backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 65 comment(s) - last by flipsu5.. on Dec 23 at 10:21 AM

Researchers have devised a way to build memory from graphene

Storage in today's computers is based on rotating magnetic platters or flash memory. Both of these mediums work well, provide large amounts of storage and have been around for a while now. Some scientists don’t believe that flash is the future for storage in computers and electronic devices. In fact, the future of storage could be based on something kids use every day at school -- pencil lead or graphite.

A team of researchers at Rice University has found a method of creating a new type of memory from a strip of graphite only 10 atoms thick. Graphite is the basic element in the new type of memory. The scientists describe in a paper published in the online journal Nature Materials a storage device that utilizes the conducting properties of graphene. A large clump of graphene is better known as graphite, something school kids doodle with everyday.

Rice professor James Tour says that graphene memory would increase the amount of storage in a two-dimensional array by about five times. He says that this massive improvement is due to the individual bits being able to be made smaller than 10 nanometers. By comparison, circuitry in your average flash memory chip today is 45nm. Another big benefit of graphene memory is that switches can be controlled by two terminals rather than the three terminals used in flash memory today.

The two-terminal capability is important because it provides the capability to make three-dimensional memory practical since the very thin graphene arrays can be stacked, multiplying the storage capacity of the array with each graphene layer.

Storage arrays using graphene will be mechanical devices at their core and as such, the chips will consume very little power. Much lost power in flash storage comes from leakage; graphene memory will need little power leading to less leakage while keeping data intact. Graphene memory has a massive improvement in on-off power ratio compared to current memory technologies.

Tour said in a statement, "It’s (power savings) huge — a million-to-one. Phase change memory, the other thing the industry is considering, runs at 10-to-1. That means the ‘off’ state holds, say, one-tenth the amount of electrical current than the ‘on’ state."

Tour explains that current tends to leak from an off that is holding a charge. He says, "That means in a 10-by-10 grid, 10 ‘offs’ would leak enough to look like they were ‘on.’ With our method, it would take a million ‘offs’ in a line to look like ‘on'. So this is big. It allows us to make a much larger array.”

Another benefit of graphene as a storage medium is that while it puts off little heat, it is able to operate in a very wide temperature range. The researchers have tested the system to minus 75 to over 200 degrees Celsius.

Performance of graphene-based systems is impressive, the researchers say that the new switches are faster than the lab's testing equipment can measure and they promise long life as well. "We’ve tested it in the lab 20,000 times with no degradation,” said Tour. “Its lifetime is going to be huge, much better than flash memory."

The processes uses graphene deposited on silicon via chemical vapor deposition making for easy construction that can be done in commercial volumes with methods already available says Tour.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not quite correct
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2008 11:04:09 AM , Rating: 5
> ""It’s (power savings) huge — a million-to-one"

I think you've misunderstood the context here Shane. A high on-off ratio doesn't innately lead to power savings. Rather, it means the difference between both binary values is greater, allowing it to be reliably read under a much higher noise range. That means

Also, I'm not sure from where the statement, "Much lost power in flash storage comes from leakage" derives. Leakage in flash or indeed any non-volatile memory is very low...that's how it retains its state without applied power.




RE: Not quite correct
By bobsmith1492 on 12/19/2008 12:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't it lead to power savings though?

With a better on/off ratio couldn't you charge to a lower voltage while still reading the bit reliably, thus pumping less charge in and out and requiring less power?


RE: Not quite correct
By randomly on 12/19/2008 12:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct that a high on-off ratio does not insure a low power memory, other factors are also involved. All other factors being equal though it can help reduce power dissipation.

The leakage of the floating gate is very low which is how the flash cell retains it's memory for a long time. However the transistor that the floating gate controls can have sizable current flow even in the off state. It's this leakage current that can contribute to the power dissipation. The floating gate leakage and the transistor leakage are not related.

An operating nonvolatile memory can still have substantial leakage currents (and thus power dissipation) on the chip when the memory read circuits are active.


RE: Not quite correct
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2008 12:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "The leakage of the floating gate is very low which is how the flash cell retains it's memory for a long time. However the transistor that the floating gate controls can have sizable current flow even in the off state"

True enough, but that doesn't relate to the amount of charge required to hold the state, as the article claims.

Though as I read the original source, I'm included to believe the ratio here is indeed the transistor's switching ratio, rather than the floating gate charge. That would indeed lead to lower power usage.


