physorg.com— Scientists at Tohoku University in Japan have recorded data at a density of 4 trillion bits per square inch, which is a world record for the experimental 'ferroelectric' data storage method.
Aug 17, 2010View in Crawl 4
Yeah, at first I thought it was 4 trillion bits per angstrom squared, which would be 32,258 yottabytes per square inch (according to wolfram alpha), which seemed a bit high.
Then I thought, maybe it's information per unit volume, which would make some sense when talking about information density, and it meant 4 trillion bytes in a rectangular cuboid measuring an inch long, an angstrom wide and an angstrom high, which would be the same as 12.5 Terabytes in a inch x inch x mm area.
Actually it's the other way around. When you save ² in UTF-8 byte sequence you get C2 B2. When C2 B2 is interpreted in ISO-8859-1 (Latin-2), C2 is read as Â, and B2 is read as ². Hopefully digg has a corrective step when submitting that allows for one to fix these.
For real. I think back on how exciting it was to get a 40MB hard drive for my 386 and come across like some old timer talking about walking to school in the snow.
It's the Defense department that get's all the new technology.
Heck the first computer was created for artillery trajectories.
I had a wood box I used as a storage area at my place that was the shipping container for a million $ computer.
There are a lot of very expensive computers in this area, I had a friend who looked after the cooling of the Cray computers, at his place of work, Another friend showed me where he worked (after I acquired the proper security clearance) they had an if you can use it you can take it table (to their office), mostly portable computers (not laptops, but like the TRS80 model III).
There was a joystick for lack of a better word for it, was the size of an pool ball on a pedestal, you grabbed the ball (it took some getting used to) but just the slightest pressure would move the cursor in 3 Dimensions.
I was really hoping that would hit the market, but never heard another word about it.
They have Government auctions and maybe one day it will show up. I put a bid in for an Univac once, it was an old one, and would of taken three rooms just for pieces (no clue what I would of done with it), I bid $20, it wasn't sold due to the precious metals used to build it were worth more than the lowest bit.
I could go on and on, NASA has nothing on the Defense Department.
kylescousinAug 17, 2010Submitter
Not sure what that  is doing there... It was typed as inch²
apocadallAug 17, 2010
I'm guessing because it doesn't recognize the code used to get to the power of 2 symbol it put that in there.
theone12Aug 17, 2010
He was trying to make it more impressive by putting in a symbol that resembled the angstrom....
or not..
danj484Aug 17, 2010
inch-angstrom-squared? That makes less sense somehow
kimbomittAug 18, 2010
Yeah, at first I thought it was 4 trillion bits per angstrom squared, which would be 32,258 yottabytes per square inch (according to wolfram alpha), which seemed a bit high.
Then I thought, maybe it's information per unit volume, which would make some sense when talking about information density, and it meant 4 trillion bytes in a rectangular cuboid measuring an inch long, an angstrom wide and an angstrom high, which would be the same as 12.5 Terabytes in a inch x inch x mm area.
nyxerebosAug 17, 2010
That happens sometimes when converting from Latin-1 to UTF-8.
diggimatorAug 23, 2010
Actually it's the other way around. When you save ² in UTF-8 byte sequence you get C2 B2. When C2 B2 is interpreted in ISO-8859-1 (Latin-2), C2 is read as Â, and B2 is read as ². Hopefully digg has a corrective step when submitting that allows for one to fix these.
zpdrummerAug 17, 2010
FTA: 4 trillion bits = 4 terabytes.
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
No, 4 trillion bits = 500 Gigabytes
FTA: There are 8 bits in a byte
808atheistAug 18, 2010
No, 4 trillion brits = about 10 teeth
vigrantAug 18, 2010
8 bits in a byte, bud. (That's how I remember it)
zpdrummerAug 17, 2010
My bad. Thanks for the fix.
dqcrgAug 17, 2010
you could also use google search for conversion say for e.g., you can type "4 trillion bits in terabyte" it will be more accurate :) ...
appleofdischordAug 17, 2010
466 Gibibytes or 500 Gigabytes. 2^30 vs. 10^9
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
That's a lot of porn
gamerxr72Aug 17, 2010
For 1990 maybe. That's amateur stuff these days.
paperclipsnsoupAug 17, 2010
116.415322GB / inch^2
FTFY
nyxerebosAug 17, 2010
For real. I think back on how exciting it was to get a 40MB hard drive for my 386 and come across like some old timer talking about walking to school in the snow.
haleymAug 17, 2010
If I calculated it right, that's just under 1.82 TB / square inch - not bad.
