Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage Hardware Technology

HP, Princeton Develop New Memory Material 190

Posted by timothy from the early-adopters-sought dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Hewlett-Packard and Princeton researchers say they've developed a hybrid material that could be used for super-compact electronic memory, making the CD, DVD and similar media seem enormous and clunky by comparison. As reported by Science Blog, 'The researchers achieved the result by discovering a previously unrecognized property of a commonly used conductive polymer plastic coating. Their memory device combines this polymer, which is inexpensive and easy to produce, with very thin-film, silicon-based electronics.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HP, Princeton Develop New Memory Material More

HP, Princeton Develop New Memory Material

Comments Filter:

  • Like the Batteries (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GaelenBurns ( 716462 ) <gaelenb@nospaM.assurancetechnologies.com> on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:12PM (#7458045) Homepage Journal
    This is another thing that strikes me as being similiar to the battery "advances" we've had over the years that have never made it into consumer products. We've been hearing about MRAM and storage densities for years, and yet we still don't have instant-on computers. I wonder if we'll see an article about how these advances are idling just like the battery field.

    • The issue here isn't whether or not a company can create faster disks, that's already been established, it's nothing more than subliminal marketing every time one of these businesses come out with the `next big thing'.

      Consider this if you will. XCompany starts devel on say product A, at the cost of $100.00, yet the competition has either beat them to the punch, or is touting Product A also but better and perhaps at a cheaper cost. Now XCompany has got to recoup the money spent on Product A, so they `tout D

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:No Problemo we'll send you a demo (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@nosPAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:47PM (#7458463) Homepage
        Why should a company flood the market when they're likely to overlap and kill off their own product line without ever selling anything.

        This also helps explain why OLED [wave-report.com] displays will replace LCDs later, rather than sooner: they haven't broken even on their LCD manufacturing investments yet. The only company really pushing OLED forward is Kodak (who also discovered it), both because they don't have anything sunk into LCD so there's nothing to canibalize, and because they've got to innovate now that film is dying (netcraft confirms it). :)

        --

        • Real OLED problems (Score:2, Insightful)

          by cfan ( 599825 )
          OLED have a lot of problems: this is why OLED displays are not here yet.
          I am not an expert of the field, but some time ago I have found this report (in PDF) [usdc.org]
          Look at page 2 (second half) for see such problems.
          Look also at page 16: OLED aren't expected to catch LCD performance until 2007
          The article is a bit old, and i don't know if something is changed.
      • Don't worry, this vaporware won't condense any time in the next decade. The words "inexpensive and easy to produce" guarantee that.

        =Smidge=
    • Chemical batteries are really limited by a few thing, 2 of these being their crystal lattice, and of course their electro-chemical potential. The latter if a fact of physics not much to do there. The crystal lattice effects life and recharging ability.

      Frankly i dont see much more happening in the field of chemical batteries for a while. You are already operating at basically the lowest chemical level.

      Data storage on the other hand still has leaps and bounds to grow. The data storage capacity possible by q
  • You can only write to this stuff once. Real memory is rewritable, like CD-RWs -- it'd probably be better to call this Plastic ROM or something similar.

  • Mirror (Score:4, Informative)

    by mskfisher ( 22425 ) * on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:15PM (#7458097) Homepage Journal
    Site's kinda slow, here's a mirror if need be:

  • So now.. (Score:1, Funny)

    by DarkHand ( 608301 )
    Instead of burning our porn to CD or DVD, we will soon be able to burn our porn to a device using this material? Excellent.
  • "Sorry sir, your phone's full-up now. The memory's all been used. You'll have to get a new one".

    Simon
  • Lets face it. The important question to be asked here is can I burn (or write) image files to this.
    For backup purposes only, of course... ;)
  • The trick is this new memory is write once, read many. So is there really a benefit to consumers or is this just a way to improve the profitability of the corporations even more by milking money out of the consumer whenever they wish to take pictures ala with film based photography. With the other forms of solid state memory you have the benefit of write many, read many. This along with a fairly inexpensive cost makes this a step back instead of a step forward.
    • How does an inexpensive cost contribute to making this a step backward? From the article, it sounded as though the low cost was one of the big advantages of this technology.

