Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

How Holographic Storage Works

Posted by timothy on Mon Jun 26, 2000 07:49 PM
from the nod-head-wisely dept.
The Chef writes: "Tweak3D.net has yet another excellent article for nerds -- err, I mean, guys looking to fill their brain with technical know-how. This time it's on holographic storage for PCs. Yeah, that's right -- storing files using holography! Go here for the story." This is something that gets mentioned in passing frequently but it's nice to have the technology explained nicely. Thanks for the overview!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
How Holographic Storage Works | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 79 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • uh... by delmoi (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @03:41PM
  • Re:uh... by delmoi (Score:2) Monday June 26 2000, @07:12PM
  • Finally, something that will hold my MP3s!! by dustpuppy (Score:2) Monday June 26 2000, @07:36PM
  • Oops, HTML formatting fscked my post by dustpuppy (Score:2) Monday June 26 2000, @07:45PM
  • Re:CFMD may make it to market sooner. by Graymalkin (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @07:54PM
  • Re:Access times by Graymalkin (Score:2) Monday June 26 2000, @08:04PM
  • Re:For the last friggin' time... by romco (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @02:54AM
  • by grammar nazi (197303) on Monday June 26 2000, @08:05PM (#974602) Journal
    Please refer to me as Holography Nazi for the remainder of this post:

    The external hologram surface may turn out to be sensitive to damage (though I can hope for the use of confocal optics, etc. to image the volume despite surface imperfections or contamination) and the volume may be vulnerable to sunlight.
    The external hologram surface may indeed be sensitive to damage. This is why Harddrives come packaged inside of metal cases. Sunlight would be blocked out as well. Additionally, magnetism, which damages non-optical drives, would not harm this drive. Generally speaking, optical storage devices have always been more reliable then magnetic media.
    The hologram technology used here showed promise because it can be multiplexed with different laser colors and at different angles, but the 'clarity' of the signal goes down with the square of the number of channels, until it is unintelligible. This does not bode well for rapid breakthroughs (though if we could predict them, they wouldn't be breakthroughs). Precise alignment is necessary to assure high density, reliable readings. it seems likely that the 2003 holographic drive will be larger, more expensive, and offer no appreciable advantage (aside from ?magnetic insensitivity?, if that counts)
    You didn't learn much about holograms when you made one in 1977, because much of what you said here is wrong. As an explorer, you probably made a reflecting-light hologram, similar to what is on a VISA card. These are inaccurate as the picture changes depending upon the angle and colors of light reflecting upon the foil. Using a transmission-light hologram is much more accurate. When a monochromatic light source (expanded laser) shines upon the film, the original image is created in 3 dimensions. The image is very insensitive to precise alignment of the lasers. The laser can be angled within a range of more then 10 degrees. The film can hold more information then one 3-D image. This is what IBM is refering to. Additional monochromatic light sources can store multiple images in the film, each constructing a 3D image when transmitted through the film. After too many images are added to the film, it can't reconstruct images as well. Think of this as overexposing regular film, it's almost similar to this. The solution to this is not to have many images. One true 3D image (which holograms construct - not false ones like 3D glasses construct) already holds much more information then it's 2D counterpart.
    Aside from the probability of actually seeing a production drive someday, I think that several other holographic technologies are more promising. and none of the holographic technologies show signs of exceeding the practical capacities of straight optical media in the predictable future -- i.e. the next three years. Standards, not technical capabilities, block DVD-R from coming out *this year*
    I'm a little unsure about the practicality of a holographic drive in the near future, but IBM is known for applying it's research to products. The copper technology and advanced layering of ceramic insulaters/semiconductors are examples of this. Holography has already met and surpassed traditional optical methods when it comes to nondestructive testing.

    I recommend Optical Methods of Engineering Analysis by Gary Cloud for more reading in the area of holograms and how/why they work. This book is very applied and mentions many practical examples of holograms in industry.

    Finally, my grammar nazi side is pointing out that you misspelled manufacturing. It's late and I probably misspelled more then just that, so I forgive you.
  • Guys aren't the only ones interested by Monica (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @03:02AM
  • Great news for backing up... by ocelotbob (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @08:06PM
  • When? by Trinition (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @03:07AM
  • Old news... by sugarman (Score:2) Monday June 26 2000, @08:10PM
  • So what does it mean for computers? by Trinition (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @03:23AM
  • Re:10GB is more than enough for me by zero_offset (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @03:31AM
  • Re:Storage I/O Issues by Glamatron (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @04:00AM
  • Grammar Nazi? by p3d0 (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @05:38AM
  • Re:taking offense by Psinoside (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @05:40AM
  • Storage I/O Issues by jhk (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @03:56PM
  • Bad Vibrations (Score:4)

    by NaughtyEddie (140998) on Monday June 26 2000, @04:03PM (#974613)
    A lot of people are asking why we don't have this technology yet.

    One possible answer is because of the sensitivity of holographic equipment to vibrations. A hologram encodes phase differences between laser beams. Errors in the phase encoding mean errors in the data retrieval - you get a blurry or disjoint hologram, or you lose your data.

