1.5 Nanometers is small indeed.

August 14, 2006 10:47 AM

IBM raises lowers the bar. Apparently 1.5 nanometers is all that is needed for a 0 or a 1. This advance in data storage technology is a ways off from making an impact in chip construction, but allows for storage that is 1/8 the size of CMOS's wildest dreams. Neat. via ZDNet
posted by Addiction (14 comments total)

Does this mean we don't have to get perpendicular?
posted by Orange Goblin at 10:58 AM on August 14, 2006

I hope that's not what this means. I was looking forward to disco solving all of my storage woes.
posted by Stunt at 11:06 AM on August 14, 2006

Does this mean we don't have to get perpendicular?

Thanks for that! Now I understand something I previously didn't even care about!
posted by Acey at 11:15 AM on August 14, 2006

I can't see why a zero should take any space at all.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:18 AM on August 14, 2006

That's the problem with nothing. If you don't leave space for it, you'll never know it's not there.
posted by the jam at 11:25 AM on August 14, 2006 [3 favorites]

But since the ones are there, they don't require space to know they're not there. So why not take them away? Then you'd have nothings and spaces for nothings. Piece of cake.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:49 AM on August 14, 2006

Spaces for nothings != nothing.
posted by joecacti at 11:59 AM on August 14, 2006

Hooray for the most nothingest nothing yet!
posted by CynicalKnight at 12:07 PM on August 14, 2006

/got nothing
posted by daksya at 12:51 PM on August 14, 2006

posted by inigo2 at 12:56 PM on August 14, 2006

Single molecule switches are old news.
posted by euphorb at 1:06 PM on August 14, 2006

what euphorb said.

also making storage small is pointless if it's not addressable, or even manufacturable, which to me is the real challenge facing molecular electronics. sure you can make a molecule flip states, but then what? how do you build devices out of them? and how do you do it at a commercial scale?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 1:20 PM on August 14, 2006

Wouldn't interference be a huge problem at the molecular scale?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:04 PM on August 14, 2006

I can say with uncertainty that this mean you won't be able to know at the same time where your data is and where to and how fast it is being copied.
posted by uftheory at 12:54 AM on August 15, 2006