RE: Not quite correct
By randomly on 12/19/2008 2:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
The confusion in the article comes from improper use of the word 'holds' instead of 'conducts' in the following sentence.
quote:
That means the ‘off’ state holds, say, one-tenth the amount of electrical current than the ‘on’ state.


'Holds' is usually used in conjunction with 'charge', not 'current', which creates the confusion. It should have said a PRAM memory cell conducts one-tenth the current in the off state as it does in the on state.

The higher the current ratio difference between the on and off states allows you more freedom in how you organize your memory array. Instead of 10 cells to a bit line you may be able to put thousands on a bit line. This can give you an advantage in over-all power consumption but other factors come into play such as the conductivity of a memory cell, the loading it creates on a bit line, the voltage swings needed for the technology, support circuitry needed, sense amplifiers, the speed requirements of the memory and so on.

A 1,000,000:1 current ratio between on and off states does not mean 100,000 times less power dissipation compared to a 10:1 current ratio. It may give you almost no improvement.

Note also that they are comparing it to PRAM which isn't even commercially available yet.

Graphene memory certainly seems to have a lot of promise, not least of which is that it's almost impervious to radiation, an essential requirement for laptops in a future world full of Nuclear Reactors.


RE: Not quite correct
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2008 2:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "'Holds' is usually used in conjunction with 'charge', not 'current', which creates the confusion."
Absolutely right...and the article specifically states "charge" further on, which compounds the confusion.

quote:
it's almost impervious to radiation, an essential requirement for laptops in a future world full of Nuclear Reactors.
Whoa, whoa. If you live in a New England or Rocky Mountain state, your own backyard is far more radioactive than anything outside the containment dome of a nuclear reactor.


RE: Not quite correct
By randomly on 12/19/2008 2:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
ok, ok. I was just joking with the nuclear comment... heh. Couldn't resist pushing that button ;-)

I'd classify myself as pragmatically pro-nuclear with some concerns. Although I'd really like to see somebody throw enough money at polywell fusion to either prove or disprove it's viability. It would be nice to sidestep all the stickier nuclear power issues. Tokamak fusion doesn't look like it will ever be economical.

Other than that I don't see any economically viable long term energy sources other than nuclear unless somebody waves a magic wand and solves the energy storage problem.


RE: Not quite correct
By BZDTemp on 12/20/2008 3:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
The answer is blowing in the wind :-)

Plus of course there is solar power, wave power, tidal power, geothermal power... and finally power generated from biogas (not sure it's the right word but the gas coming from waste treatment plants).

I think the combination of improvement if green energy generation and the expanded use of that tech. Plus the energy savings from improved isolation, transport and manufacturing will get us to a situation where oil is something we use for anything but the normal transportation and heating. That way we can keep using it for lubrication, fertilizer and other stuff which is hard to replace.

Nuclear plants have all sorts of problems. The apparent danger is just the immediate one there is the whole waste problem plus it's not like mining uran, making it usable a fuel or for that matter building and running nuclear power plants are without environmental impact!

The only plus with nuclear power I can think of is that soon Israel will have to stop behaving like a school bully (If one nation should know not to put people in camps it's Israel).


RE: Not quite correct
By masher2 (blog) on 12/21/2008 3:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
As you well know, nuclear waste was a problem solved decades ago. Even though anti-nuclear fanatics have denied us a dedicated storage facility, nuclear reactors continue to do what they've done for the last half-century -- store their waste on site. The actual amount is trivial: a couple cubic meters a year for the average reactor.

An even simpler solution would be to just drop it in the deep ocean. Compared to the trillions of tons of natural uranium, thorium, radium, and radioactive potassium found naturally in the oceans, we could do this for thousands of years without even measurably raising radiation levels.

An utter nonissue.


RE: Not quite correct
By Shmak on 12/21/2008 1:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
BZD, you seem to have missed this:

quote:
Other than that I don't see any economically viable long term energy sources other than nuclear unless somebody waves a magic wand and solves the energy storage problem.