    Light is in the hundreds of nanometers range of wavelength. This means a vibration in the equipment (a movement of one part relative to another) of only a tenth of a micron can completely throw the phase encoding out of alignment. Imagine a tape deck whose heads needed positioning to submicron precision.

    Making holographic images is therefore rather difficult if, say, a large lorry rolls past your window. A hard-drive with the same problem would be absolutely useless.

    So until a suitably hard substrate can be found on which to engineer this equipment, it's only a pipedream. Maybe nanotechnology will create such a material ... I doubt it'll happen before then.

  • WTF by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @04:04PM
  • (OT) Re:What the fuck... by jacobm (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @04:07PM
  • by konstant (63560) on Monday June 26 2000, @04:09PM (#974616)
    Wonderful article. I'm so glad /. still posts stuff like this occasionally.

    The author mentions, enticingly, that the potential of the technology is to store 10 gigs or more in an area roughly the size of a "single gambling die". This, clearly, is a fantastic dream.

    Regrettably, the real problem that the article doesn't really touch is the space and more importantly, the precision and energy, required by the laser that is needed to read and write to the medium. Just glancing at the interior of my relatively rudimentary CD-ROM drive, I can see that its mechanism consumes considerably more area than a die. And it doesn't even rely upon the sophisticated network of lenses described in the PRISM research project.

    You all know how inconvenient it was/is to transport a CD player through rough terrain and expect it to work continuously. Imagine trying to get any kind of ruggedness out of this badass!

    However, 10 gigs smaller than the last joint in my thumb.... yum.
    -konstant
    Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
  • Re:Very nice explanation... by NaughtyEddie (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @04:10PM
  • Throw holograms at Commies by Graymalkin (Score:2) Monday June 26 2000, @08:18PM
  • ah carp not again by bozojoe (Score:2) Monday June 26 2000, @08:26PM
  • Re:what? by grammar nazi (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @08:31PM
  • PCs will never take off by emmons (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @08:51PM
  • Re:storage storage storage...BFD by emmons (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @08:52PM
  • First heard of this a decade ago... by kirkb (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @05:47AM
  • Re:More Crap by Chubbyman (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @08:54PM
  • Re:Bad Vibrations by Redundant() (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @06:54AM
  • Re:Cost!!! by emmons (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @09:05PM
  • Re:Cost!!! by emmons (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @07:58AM
  • Re:Bad Vibrations by NaughtyEddie (Score:2) Tuesday June 27 2000, @08:51AM
  • Re:Bad Vibrations by NaughtyEddie (Score:2) Tuesday June 27 2000, @08:56AM
  • storage storage storage...BFD by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @03:00PM
  • Still very preliminary.. by Richard Wakefield (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @02:56PM
  • Cost!!! by BlackHat (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @03:00PM
  • I even understood! by KeyShark (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @02:58PM
  • More Crap by Vladinator (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @03:01PM
  • For the last friggin' time... by Dirtside (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @03:06PM
  • Re:The practical nature of holographic storage by natenate (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @04:15PM
  • Re:The practical nature of holographic storage by Hewligan (Score:2) Monday June 26 2000, @04:18PM
  • by IAmATuringMachine! (62994) on Monday June 26 2000, @04:18PM (#974638) Homepage
    The slashgods repeatedly rejected a submission about a scientific american article that talk about upper limits on magnetic storage and puts forth a marvelous discussion of holography (http://www.sciam.com/2000/0500iss ue/0500toig.html [sciam.com]). My question is, why this article and not the other? I personally preferred the Scientific American article.
  • Re:The practical nature of holographic storage by NaughtyEddie (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @04:25PM
  • Re:uh... by Frymaster (Score:2) Monday June 26 2000, @04:33PM
  • Re:Why (Slash) God(s), why? by timothy (Score:2) Monday June 26 2000, @04:33PM
  • Re:Cost!!! by Master Bait (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @04:34PM
  • Re:Why (Slash) God(s), why? by IAmATuringMachine! (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @04:38PM
  • problem... by Spider-X (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @04:40PM
  • It's science fiction by jyang (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @09:17PM
  • by orpheus (14534) on Monday June 26 2000, @04:40PM (#974646)
    I do not in any way mean to detract from the accomplishments presented here (though, of course, it's been presented in varying shades of "Any time now" for decades. I made my first hologram as a Explorer scout in 1977 or so, and at that time it was already a staple of such classics as "The Adolescence of PI")

    However, the storage capacity cited is 10GB/cm^3 cubic centimeter) not cm^2 (square centimeter) as you stated. By comparison, given how thin the magnetic films are, I doubt the 75GB HDD even has 1 cc of active storage volume so holograms do not approach the volumetric density of magnetic media.

    The key of course is that holograms offer the promise of true volumetric storage, where magnetic media is limited to the thin film [though who can forget the hedelberg group who used a thin film -- namely a roll of commercial adhesive tape [villa-bosch.de] to as an optical medium for up to 10GB a few minths ago?)

