effect to increase our funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy (Score:2)
you just use one of the magnetic mirrors (slashdot a few days ago) that creates a monopole field. The tornadoes will be repelled by the induced image monopoles.
Stuff and nonsense (Score:3, Funny)
And what if we scare robots into killing all the humans? Doesn't anyone remember how scared Bender was when he saw a 2 amidst all those 0s and 1s in that nightmare?
Re: (Score:1)
And a 1, 2, 3? (Score:1)
Logic just became _extra_ fuzzy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The binary would be the same. Instead you have 2 "dots" to make a byte instead of 8 "dots".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would be four quaternary bits to make a byte, I believe.
2^8 = 256 possible values (binary; 8 places, 2 possible values each)
4^4 = 256 possible values (quaternary; 4 places, 4 possible values each)
The real question is (Score:2)
When will they take over the world? I have to prepare my disembodied head.
There are 1 types of people who understand quints (Score:4, Interesting)
I suppose you'll get some kind of increase in data storage this way, but wont read/write times be longer because you'll need to deal with translations between quaternary and binary?
Re:There are 1 types of people who understand quin (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Magic is rather unnecessary. A multi-terabyte Caviar already exists.
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=576 [wdc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I read "your WD Caviar" as "a WD Caviar".
Re:There are 1 types of people who understand quin (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
actually.. if you go from binary, to quantary values, a 1GB binary disk would become a 1 exabyte disk.
Re: (Score:2)
err, no. this technology would allow 2 bits to be stored in the place of 1 bit, doubling capacity.
So your 1GB disk would become a 2GB disk, with extra expensive funky read heads.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but wont read/write times be longer because you'll need to deal with translations between quaternary and binary?
No, in fact an advancement such as this would halve the read/write times since twice as much information is read/write in each operation.
Re-discovering magnetic bubble memory (Score:3, Interesting)
This sounds a lot like magnetic bubble memory [wikipedia.org] that intel, fujitsu, IMB and TI made in the 1980s.
That too had multiple states per "bubble". However the higher-order bubbles were generally not used. The reason was, it was hard enough keeping the single bit (zeroth order mode) bubbles stable at high circulation and high density.
Since here the domains are fixed and the disk moves it might be easier to use higher order magnetic domain modes.
Re:Re-discovering magnetic bubble memory (Score:4, Informative)
This sounds a lot like magnetic bubble memory [wikipedia.org] that intel, fujitsu, IMB and TI made in the 1980s.
That too had multiple states per "bubble". However the higher-order bubbles were generally not used. The reason was, it was hard enough keeping the single bit (zeroth order mode) bubbles stable at high circulation and high density.
Since here the domains are fixed and the disk moves it might be easier to use higher order magnetic domain modes.
Magnetic vortices are significantly smaller than the bubbles in bubble memory. Because of this, there are no "higher order" states - you have 4 distinct magnetization states (CW/CCW, in/out), and there are no in-between states. The trick is figuring out how to get the switching speed down using exchange bias coupling and crazy anisotropy effects.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes no sense at all. First all you are saying is that lowest order state of the vortex has 4 modes. But Why can't I have folds on the vortex, just as one can have folds in a magnetic bubble, to make higher order states? e.g. instead of having a pair of dipoles one had a pair quadrupoles.
As for them being smaller than bubbles, I'm not sure how you know this. For example, vertical storage in harddisks (akin to bubbles) is denser than longitudunal storage (akin to vorticies).
Re: (Score:2)
A) The demagnetizing field wants to minimize free magnetic poles at the surface of the element. This might be the largest contribution to the vorticity (ie. having all the spins aligned in a vortex minimizes the free poles at the surface).
B) There is a discontinuity at the center of the vortex when you look at in-plane magnetization. The spins at the center are frustrated and are forced out-of-plane.
What do you mean by "folds" on the vortex? Are
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is very angry. You should talk nicely to it and get a warm drink.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My karma is greteful for the thought anyway. :-)
wont read/write times be longer (Score:2)
Re:Market! (Score:2)
+5 Informative on why lowly techs leave the actual tech and become PHB's.