We have plenty of ways to gather renewable energy as you've mentioned but no viable way to store it. This is actually the major problem. Off topic though, sorry.


graphene nanocrystals
By flipsu5 on 12/19/2008 7:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
The cited paper abstract reads:

quote:
Transistors are the basis for electronic switching and memory devices as they exhibit extreme reliabilities with on/off ratios of 10^4–10^5, and billions of these three-terminal devices can be fabricated on single planar substrates. On the other hand, two-terminal devices coupled with a nonlinear current–voltage response can be considered as alternatives provided they have large and reliable on/off ratios and that they can be fabricated on a large scale using conventional or easily accessible methods. Here, we report that two-terminal devices consisting of discontinuous 5–10 nm thin films of graphitic sheets grown by chemical vapour deposition on either nanowires or atop planar silicon oxide exhibit enormous and sharp room-temperature bistable current–voltage behaviour possessing stable, rewritable, non-volatile and non-destructive read memories with on/off ratios of up to 10^7 and switching times of up to 1 microsecond (tested limit). A nanoelectromechanical mechanism is proposed for the unusually pronounced switching behaviour in the devices.


It looks like the graphene is in the form of nanocrystals (discontinuous films). How reliable is that? And 1 microsecond is a bit long for switching time. Maybe it is slower because it is mechanical. Most alternatives are faster than flash, phase change memory is on the order of 100 ns.

Lastly can the sense amplifier go to such high ratios (10^7); it looks like a signal-to-noise challenge.




RE: graphene nanocrystals
By Fritzr on 12/19/2008 9:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
The stated limitation on their testing equipment is that it cannot measure a switching time less than 1 microsecond.

They state upfront that their equipment is unable to distinguish between 10ns, 100ns or 600ns parts ... all are faster than what they can measure. Their part is also faster than what they can measure, so is no slower than 1000ns though probably faster.

Before they needed switching circuits to handle todays transistor speeds they didn't design them. Since there is now a faster switching part, one of the support circuits designed before release from R&D will be switching circuits that can either handle the max speed or will be one of the limiting parts on the final product. If the new switching circuit is slower than theoretical max then you can guarantee ongoing R&D to build one that is faster.

Pure graphene is one atom thick sheet. They state here that it will be built as a surface deposit of up to 10 layers on nanowire or SO substrate ... so strength will depend on the substrate and thermal expansion differences ... in other words it's an engineering design problem.


RE: graphene nanocrystals
By flipsu5 on 12/22/2008 8:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the clarification. I am a bit surprised they can publish without sub-microsecond data. Many journals don't cut that kind of slack. We have to reserve judgment on its speed then. But designers have told me the ratio of 10 million is excessive.


RE: graphene nanocrystals
By bridgeman on 12/22/2008 1:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lastly can the sense amplifier go to such high ratios (10^7); it looks like a signal-to-noise challenge.


The on-off ratio is the "signal-to-noise ratio" here. (I put that in quotes because it isn't really SNR, just something that looks similar from a design standpoint.) A higher on-off ratio means the sense amp spec is relaxed, not tightened.


RE: graphene nanocrystals
By flipsu5 on 12/23/2008 10:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
What is the read current of the selected OFF cell vs. the leakage for an unselected ON cell? If the former cannot dominate the latter, there is no OFF signal that is read above the din of the arbitrarily many unselected ON cells.


Things not mentioned that should be.
By Cogman on 12/19/2008 11:14:17 AM , Rating: 1
1. When will this be available? I've heard all these wonderful things about MRAM, FeRAM, ext. Yet we are still using Nand based memory. The fact of the matter is Nand has progressed much farther then these other tech as far as memory density. It got a head start.

2. What will the cost be.. Really. They say it will be cheap, but will it really be, have they started producing any?

3. Who is backing it? Does intel have a Graphine fab in the plans? If not, this doesn't benifit anyone. Great, in 10 years we can make a 1gb stick of graphine that will be 100x better then Nand 1gb sticks... Oh wait, umm yeah.

This stuff is exciting, however I have yet to see any company make good on any of the new fangled memory materials that have been available. It's almost like the worst kind of vaporware.




By tastyratz on 12/19/2008 11:37:55 AM , Rating: 3
then you aren't patient enough.

Many of the things in production now lived in labs for 5+ years beforehand. Technology from concept to production is VERY slow.
Most of the new tech we read about here is true bleeding edge and has to be taken that way.
And you are right, much of it could very well be vaporware if something more viable and economical arrives before it reaches fruition. Name of the game.
Ive known about bluray and 3d fluorescent optical storage for about 10 years now, and learned about both at the same time. 3d storage isn't even in consumer production yet I discussed it the same year I heard of blue lasers


You forgot to mention
By wordsworm on 12/19/2008 3:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot to mention that to completely format the drive only requires a rubber eraser. Also, the drives, after they've concluded their service or have been broken, may be recycled into pencils.