    So, since it comes down to form factor, I'm not excited. The problem with the HDD is the overall associated mechanism, and with 1 GB matchbook 10G-resistant HDDs out there *today*, I'm not sure when I'll ever be excited. There is no reason to expect we'll be carrying 'naked' (or packaged) holographic media, any more than we carry naked (or packaged) *high density* platters today -- and holographic drives may well be larger, more expensive, more fragile, etc. than HDDs in 2003, as well. In 2003, you won't be able to *buy* a new HDD as puny as 10GB, if indeed they are still maanufacturing that size, today.

    The external hologram surface may turn out to be sensitive to damage (though I can hope for the use of confocal optics, etc. to image the volume despite surface imperfections or contamination) and the volume may be vulnerable to sunlight.

    The hologram technology used here showed promise because it can be multiplexed with different laser colors and at different angles, but the 'clarity' of the signal goes down with the square of the number of channels, until it is unintelligible. This does not bode well for rapid breakthroughs (though if we could predict them, they wouldn't be breakthroughs). Precise alignment is necessary to assure high density, reliable readings. it seems likely that the 2003 holographic drive will be larger, more expensive, and offer no appreciable advantage (aside from ?magnetic insensitivity?, if that counts)

    Aside from the probability of actually seeing a production drive someday, I think that several other holographic technologies are more promising. and none of the holographic technologies show signs of exceeding the practical capacities of straight optical media in the predictable future -- i.e. the next three years. Standards, not technical capabilities, block DVD-R from coming out *this year*

    Hey, I want my petabyte encrypted keychain as much as the next guy... but, you know, 'fire' still has many unparalleled uses, in the nuclear age. And I'd rather grill than irradiate my dead cow this weekend anyway
  • Re:Bad Vibrations by jyang (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @09:28PM
  • Re:Yeah, right by jyang (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @09:32PM
  • Re:Cost!!! by BlackHat (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @12:49AM
  • Re:Bad Vibrations by Redundant() (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @02:43PM
  • Re:I'm more jaded by the day, here's why by godot73 (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @01:33AM
  • Re:taking offense by redtoade (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @03:24PM
  • Re:Bad Vibrations by NaughtyEddie (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @04:01PM
  • taking offense by redtoade (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @02:32AM
  • Re:Cost!!! by pallex (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @02:52AM
  • Spit it out by Zerothis (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @10:15PM
  • Re:Cost!!! by pallex (Score:1) Tuesday June 27 2000, @11:10PM
  • Re:The practical nature of holographic storage by TGR (Score:1) Wednesday June 28 2000, @02:28AM
  • Re:More Crap by bugg (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @03:10PM
  • Sigh (Score:3)

    by Vladinator (29743) on Monday June 26 2000, @03:12PM (#974660) Homepage Journal
    Maybe so, maybe so. Can we get some articles about SERIOUSLY cool stuff that will occur in this decade?

    Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
  • Re:Predicted comment spread by jayhawk88 (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @03:16PM
  • by fluxrad (125130) on Monday June 26 2000, @03:19PM (#974662) Homepage
    is that you have to outfit your computer with special paper 3d glasses. one side red, one side blue!


    FluX
    After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
  • Re:Puh-lease by gunner800 (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @04:43PM
  • Offtopic?? Redundant?? Overrated?? by MostlyHarmless (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @03:23PM
  • Re:Bad Vibrations by phenym (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @04:48PM
  • by Wah (30840) on Monday June 26 2000, @05:09PM (#974666) Homepage Journal
    The, um, backup crystal is almost full...

    inspired by this paragraph.

    However, as you keep recording more data pages slightly away from previous pages, the holograms will begin to appear dimmer and fogged up because their patterns must share the material's finite dynamic range and the data page is physically etched into the crystal. Eventually you will run out of space to store because the crystal has depleted all of its physical storage capacity, sort of like write once, read many media such as CD-R.

    This is how they get so much data, you can shift the angle ever so slightly and have a new canvas. Mix this with a billion nano-bots with flashlights and miniature crystal-zamboni's and you've got some serious disk space.
    --
  • Access times by El Volio (Score:2) Monday June 26 2000, @05:27PM
  • A true nerd already knows how they work. by tie_guy_matt (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @05:27PM
  • Holographic Memories by hardburlyboogerman (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @06:34PM
  • Re:More Crap by Hellasboy (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @06:50PM

  • The main problem with holographic storage is creating a usable and stable reader/writer. People have managed to create holographic storage devices from such fanciful things as spinning glass rods and tanks of supercooled gel ... to such ordinary things as a roll of clear cellophane tape.

    By the way .. a standard cellophane roll was found to be able to contain 92 Gigabytes. Impressive.

    There have been some recent advances in fixed holographic storage, which would allow a 1-6 terabyte hard disk to be made, with no moving parts. However, the cost/gigabyte is still well over that achievable by magnetic media (but under that of copper memory).

    Perhaps in the next five years we will see the advent of the non-spinning drive, and portable disk space approaching the petabyte. Enough storage to keep most of what we now consider to be human knowledge.


    Reach out, extend to, and embrace the universe.
    -Einstien
    -----
    Embrace, extend, and engulf the universe.
  • Very nice explanation... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @03:27PM
  • Re:first by periscope (Score:1) Monday June 26 2000, @03:27PM
(1) | 2