      In any case, I can think of many applications for this type of read-only storage device. Companies, for example, would love this for software or media distribution.
    • How is this truely a step back when it add huge advantages if used properly... Since it eliminates the need of a motor to spin a CD.. this would be a perfect replacement andding countless hours of battery life in portable media devices... Flash cards are costly and have a somewhat limited lifespan.. If this media is sold cheap enough... Who really cares if its rewritable or not... if I have 2 gigs of storage with a media that 1.5 inches square and costs me 2$.. I would gladly replace this media when its ful

    • The trick is this new memory is write once, read many. So is there really a benefit to consumers or is this just a way to improve the profitability of the corporations[...]

      Um, so are CD-R and DVD-R, but I don't see people complaining. As long as this thing has a low enough price it will replace those things just fine. That is it's most likely target market.

      If it is cheap enough it could replace FLASH since FLASH has a limited number of erase cycles, so if 100000 times as much of this new memory cost

  • And even if it is cheap to manufacture, it will probably become a gimmick to raise the cost of a record.. Or whatever it will be called when they start selling music albums on that medium.

  • Memory? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:17PM (#7458126)
    Fantastic. Now lets get with the program and refer to this permanent, high capacity "memory" as "storage".
  • So, as I understand it, this is a PROM? Burning 'fuses' sounds like an original PROM - how does this help? I suppose you could stack sheets of this on top of each other and make WORM 'cube' memory...

  • Again? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OzPhIsH ( 560038 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:18PM (#7458150) Journal
    It seems like every week we're subjected to another story about some research lab somewhere devising a new type of memory that's harder, better, faster, stronger, fitter, happier, more productive, and what have you. This seems all wonderful, but when are we actually going to start seeing this new technology? With these all too frequent advances in memory, all going in seemingly different directions, all sponsored by different entities, doesn't it seem like it is just going to take longer for any of them to become an accepted standard, and actually put in use outside the lab?
    • Fast Page, EDO, SDRAM, DDR, Rambus...

      On the non-volatile side of things, we have floppy disks, high capacity floppy disks, CD-ROM, CD-RW, DVD+-R, DVD+-RW...

      You know, all of the things you use were at one time some press release, years (or even decades) away from consumer availability.

      Trust me, kids, back when I got my Vic-20 pretty much all of this seemed like science fiction, and like *nothing* ever actually came out.

      Then I waited long enough to see research turn into the real goods.
  • Couple this with the reverse tech to salvage heat, apply it within the new optical chip.

    I want a Cobalt server with all this new technology in it. Then you could slashdot me and I wouldn't even blink.

    Seriously, it's pretty exciting to see some forward-thinking people coming up with ways to defeat the walls physicists said we'd hit in twenty years. Don't us we can't do something; it's only a matter of time before we prove you wrong!

    Damon,

  • Hmmmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by GeneralEmergency ( 240687 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:20PM (#7458170) Journal


    Mental note: Must corner market on Hefty Bags.

  • This will be worthwhile if for nothing else than finally giving all us nerds the "data crystals" we have always wanted from various crap sci-fi...

    Of course, it isn't optical and will be coated with typical electronics, but still...it will be 3D memory...multilayered 2D at least...

    Keeps getting worse as I go...

    • Re:Data crystal... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mblase ( 200735 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:27PM (#7458264)
      This will be worthwhile if for nothing else than finally giving all us nerds the "data crystals" we have always wanted from various crap sci-fi...

      Data crystals are based on holographic data storage. Holographic memory has the advantage of preserving vast amounts of data throughout the volume of the crystal, not just on the surface, plus if it's chipped or broken each piece still retains the entire holographic image. It's completely different from any data storage method used today, including this one.

      For various reasons, mostly cost and implementation, holographic data storage has never materialized. You can read a little more about it at HowStuffWorks [howstuffworks.com] and other places. (I googled for "holographic memory data storage" and found that page at the top.)
      • Yes, I know...hence my joke...