RE: You forgot to mention
By flipsu5 on 12/22/2008 8:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
LOL - a point that should not and cannot be missed. The breaking and erasure of pencil graphite already calls into question the mechanical performance of graphene.


Memristors and Graphene are our future
By wingless on 12/20/2008 3:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
I can't wait to see a day when our components are based on memristor and graphene circuitry. Honestly, we wouldn't even have to worry about optical circuits for a couple more decades if we can get these technologies to market soon enough.

The good thing about memristor and graphene is that we have the technology currently to mass produce them both. Retooling for memristors especially wouldn't be any more complicated than transitioning to a new process.




By flipsu5 on 12/22/2008 8:40:52 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of two-terminal devices already qualify as memristors (e.g., diodes and thyristors). Memristors are our past and present as well :P


Run-on sentence
By ggordonliddy on 12/21/2008 12:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Performance of graphene-based systems is impressive, the researchers say that the new switches are faster than the lab's testing equipment can measure and they promise long life as well.


Would you DT writers please improve your grammar? The above quote should be immediately caught by any author as a run-on sentence that will disrupt the reading flow.

FYI, you can just replace the comma after "impressive" with a semicolon to make the sentence be coherent and grammatically correct. You can learn more at: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_c...




RE: Run-on sentence
By Shmak on 12/21/2008 1:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
Why do people come on here and make completely irrelevant comments about grammar? Nobody cares. You are nitpicking for attention.


Brain GRAM for ya...
By neofox on 12/20/2008 7:33:04 AM , Rating: 2
Hi guys presetning the new Brain GRAM (Graphene Rnadmom Access Memory) for your obsolete brains.

new product is made on 15nm scale its 1,5cm square and can hold all your pitu life into it.

What ya waitin for go do the implant...

P.S. U can have (UST) Universal Scum Track(new gps like method :) for just 15$

Limited Time Offer
:p




Offical "PLAYSTASTION THREE" hate string
By Joz on 12/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: Offical "PLAYSTASTION THREE" hate string
By Gzus666 on 12/19/2008 11:11:26 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
(graphine (graphite [carbon])) is the most common element there is


Hydrogen is the most common element there is. Carbon isn't even on the top 10 most abundant elements on planet Earth.


By omnicronx on 12/19/2008 11:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
Graphite is a common minerals though(where there is limestone there is graphite). Saying Graphite = carbon is not really correct either, its the mineral form of the element carbon.

You are right though, Carbon is not even close to the most abundant elements on earth, in fact I don't think its in the top 20.


RE: Offical "PLAYSTASTION THREE" hate string
By UzairH on 12/19/2008 12:50:25 PM , Rating: 3
I believe a little clarification to your statement is in order: Hydrogen is the most abundant element in _the universe_. When we speak of exploitable resources, it is more usual to talk about element abundance in the earth's crust. In the crust Oxygen and Silicon are by far the most abundant elements; Hydrogen is at number 10 and Carbon is 14th. When we speak of element abundance in whole earth, Iron is the most abundant due to forming the core.


RE: Offical "PLAYSTASTION THREE" hate string
By Gzus666 on 12/19/2008 1:06:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in _the universe_.


Which would mean my statement was correct, no clarification needed unless you think in only Earth terms. On top of that, he was still completely wrong on the Earth portion and I made sure to point that out as well.


RE: Offical "PLAYSTASTION THREE" hate string
By Schrag4 on 12/19/2008 1:35:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
...no clarification needed unless you think in only Earth terms.


Context. Since when did we start making PC components from materials that we gathered while spacewalking? I can probably speak for most of us when I say that Earthlings usually think only in Earth terms when building something. This is an article about storage devices meant to be built on Earth and used on Earth, right?


By Gzus666 on 12/19/2008 1:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Context. Since when did we start making PC components from materials that we gathered while spacewalking? I can probably speak for most of us when I say that Earthlings usually think only in Earth terms when building something. This is an article about storage devices meant to be built on Earth and used on Earth, right?


And that was specified in the post I made about it, clarifying both ways, are you slow or just pig headed?


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki