digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

New nanowire storage ups memory: The end of just 0 & 1?

physorg.com — Researchers have created a type of nanowire-based information storage device that is capable of storing three bit values rather than the usual two —that is, "0," "1," and "2" instead of just "0" and "1." This ability could lead to a new generation of high-capacity information storage for electronic devices.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BCCStu, on 07/02/2008, -2/+63OMG...2!
  • scalemodlgiant, on 07/02/2008, -0/+157It was just a nightmare, Bender. There's no such thing as 2.
  • AmyVernon, on 07/02/2008, -0/+33so now we'll be able to store all the info in the world on a chip the size of my pinkie?
    • keviniskool, on 07/03/2008, -0/+118 GB, close enough.
    • edwartica, on 07/03/2008, -5/+3All men's wisdom can be contained on a single speck of dust.
      • HonoredMule, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Oh, what a setback will be the great Sneezing of 2034.
  • bixby1, on 07/02/2008, -2/+7I tiny brain within a brain. Whatever the opposite of that is what my mom used to call me.
  • megadan76, on 07/02/2008, -0/+27Hmm... first memristors and now this. The future is looking good... we just have to get it all designed and made before we run out of oil(!)
  • Chirp08, on 07/02/2008, -0/+56why not just put more 1's in?

    ...but ours goes to 2...
  • malechite, on 07/02/2008, -1/+40mmm Trinary
    • shadearg, on 07/03/2008, -2/+35mmm ***** and Tytes
    • SoCalChris, on 07/03/2008, -0/+21It's called Ternary Computers, and the Russians tried this in the 1950's. The problem that they ran into was determining when was a bit considered on, and when was it considered partially on. After much head scratching, the project was scrapped.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer
  • Todesengelvr6, on 07/02/2008, -0/+26Damnit for the short human lifespan! I'm not gonna get to see any of the really really really cool stuff!
    • Farik, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_kurzweil#2020s
      Great technology and cool stuff is not that far in the future...
    • bboyjkang, on 07/03/2008, -0/+9nanotechnology will increase your lifespan, which will let you see more advances in technology, which will increase your lifespan, which will let you see more advances in technology, which will increase your lifespan

      I'm pretty sure you'll get to see it

      just play it safe for the next 30-50 years
    • geodebug, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7robot hookers :-(
      • rz8472, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4"Look at that exhaust pipe!"

        "Eww Fry, you're into that kind of stuff?"
  • taters05456, on 07/03/2008, -4/+27before someone else does it,
    100101011101010001010111010010111010110001010100001010112
    Now can no one else post that here?
    thanks
    • edwartica, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1222222222222222222222222222222111111222221110
    • Mandegar0, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1100101011101010001020101110100101110101100101010000101011
      • alefox, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2011222222221222212222122222222122221222212222111222212221222121 whoever can translate that (and say what it references) gets a shinny penny!!!
  • Balk2K, on 07/03/2008, -1/+10The traditional bit is not 'capable of storing ... the usual two [bit values]', a bit stores one bit which is either zero or one. If it goes to two then it's still not storing three bits and you can't call it a bit any more.
  • mynameistux, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3I thought of something similar years ago, with HDD's getting "lasered" to different depths, not at all (0) a bit (1) a bit more (2) and heaps (3)
    but where do we stop?
    • gtluke, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7dual layer is just 2 layers of 0/1 i think
  • Striss, on 07/03/2008, -2/+14The 2 is a pie
    • drcosquared, on 07/03/2008, -2/+7The 2 is a lie.
      • LucasVB, on 07/03/2008, -2/+15The 3.1415925... is a pi
      • thespanielator, on 07/03/2008, -4/+8I don't mean to be a pi nazi but it's

        3.14159265
      • LucasVB, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Oh *****, I have it memorized up to 22 digits and I make a typo. My nerd status should be revoked because of that!