        Read what I wrote again, this time taking it for the joke that it is...
      • if it's chipped or broken each piece still retains the entire holographic image

        So if some day we have movies, music, software, whatever released on this...

        Wouldn't it possible to buy one copy, then chip off a few million copies?

        Keen :)

  • Write once doesn't mean it's not an advance... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twiggy ( 104320 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:23PM (#7458210) Homepage
    You know, it's not like just because it's "write once read many", it's useless.

    Imagine a new CD or DVD format where the media doesn't have to be spun. Portable music / video players could be nearly solid-state and thus more durable and compact and require far less maintenance.

    I'd happily move to a new format of music where I could carry something like a pack of gum filled with "sticks" of music and pop one into a tiny player even smaller than that of the iPod....

    Furthermore, this sort of thing is great for archiving data, which is the main purpose anyone talked about in the article. More data archived in less space = good, period... it takes up less bookshelves or whatever...

    My only concern is that with the "fuse" design, how susceptible is it to be ruined by an errant static shock, etc?

  • The return of the cartridge! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:24PM (#7458225)
    The form of this device is 3-dimensional, with roughly one gig/centimeter. It's very unlikely that the storage size of these devices would be kept at one gig. More likely would be some convenient-to-cary size, or even a dynamic size with one side designated as the interface to the reader, and the opposite end would grow for increasing sizes. That means the reader would have to be built to hold the largest size that might go in it, else be open-ended, and a user will have to insert the data end into the device. There would also likely be a shell around the data unit to protect from blunt damage. This is all presumption, but at least mechanically, if this becomes popular, we could see the return of cartridge-style packaging of games. This combined with the return of the Atari brandname for some reason makes me uneasy. :^)

    Ryan Fenton
    • yep, a cigarette lighter sized memory stick would be about 16 gigs of data, thats about 3200 mp3s or 10 movies, not bad IMHO

  • Okay (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gogl ( 125883 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:24PM (#7458227) Journal
    "Their memory device combines this polymer, which is inexpensive and easy to produce, with very thin-film, silicon-based electronics."

    Alright, the polymer is inexpensive and easy to produce. How about the "thin-film, silicon-based electronics"? That seems to be being glossed over here...
    • Exactly my question. And how feasible is the stacking operation that the article mentions? It looks like its areal density is nothing spectacular (10^6 bits per mm^2) Theoretically, we could stack die for other memory types into super-dense packages but it's so expensive that it's rarely done.

      Maybe the polymer+transistors stuff is flexible? One could make a big, flat sheet and then roll/fold it up into a smaller package 8^)

      Interesting, but I'm not sure if it's Earth-shattering just yet.

      Iz

  • doesn't sound so great (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JAHA ( 649472 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:25PM (#7458242)
    1GB per cubic centimeter? a 5GB rod is 5x1x1 centimeters...doesn't make a dvd seem enormous to me.
    • That's just with the initial material testing. I imagine that the density could go up dramatically with further testing. How about 50gb in that same 5x1x1 rod? And no moving parts!
    • Think surface area. 5 cm is still pretty small anyway.
      • umm...when you talk about the size of a device you think volume...who cares about the surface area. And yes 5cm is small...but does it make a dvd seem "enormous"? No.

        • Re:doesn't sound so great (Score:5, Insightful)

          by OzPhIsH ( 560038 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:53PM (#7458513) Journal
          A dvd doesn't fit in my pocket because it has much to large surface area. Fold it in half, and you'd have the same volume, but much smaller surface area, and a much easier time fitting it in your pocket. Similarly, a pack of cigarettes has more volume than a dvd or cd, and less outer surface area. It fits conviently in your pocket. You can have any volume you want, as small as you wanted, but the possibility exists to span that volume out over an infinate amount of surface area. Granted, a decreased volume of an ideal solid is going to decrease size and surface area of the object, but we could actually increase the volume and make theat object "smaller" by moving away from the flat disc shape DVDs and CDs use, towards a more ideal shape like a sphere, or more practically in this case, a cube or set of cubes.