"I don' wanna hear the incomprehensible crap. I'll be in my 2 hour marketing meeting wondering if we can strike deals with Frank Baum's estate."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's just bit packing. For example (and ignoring many low level details*) your 512-byte sector would be stored in 2048 hardware bit buckets instead of 4096 individual storage quanta.
* For purposes of illustration and ignoring the smart little tricks of hardware reality.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm suprised it's taken so long to get multiple magnetisation strategies to achieve more data density.
Re: (Score:2)
[sarcasm]
Oh, I write all my numbers in hex. I hope I don't have to deal with one of those quaternary or your binary systems...
[/sarcasm]
Re:The end of binary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The end of binary (Score:4, Informative)
00b=0q
01b=1q
10b=2q
11b=3q
Each quaternary bit would store two binary bits, all translated by the device. Bytes would still be 8 binary bits, but only 4 quaternary bits. Much easier than translating between trinary and binary...
And, as they are talking about storage medium, NOT processors, there's no need to recompile. Just have the device handle the translation, much in the same way it's done for CDs and flash memory.
Re: (Score:2)
And besides, we don't store the plain 0's and 1's from your binary file on the disk. There's an extra layer of encoding to make sure there are no long runs of 0's or 1's and to add some error correction coding.
Encoding a binary stream into these 4 states (clockwise, counter-clockwise, in, out) might have even more complex rules. Like maybe you can't record two of these "tornadoes" next to each other unless the directions are opposite. Who knows how many data bits you could actually store per magnetic bit.
"Quaternary bits"? (Score:4, Informative)
Is a "quaternary bit" a "quaternary binary digit"? Doesn't make sense. I think you're after a "quaternary digit", or "quit".
Re:"Quaternary bits"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I like the sound of 'quigit'.
Re:"Quaternary bits"? (Score:5, Funny)
Is a "quaternary bit" a "quaternary binary digit"? Doesn't make sense. I think you're after a "quaternary digit", or "quit".
I like the sound of 'quigit'.
Quigit eh? Quyte nice. You'll get no quyble from me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I call a base 4 digit a Quatloo.
Great for storing extended bools, such as {false, true, maybe, File Not Found}
Re: (Score:2)
How does Dan Quayle fit in?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I prefer Q*Bert
@!#?@!
Re: (Score:2)
or Quidich
Re: (Score:2)
I like the sound of 'quigit'.
A thousand times no, there's fewer good puns with that than "bit." Quit is okay as far as the pun test goes.
Quata (from quaternary data) also works, though it is of course less accurate. Small price to pay though, you can get puns off of "quarter" and/or "water."
I think we need to establish from the get-go that no matter what we call it, the most important thing is that computer teachers in high schools can make lame puns for their students to groan about.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
To help take the byte out of boring classes?
Re: (Score:2)
Is a "quaternary bit" a "quaternary binary digit"? Doesn't make sense. I think you're after a "quaternary digit", or "quit". I like the sound of 'quigit'.
So the question is: How many songs fit in a 2 Gigaquigit (2GQ) drive?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a gigaquigit or gibiquigit?
Re: (Score:1)
I vote for 'quidit'! Whether you pronounce it "quit it" or "qui-djet" is up to you.
~AA
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Great, we skipped over the shortened form of the trit, and went straight on to quits. Killing the time spent making bad jokes about the shortened trit and keeping our development on pace. Yay!
Re:Trit! (Score:2)
What if one of the 4 slots is deliberately miscoded? Do I feel some beautiful encryption coming on?
You read the quad as a holistic unit. If you read it clockwise it comes out one way and if you read it counterclockwise it comes out another, with the same hard data stored.
It's Kurt Godel's Next Generation Dream.
Remember the old trick of chaining two registers in the 6502 days? If you chain two of these Qritters together, can we get a Klein twist?