        Thanks for correcting, tho.
  • moocow1452, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7Activate Tricorders!
  • s4g4n, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Maybe they mispelled "too"?
  • alexkim804, on 07/03/2008, -0/+16you scientists think you're so smart and great, i remember in my day 2 was 10!
  • Zoxive, on 07/03/2008, -0/+720 = off
    1 = on
    2 = ?? profit?
    • GeneralFailure0, on 07/03/2008, -0/+90 = off
      1 = in a quantum state of uncertainty
      2 = on
  • gtluke, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4maybe my brain is broken but i think it wouldn't be 2 it would be 4 and somehow it could natively decipher it as one point?
    00
    01
    10
    11
    or 2 as in on off null?
    0
    1
    _
    • netnifty, on 07/03/2008, -0/+14I would assume we will just use Ternary (base 3) instead of Binary (base 2) so it would just go:
      0
      1
      2
      10
      11
      12
      20

      etc.

      Presumably until the rest of the computer can work in Ternary it will transparently convert it to Binary when read and back when written, so you still have Ternary on disk (and hence the higher storage capacity) and don't have to worry about finding a third state of electrons to relay it along the wire.
      • gtluke, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5i dont' seem to see how ternary could be put on a chip. currently we just have a jillion transistors that read on/off or 1/0
        unless they went more in an analog direction and went with on / off / halfway?

        i do relay/ladder logic for a living, this is eludes me.

      • Culyt, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1They wont use that at all, they will just combine the extra state with another nano-wire and 2 wires will be capable of storing 3 bits or whatever.
  • arjie, on 07/03/2008, -2/+19So are they going to call it a tit, then? I know they want to.
    • smileylich, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2So 8 ***** to a tyte? Megatytes have 1 million *****?
  • solscreen, on 07/03/2008, -12/+2That is one TINY dick! 200 nm!!!!
  • WorldSpinner, on 07/03/2008, -6/+131 is signal
    0 is no signal
    what the heck is 2?

    electrons (atom participles) have two quantum stages (spin) up (1/2) and down (-1/2). No third stage. No 2s.
    • iKomplex, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4With that kind of argument, you would think it's common sense to have a No spin, a Right spin, a Left spin, and maybe other spin, state. My point exactly? It's not as simple as you're making it to be.
    • insanebrain, on 07/03/2008, -0/+12 is the backup signal ;)
  • RavagesOfTime, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3This is gonna give Bender some eff'd up dreams.
  • FeargusMcDuff, on 07/03/2008, -0/+20This would ruin so many ***** jokes!
    • meruru, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8Nah it would just replace them with newer, ***** jokes
    • Rabbethan, on 07/03/2008, -2/+25"There are 2 kinds of people, those who can read binary and those who remember the old joke."
    • arjie, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4There are 10 kinds of people, those who can read ternary, those who can't and those who think it's binary.
  • bizzarojamey, on 07/03/2008, -2/+12I for one am in favor. If you think about it binary gave us bits. With three values we get *****. And everyone loves *****.
  • DiscoLando, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6Dugg for the phallic photo.
  • superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -1/+29"And this is my prize computer, its memory goes to 2"

    "So how is this memory more useful?"

    "Well you see, with other computers when you reach 1 you're done. You can't hold any more. With this computer, I can go right on up to 2 and compute that much harder"

    "Couldn't you just add more bits to the other computer and hold the same amount?"

    *blank stare*

    "This computer goes to 2."
  • musntSurfatWork, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2mine used to be good when it went to 11.
  • aphexcoil, on 07/03/2008, -2/+5Trinary?
  • saranagati, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4since digital is considered 2 states, what would we call technology with 3 states?
    • TRScheel, on 07/03/2008, -0/+13Based off the recent trends...

      HD Digital
    • forevernomad, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Let's break the HD mould and call it Trilogic technology!
      Sounds 21st Century don't you think?
      • innocentsinner, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Add a 2.0 on there, or something.
    • Alexio, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Actually.... Digital just means things stored as numbers so no need for change. To be more technical look at the word digital. It has digi at the front meaning 10 - which is our natual number system. Binary has never been digital but we all know what it's trying to mean. It's not analogue basically.
  • santaliqueur, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8There are two types of people in the world. Those that think the saying "There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't." is funny, and those who don't.
  • mendicant, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5I thought that the main reason we didn't have something like this is because Ternary Logic (as opposed to the current Binary Logic) is far too complex and not necessary to model the logic needed.

