Innovation

Carbon nanotube-based memory may be reality by 2010 or earlier

At the SC '07, nanotechnology start-up Nantero demonstrated a prototype NRAM (Non Volatile Random Access Memory)-based memory that could result in nanotechnology-based memory debuting as early as 2010.

At the SC '07, nanotechnology start-up Nantero demonstrated a prototype NRAM (Non Volatile Random Access Memory)-based memory that could result in nanotechnology-based memory debuting as early as 2010.

An excerpt from Register:

Nantero's approach to making the NRAM gear starts with carbon nanotubes bought from a variety of suppliers. The company works to remove the numerous impurities present in the nanotubes via a proprietary process where the nanotubes are suspended in a solution.

The cleansed nanotubes are then arranged in two layers where a bed of parallel nanotube rows sits in silicon with another set of perpendicular nanotube rows above it. To get 1s and 0s, Nantero puts the carbon tube molecules in and out of contact with each other by pumping in an electrical charge that makes the tubes bend via van der Waals forces.

Nantero hopes to monetize its invention by licensing its intellectual property to fabrication suppliers. NRAM has the prospect of replacing magnetic hard drives and flash memory as we know them.

An excerpt from Techworld:

Greg Schmergel, CEO and co-founder of Nantero, said at the time: "A printable NRAM memory could be deposited on flexible substrates to enable very low cost RFID tags."

We might see the introduction of devices using NRAM chips in 2010, possibly earlier.

But NRAM is not the only future prospect for nano-scale memories. Researchers at IBM are hard at work on MRAM (Magnetic Random Access Memory), which seeks to miniaturize the disk drive and the computer chip into one unit (AFP).

More information:

Nantero exhibits universal memory at SC '07 (HPCWire)

4 comments
Dr Dij
Dr Dij

A show on building arcologies (giant habitats that qualify as mini-cities) in Japan suggested we build them out of carbon fiber. Instead of fabricating huge beams in a factory and hauling them, they suggested they be 'grown' - a machine on the end of each beam would add to the end and move upward as it does. These are similar to microtubules the body constructs and destructs with enzymes / RNA on a regular basis as part of our cells. Carbon fiber is 10x strong as steel and much lighter. While they were supplying the materials as chemicals to it, why not have it grow 'like a plant', absorbing the CO2 in the air to grow. This would both provide much needed housing that could be build pretty much anywhere on-site but also solve the excess CO2 problem where the ocean is not sufficient to absorb all our excess carbon, and where it does, acidifies the ocean killing plankton.

JCitizen
JCitizen

goes; we should quit allowing forest fires and at least allow lumber concerns to cut dry drought stricken trees to make fire brakes to minimize the huge carbon release that happens in such a fire. You would also be trapping more carbon in people's homes and products. And as the forestry service or better yet the lumber company, replaces the trees with sprouts when the wet season returns the tree will grow and trap way more carbon than a tree that is already or near full grown. But then I'm not to popular with tree huggers. They think with their hearts instead of their brains. Thanks for your input Dr. Dij!

Dr Dij
Dr Dij

goto youtube.com search for wonderingmind42 videos he has completely logical reasons with no 'hearts thinking' reasons why we should do something about global warming. He is very clear and in fact DOESN'T declare it is an inevitibility. Neither is the fact that an art museum will be robbed of their Picasso painting but that doesn't stop them from buying insurance to that effect or implementing security. (the brazilian art museum btw didn't have insurance) I'm the same. the ONLY reason I've been arguing in the GW threads is that I'm convinced it is a problem for scientific reasons. I wasn't born with or 'indoctrinated' into thinking it is a problem. It is only because I have been following mounting evidence to that effect. And he has good points in that it IS pretty much unanimous among scientists who publish peer reviewed articles that it is happening. Only 'ignorant' (I didn't say stupid) people who don't know about the facts still believe it isn't happening. He makes a change that it should be called 'gccc' global catastropic climate change because of the CHANGE and disruption, with rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, etc since 1.6oF isn't that noticable just by itself.

JCitizen
JCitizen

overwhelming evidence; although I feel no one is looking for balancing science on the subject anymore. I feel simple economics is curing the problem; as fossile fuels are quickly becoming too expensive; and present a national security concern for being too dependent on one source of energy. Designers and inventors are outpacing congress in tremendous leaps in battery and solar generating technology. We need a comprehensive national energy policy which isn't forthcoming yet. It should have the same priority as World War II rationing; but, of course you could never bring political support on such. If we had a gutzy president that had the same gump it takes to invade a country to somehow enforce a new energy policy it would be grand. Would probably fail a Supreme Court test though. While the pundits, polititians, and judges mulled over the problem such a hero could get much done in the mean time. Simply allocating more research to fusion would go a long way. Recent headway in such programs have shown great promise. My greatest fear is the sensitivity of tropical fish/food source life to temperature and salinity. Japan and other nations rely so heavily on ocean life for food that a problem could quickly develop after the hugh die offs that could happen under such scenarios. I still feel we will need to use at least natural gas as an interim; as it gives off the least CO2 and is a fairly significant threat to global warming in it's own right. Drilling for gas in the Atlantic would be a priority, I should think as the alarmists say that is where a tremendous amount of frozen methane is trapped(for now) on the ocean bottom. A coal plant in Kansas was having some success in trapping CO2 using algae hydroponics. I really think these are solvable problems; but I am afraid it is going to have to be forced on us, as politics will always get in the way. I'm not for big government but I feel if the situation is truely that dangerous we may need some FDR style dictatorship to get anything done. Wished I had more confidence in our system, but we'll see.

Editor's Picks