Sorry, I'm feeling there's like a terabyte of storage AND proce
And Then (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No. "Storm Chasers" are what we will call data miners.
I read this as "magnetic tomatoes" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing Fozzie Bear would appreciate magnetic tomatoes -- especially if they were self-throwing.
-l
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I literally laughed out loud there. Wish I had mod points for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Phelps? You're on Slashdot? Groovy.
Information Theory? (Score:3, Interesting)
I read an article about Information Theory [wikipedia.org] a long, long time ago (which is probably why I can't Google it) wherein the authors demonstrated that the most efficient means of storing information would be by using an alphabet that had e (2.71828183) letters.
It was pretty interesting and has been stuck in my head. In any event, they surmised further that the closest we could get would be if we came up with some sort of trinary alphabet. They also opined that we were damned lucky to have binary as it's the next-most-efficient alphabet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Like a diode it only conducts electricity in one direction, so that shoots the -x,0,+x idea out the window.
Uh, no it doesn't.
This is how CMOS gates work... using P-types and N-types to handle the different voltage "paths". Hell, this is how most modern amplifiers work. Remember how sinusoidal voltages are both positive and negative?
And you don't want a "linear" transistor as a switch. Good thing switching transistors are nowhere near linear.
Re: (Score:2)
If you use opposite types, you can handle opposite voltages, but each single transister only allows current in one direction, does it not? Anyway, if you need a P-type and an N-type, you are doubling the component count.
And you don't want a "linear" transistor as a switch. Good thing switching transistors are nowhere near linear.
Okay. My bad. I'm just an amateur. I was picturing that they just set up t
Re: (Score:1)
So the transistors have a certain minimum operating voltage. We want to provide a margin over that value, let's call it A. They also have a certain maximum operating voltage. We want a good margin below that which we will call C. Let's call the voltage halfway between those semi-arbitrary margin points B. From B to the margin we will call X. A+X=B, A+2X=C.
The real problem for these circuits is the use of a hysteresis loop to definitively select between voltages. One loop switches handily between two values.
soviets and the impracticallity of trinary logic (Score:2)
Their is an apocryphal story that the soviets invested heavily in ternary logic and it was physically to hard to implement that it set them back a decade.
At the time, most memory was static memory which draws a current even in the quiescent state. it's easy to think about binary currents, they go one way or the other. What's a trinary current?
Much much later on memory went to charge storage (dynamic memory). This only drew current during switching but none when it was quiescent.
This memory stored
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
I remember seeing this sort of thing discussed a long time ago. The thinking was to find themost economical way of storing/writing numbers, eg what is the most efficient base to use. Base 2 only needs two characters, but needs a long nubmer to store much data. Base 10 needs more characters but the nubmers end up much shorter. So which is best is going to depend on the relative cost of adding more places in the number or more characters in the storage set. If you make the assumption that either has the same
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's pretty easy to derive this result.
Suppose you have an alphabet with 'S' different Symbols. There are S^N possible strings of length N. The authors say of that paper claim that the difficulty in reading an N digit string is proportional to the product SN. Therefore, what we'd like to do is minimize the product SN while keeping S^N Constant.
That means we define k = S^N, and therefore ln k = N ln S, so N = (ln k / ln S). That means we're trying to choose an S to minimize f(S) = S * (ln k / ln S).
If f(S)
Disks may stop being drives (Score:2)
Depending on the actual tech, I'm imagining a system where the magnetics are laid down with a rotating magnetic field rather than a rotating disk.
If possible, this would lead to magnetic disks without moving parts.
Re: (Score:1)
no. and yes.
two magnetic elements. reading:
0) same direction = 0
1) opposite direction =1
they do not have 00, 01, 10 and 11 states, which would be four states.
elements are read in an "old-fashioned" way, they probably _could_ be read in all four states, but they are not.
Tornadoes, of course (Score:5, Funny)
Why didn't I think of that? Tornadoes, in retrospect, seem like the PERFECT place to put my ordered data.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Both storage and retrieval of data is simple. Retrieving data in the same order in which it was stored, maybe not so much.