    • Re:doesn't sound so great (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Turing Machine ( 144300 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:34PM (#7458336)
      1GB per cubic centimeter? a 5GB rod is 5x1x1 centimeters...doesn't make a dvd seem enormous to me.

      You're ignoring the size of the playback mechanism, which would presumably be much smaller than a DVD drive.

    • 1GB per cubic centimeter? a 5GB rod is 5x1x1 centimeters...doesn't make a dvd seem enormous to me.

      Comparing a DVD to something smaller than a USB keychain drive seems a heck of alot more compact to me!

  • From the article: Engineers at Princeton University and Hewlett-Packard have invented a combination of materials that could lead to cheap and super-compact electronic memory devices ... [they] achieved the result by discovering a previously unrecognized property of a commonly used conductive polymer plastic coating.

    How does somebody invent a combination of commonly used materials?

    • How does somebody invent a combination of commonly used materials?

      You mean like a computer? One part refined beach sand (silicon), a few parts copper, three parts plastic, some aluminum...

  • Not useful for mass distribution of media (Score:4, Insightful)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:30PM (#7458283)
    Although useful for write-once archiving of data, this format does not seem very useful for CD-ROM, and DVD-ROM applications. CD-ROM and DVD-ROMs can be cheaply mass-produced in pressing operations that simultaneously form all the data into the disk.

    In contrast, it would appear that a copy of the data must be sequentially downloaded into each memory device -- like writing to an EPROM. I doubt this can be done very quickly without thermal damage to the device. Without a quick and cheap way of mass-producing the memory device (with the data on it) this technology is less useful for content distribution applications. It still has some potential for archiving, though.
    • Right. Useless like VHS and audio cassette tapes.

      -Peter
    • Well, a writer for these would probably be small and cheap, so a factory mass-producing many pre-written memory modules could have lots of them. Also, this solves the problem (or whatever it is) of how to sign each copy with a unique fingerprint so that copies can be traced.

    • Re:Not useful for mass distribution of media (Score:4, Funny)

      by Keighvin ( 166133 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @07:08PM (#7458645)
      And we all know that EPROM's are completely useless because of the same thing. Don't show up in anything - not a single device!
    • Already the price of duplicating DVDs is lower than that for VHS tapes.

      I also wonder about the cost per byte for this new memory format. Mass produced DVDs cost under 0.10 per gigabyte. I have a hard time seeing how they can fabricate tens of billions of memory bit locations in the Si-PEDOT material for this price point.
    • I don't agree with your comment.

      It's plastic, and all you need to do to get the 0's and 1's in there is break a few ciruits. It shouldn't matter if it's being done slowly through "EPROM" type programming, or if you puctured the circuits with a needle.

      If you really wanted to mass produce something (like a dvd) you could simple have a metal plate with needles protruding out of it patterned to make 1's and 0's where you want them.

      Since it's layered, you would have to press each layer seperately, but not a
  • Why would I want a 1 cubic centimeter block (with accompanying circuitry and contacts presumably making it a bit larger) that is WORM, when I can have a much thinner SmartMedia or SanDisk that is just as large digitally? The only selling point I can think of is price.
  • This grid of memory circuits could be made so small that, based on the test junctions the researchers made, 1 million bits of information could fit in a square millimeter of paper-thin material.

    That's a 1 micron square bit size. Pfft. We can do better than that with silicon.

  • 5 Years again??? (Score:4, Funny)

    by jetkust ( 596906 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:35PM (#7458343)
    Ah, yes, the future will come...In 5 to 10 years.

  • Form and function (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Munger ( 695154 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:38PM (#7458377) Homepage
    Making the CD, DVD and similar media seem enormous and clunky by comparison

    I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I don't want my media to get much smaller. There is a limit to how small something can get before you just start losing it. Ever dropped a tablet somewhere? CDs/DVDs are a bit of an awkward size/shape though to.

    I'd appreciate media that wasn't so delicate. One thing that really sucks about DVDs is the rental market. I've rented discs that are no more than 3 months old, and are scratched so badly that entire chapters are unplayable. Video cassettes can survive a bit of a drop - I can't say the same for DVDs. And let's not get started on greasy finger prints.