    I guess if it's just storing information and not using it for logic, then you would essentially be adding 50% capacity by adding a 3rd state.
  • Asrrin29, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5While this technology is fascinating and a breakthrough, it will be very hard to implement this technology into the market without some form of backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is the primary reason that machines today are the way they are. machines could be light years more efficient, faster, and cheaper if we used different software and hardware architectures, but because we built on top of old technology rather then replace it, it becomes harder to completely replace what we already have. Trinary computing would require a vastly different software architecture to take advantage of the extra memory states, and so on.
    • jonshipman, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2All that means is once everyone finishes moving off Carbon onto Cocoa, Apple will announce the move to Trinary....

      :'(
  • poet, on 07/03/2008, -0/+9So then,
    0 = off
    1 = on
    2 = maybe off/on

    WTF m8?
  • flashingcurser, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10Crap, and I was just getting used to my binary clock.
    • pensel, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1You can be certain you'd never be able to read a clock written with LEDs indicating 'possible.'
  • maxhrk, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1i dunno but.... When I went to that link, first thing upon seeing the picture that I formed my first two words in my thought:

    'disformed penis'
  • b33b3s, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Its a great time to be a computer engineer
  • charlietuna, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Why couldn't machines use ternary logic? I'm sure there is a reason, but I never read it. Current flows in either direction and in addition the flow can be off, so we would have 0,1, and -1. Seriously, why not?
  • jonmac, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10Another decade or so and my patent on "3" will payoff....
  • clharlem149, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1why don't the just get rid of the shell to leave space for more cores?
  • 0260, on 07/03/2008, -0/+22 is unknown or both 0 and 1
  • ChileanGoD, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2That means there is potential 50% increase in storage power?
    • sanosuke001, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Well, 2^32 = 4294967296 and 3^32 = 1853020188851841 which is 431,439.88 times the size, or something...
  • Asheis, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3ugh... thinking about adding a 2 just makes my brain feel fried.. how is that possible?
  • insanebrain, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2This gives nice possibilities for new compression methods.
  • dbradberry, on 07/03/2008, -1/+00, 1 and 2 do not form a three bit value. A bit is (by definition) a binary digit - an can only take the values 0 and 1. Adding the value 2 makes a trinary system (base 3). A 3-bit value is three bits in sequence 000 to 111, and can take the value 0 through 7.

    I'm shocked that technical journalism can make such a mistake.
    • SarahC, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2Ooops... you're thinking of 2 bit depth...
      this is three bits...

      so a 3 bit value can only contain 3 different values, not 8 like you suggest.
  • cambob76, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2In University, they told us that base 3 was the most efficient way of storing information... we only used base 2 because it was easier to implement. This could be a pretty cool development.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_numeral_syste ...
  • Berkana, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Don't use 0, 1, and 2: use 0, 1, and -1. Such a system is known as balanced ternary, and is far more efficient than binary, while still easily implemented in electronic systems, whereas the hardware needed to implement base 3 (0, 1, 2) may as well be used to implement base 4.

    See this about balanced ternary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_ternary

  • ThantiK, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Yeah, but can they turn it up to eleven?...My nanowires go up to eleven.
  • jejones, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Are the designers of SETUN still alive and kicking? I think it would be cool to interview them in view of this development.
  • Raptor007, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2This is a good step, but it'd still have to be translated into binary to be of any use with current methods of computing. Instead, they should work on getting a fourth state (0,1,2,3) and then the translation would be trivial.
  • markduyvesteyn, on 07/03/2008, -2/+0binary solo....0002000100000111100002110

    come on sucker lick my battery
  • chadszinow, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2No one has mentioned the robustness of the binary system. Isn't detecting storage errors & correction going to be harder if we have three states?

    This reminds me of the guy that stored heaps of data on a single page by using colours and shapes. Of course you can store more with more states but we must not forget about how we recover from storage errors.
    • HaMMeReD, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Checksums and such should still all work, no reason they wouldn't. And in a lot of places error handling can be adapted relatively easily.

      • chadszinow, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Aye, I believe you on checksums algorithms being possible. I'm thinking about it at a mathematic level.

        Consider parity bit error protection.
        I suspect if I had a better mathematician than I handy they would say with binary there is [let's say] a 50% chance a parity bit would report a packet is ok when it isn't and in trinary there is a 66.66666% chance due the extra state.

        Now, where did I keep that mathematician?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.