Disaster Recovery? (Score:4, Funny)
Availability (Score:2)
I assume that this will be in commercial products in "5-10 years"?
One vortex per disk (Score:1)
According to scientists, a vortex forms spontaneously - one vortex per disk - in a small magnetic disk when the disk's diameter falls below a certain limit.
So my 750GB drive is now 750GB plus one. Big deal!
Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
They're not talking a physical platter (besides, your 750GB drive probably has 3 or 4 of those). They're talking about the actual magnetic area that holds each bit currently.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Gigaquads (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Is that a new idea? (Score:1)
Wow, wonder if they considered this? (Score:2)
quaternary bits that would contain data written as a 0, 1, 2, or 3
-----
This would open the door for double density binary storage per magnetic bit as well as adding ternary/quaternary capability.
a 0 on top of a 0 could be 0, a 0 on top of 1 could be 1, a 1 on top of 0 could be 2, and a 1 on top of 1 could be 3.
And ternary/quaternary data would be the usual one bit per particle.
That's just amazing flexibility...
-Viz
Ternary/Quaternary (Score:2)
For anyone confused about what ternary and quaternary states are, here's a paper on a ternary machine... There actually was a couple of ternary computers built but they never left the university stage...
http://www.computer-museum.ru/english/setun.htm [computer-museum.ru]
With this storage it would become more practical to build ternary machines which greatly simplify computing.
The ramifications for artificial intelligence are astounding... Think of the number of transistors required to be reduced by a factor of 7, and look at wh
Re: (Score:2)
Except AFAIK there aren't any solid state circuit elements that deal well with three states.
I personally like analog for AI. For example, for recognition of similar objects... one could assume that two trees would have a similar analog signature if scanned with a radar/sonar/3d imaging type device. That's how some radar systems can identify an object purely based upon it's radar signature. For example the AWACS uses an analog computer to process its radar signals.
Re: (Score:2)
That was kinda my point. With native ternary (or better storage) it might make sense to develop ternary (or better) semiconductors since you'd need fewer components and the power consumption goes down. Going quaternary might give a similar improvement over ternary to going ternary over binary. In the mean time you could take advantage of having 4 states per particle to improve the storage density of binary data enabling the storage tech to be usable to it's potential (and profitable!) in the mean time ;)
Pr
But how do you read and write the data ? (Score:1)
Ok, so I know that a magnetic disc around 100-200nm in diameter will have a vortex domain structure (actually - I don't magnetic nano-rings tend to form onion states, but we'll leave that one for now). I know I can set the vortex state by hitting it with a high intensity laser circularly polarised laser pulse and apply a small +-z magnetic field to set the in/out state. But reading it needs some fancy focussed magneto-optical kerr effect kit and a lot of patience and re-writing the data is tricky - you have
bit storms (Score:1)
I hate to do this, really... (Score:4, Funny)
Aunt E&M! Aunt E&M! There's no place like Ohm!
So I'm guessing the strength of these magnetic gales would be measured in Henries? ... I could go on...
Point of Failure (Score:2)
Four (Score:2)
The bits all go to four. Look, right across the board, four, four, four and...
Oh, I see. And most bits go up to two?
Exactly.
Does that mean it's bigger? Is it any bigger?
Well, it's two bigger, isn't it? It's not two. You see, most geeks, you know, will be running at two. You're on two here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on two on your chips. Where can you go from there? Where?
I don't know.
Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Bring on the analog computer (Score:1)
Far from being fuzzy logic, as some posters suggested above, this is more of the same, solid state computer.
I want wave forms. I don't want to have to do tons of calculus, in fact, calculus is the opposite of what I want, a lot of the time. What I want is an event-driven wave form simulator. There are millions of applications for such a beast, from neural nets to physics simulations.
I know what curves I want, mostly, it's combining them together that's tough. I want my computer to simulate the curves in rea
Success! (Score:1)
Excellent (Score:1)