    I'll take your storage (more storage is always welcome), but could you package it a bit more user-friendly?

    • And the great thing is that music albums will soon be available on this new media. Once critical mass is reached pricing will most likely be lower than existing CDs. Of course, the initial price will be a little high as the industry retools to the new media... but don't worry the prices will drop... eventually... maybe.

  • "Can also be used as a plastic wrap..." (Score:3, Funny)

    by SiliconEntity ( 448450 ) * on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:39PM (#7458385)
    "The device can also be used as a plastic wrap", say the researchers. "We think it brings new meaning to shrink-wrap licensing."
  • So could I get a TV dinner with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom on the protective, plastic cover?

    That would give new meaning to dinner and a movie...
  • "similar media seem enormous and clunky by comparison"

    It depends on what you're calling "similar media". My 1gig Compact Flash card is probably less volume than a 1cm square cube already, and you can write AND read to it. Already a CF card is available at 4gigs in the same space.

    It may be better form-factor than CD or DVD, but that's because these formats are quite old "standards". The CD format was developed about 20 years ago, right? DVD is looking pretty dated as well. I'm sure with newer technology (b

  • Chemistry and mathematics (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sonicattack ( 554038 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @06:46PM (#7458450) Homepage
    First of all: I have no higher schooling in either of the subjects (chemistry or math), so if the answer to my question is explained somewhere in terms that a layman in those subjects could understand, by all means, direct me to them...

    Anyway, here's what I'm wondering:

    How far are we from reducing the problem of designing a material with the exact properties we need for a particular use, to entering the properties we want into a computer, watch the manufacturing machine mix together the required components, and the finished material come out?

    I understand that much of chemistry is mathematics, and the ways that atoms and molecules interact can be predicted, simulated, to some extent, without the ingredients physically having to be mixed together.

    Is it at all possible to determine if nature's rulebook of chemistry ever can be fully understood? Can it, given enough knowledge, time and computational power, be possible, in the future, to simulate how _any_ substances will interact, and without the need for experimenting, know in advance exactly what mix of atoms are needed to get the material properties we want? Or, closest possible match?

    • A long way (Score:2, Informative)

      by kiick ( 102190 )
      Chemistry is not a science in the same sense as physics. There are general rules for chemical reactions, but when you get right down to it, chemistry is not predictive. It consists of a bunch of recipies telling you how to make stuff, and a catalog of what happens when you mix various things together.

      Given even the most complete description of the molecular structure of a substance, down to the individual atoms and their positions, you can't use chemistry to predict the most basic properties of the subs

      • Re:A long way (Score:2, Insightful)

        by genomancer ( 588755 )
        Apologies if I get a bit beyond layman's chemistry here; hopefully you can use the terminology as a websearch starting point for explainations:

        Chemistry isn't nearly as black box as you make it out to be. Basic organic chem can show you how (and why) a reactive molecule will interact with another, and what the new molecule will be on a atomic level.. often predicting many of the physical properties you mentioned.

        Similar rules can be applied to large repetitive molecules (Polymer Chemistry uses this typ

      • Chemistry is not a science in the same sense as physics. There are general rules for chemical reactions, but when you get right down to it, chemistry is not predictive. It consists of a bunch of recipies telling you how to make stuff, and a catalog of what happens when you mix various things together.

        Would then it be possible, that the science of physics, applied down to the smallest particles we know about, could one day solve this problem? Or has it already been determined that however deep our knowled
  • ...about things that were invented/announced/promised and which were never delivered. What's more, these complaints are RIGHT.

    This is the 21st century.
    Where's my nuclear powered flying family car?
    Where's my personal jet pack?
    Where's my silver jump suit with big pointy fins on the shoulders? I was supposed to be wearing it on my trip up to the orbital Interstellar House of Pancakes!
    By now we should be able to have EVERYTHING IMMEDIATELY, ALL THE TIME! They PROMISED!

    I'm sick of being lied to. I say we put t
  • You every notice that every time a new technology comes out it is always claimed that it is inexpensive and easy to produce. Then when I hand over my credit card I get the feeling it was very hard to make and the materials are more rare than living Giant Squid sightings.

    C'mon, you know you want to tell me about R&D, profit, etc...go ahead, reply...I dare you. :P

  • How about people stop innovating and start producing for a while instead? People have been throwing around terms like 'solid state harddisks', 'magnetic-optical drives' and 'diamond processors' for ages and longer. Time to cough up some prototypes, hmm? I'm far amazed if someone would cough up a cheapo and fast 8 GB solid state HD that works then some 350 GB magnetic HD that runs hot enough to initiate a fusion reaction.*

    * = Okay, there has been SOME advancement; SATA is lovely, 64 bit processing is final

  • great, so we get more plastic on the planet.

    but, whoa, the process for making this silicate stuff is REALLY,
    EXTRA-SUPER BAD for the planet AFAIK.

    Not so sure bzillions of little sticks of these would be a good idea.

    Can't we find a way to genetically engineer trees to have the right cell structure to do this?

    Then all you have to do is break a branch off and cut to the right length. Voila! Presto! Another memory stick!

  • I think... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zarthrag ( 650912 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @07:56PM (#7459234)
    Some of you people are missing the point. First of all, CDs/DVDs are optical, and the drives are mechanical with several moving parts. This is, for intents and purposes, solid state. These new drives are going to be a *ton* faster. Second. The end device will probably start off as cartridge, only much faster than CDs. Most cartridges from as far back as the Magnavox Oddysey^2 work fine to this day...If you even look at a DVD/CD wrong and you're in skipsville (at the minimum). DVDs aren't famous for being scratch resistant. So it's read only, so are DVDs/CDs. RWs are cool, yes. But the media is more expensive, and most people don't use them when you can buy spindles of blanks. I'm sure these will come in "burnable" form sooner or later too. Back to the solid state issue: future cartridge formats may take advantage of newer technology, and build them into the discs (no more new drives after this)

  • Fix DVDs first (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @08:03PM (#7459302) Homepage Journal
    Why don't storage companies fix DVDs first? CDs were originally promoted with 100 year archival lifetime. Now they're revealed to be more like 10, minus accidental scratches to the "label", the unprotected metal face into which the data is burned. DVDs are supposed to have 2 data faces, with 2 layers per face, at 4.7GB on each of the 4 layers (as per the DVD media spec). They still have just 4.7GB per disc, rather than 18.8GB.

    If they glued 2 DVD-Rs together, and/or embedded the extra semitransparent layers in the clear acrylic, they'd double or quadruple the capacity to compete with current rewritable HD capaticies (per $ and m^3, if not per drive). And burying the fragile data layers would offer much longer archival lifetimes. And of course, they'd get to sell us a new line of incompatible drives! Bring it on!

  • CD technology (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Stile 65 ( 722451 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @08:47PM (#7459759) Homepage Journal
    The device could be very small because it would not involve moving parts such as the laser and motor drive required by CDs.

    From what a professor told me once, CDs didn't have to be created the way they are. They could've been made square so that, instead of the CD spinning in the tray, the laser beam would be bent by a prism (or through other means). This would make CD technology much faster and less susceptible to errors, etc.

    Why did they make CDs round? Because they were first used for audio, so they were made to look like records. A silly marketing strategy screwed us out of a much better implementation of the same technology!

    • Re:CD technology (Score:2, Informative)

      by Qeantk ( 660103 )
      See, they SPIN around in the reader.... Round is actually the best shape for them. Anything else would be wasteful of space. Circle fits the most area into the smallest diameter.

      • Re:CD technology (Score:3, Informative)

        by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 )
        See, they SPIN around in the reader....

        And the parent poster was saying they didn't need to spin. What are you getting at?

        The idea is that the CD stays still, and you run a beam across its surface with a solid-state steering system. No mechanical moving parts (some electrically sensitive mirrors/prisms deform w/ current to steer the beam).

        So, the round shape loses data density. Look at the CD when you put it into the jewel case - all the grey plastic you still see around it could be data storage, if

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close