sabinAug 17, 2010
If you calculated it right you would have had 500GB / square inch.
haleymAug 17, 2010
Yeah, you're right, not sure what I did there - bury this one away, plz
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
I'm coming up with 32.33 (repeating of course).
marktasticAug 17, 2010
Did you just Leeroy data density math!?
haleymAug 17, 2010
Yeah, I'm not sure what I did there - but if you're a purist, I think it's actually a bit under 500GB:
4 trillion bits / 8 bits per byte = 500 billion bytes
500 billion bytes / 1024 bytes per MB = 488281250 KB
488281250 kb / 1024 kb per MB = 476837.2 MB
476837.2 mb / 1024 mb per GB = 465.66 GB
(If you use the common approximation of 1000 bytes/KB, 1000 KB/MB, etc., then you do get 500GB)
sabinAug 17, 2010
I was tempted to work it out in GiB but to damn lazy and at work.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Math skills look fine. I don't like the new SI naming convention, the prefixes just sound stupid.
haleymAug 18, 2010
@Azsen - I was referring to my first attempt above w/ the math skills comment (when I got 1.82 TB)
guydangerAug 17, 2010
If I calculated rig...ahhh screw it
eddiepotatoAug 17, 2010
Cool story, but it's weird that such a cutting-edge discovery references inches instead of centimeters.
gsydiggerAug 17, 2010
storage density is measured in imperial not metric
eddiepotatoAug 17, 2010
Storage density should make a deal to keep the Empire out for good.
wojjieAug 17, 2010
Its possible they used metric, and the author of the article converted.
wojjieAug 17, 2010
Its possible they used metric, and the author of the article converted.
Would amount to 620 million bits per square cm.
theone12Aug 17, 2010
I believe that is in excess of nine thousand bits/cm^2
chiliap2Aug 17, 2010
What's the point of this story, if halfway through they mention Seagate can make a drive with 50 trillion bits per inch?
wearedejavoodooAug 18, 2010
The keyword is "claim".
wiseguy1020Aug 17, 2010
Meh, the NSA probably had this 10 years ago.
It will be another 20 before it gets to us mere mortals.
gamerxr72Aug 17, 2010
The NSA doesn't produce it's own technology. It buys it from technology manufacturers like everyone else in the world.
Now if you were to claim that an Intel Lockheed syndicate secretly develops technologies for the NSA, that would be at least possible.
wiseguy1020Aug 17, 2010
Sure, thats why that have their own microprocessor and semiconductor manufacturing plants.
To make other peoples tech.
Try reading one of James Bamford's books. Might change your mind.
trax852Aug 17, 2010
It's the Defense department that get's all the new technology.
Heck the first computer was created for artillery trajectories.
I had a wood box I used as a storage area at my place that was the shipping container for a million $ computer.
There are a lot of very expensive computers in this area, I had a friend who looked after the cooling of the Cray computers, at his place of work, Another friend showed me where he worked (after I acquired the proper security clearance) they had an if you can use it you can take it table (to their office), mostly portable computers (not laptops, but like the TRS80 model III).
There was a joystick for lack of a better word for it, was the size of an pool ball on a pedestal, you grabbed the ball (it took some getting used to) but just the slightest pressure would move the cursor in 3 Dimensions.
I was really hoping that would hit the market, but never heard another word about it.
They have Government auctions and maybe one day it will show up. I put a bid in for an Univac once, it was an old one, and would of taken three rooms just for pieces (no clue what I would of done with it), I bid $20, it wasn't sold due to the precious metals used to build it were worth more than the lowest bit.
I could go on and on, NASA has nothing on the Defense Department.
wiseguy1020Aug 17, 2010
"It's the Defense department that get's all the new technology"
"I could go on and on, NASA has nothing on the Defense Department."
I agree totally. The NSA, who falls under the DOD, is not NASA.
Missing a letter in an acronym changes things completely.
mark5hsAug 17, 2010
That's 500GB per square inch, for those of you that don't like math :P
tragedyfishAug 17, 2010
More like 5.6TB
http://www.t1shopper.com/tools/calculate/file-size/result/?size=50000000000000&unit=bits
tragedyfishAug 17, 2010
Only 456, I'm afraid.
http://www.t1shopper.com/tools/calculate/file-size/result/?size=4000000000000&unit=bits
paperclipsnsoupAug 17, 2010
465.661288GB to be exact.
4,000,000,000,000 bits = 500,000,000,000 bytes
500,000,000,000 bytes = 488,281,250 kilobyte
488,281,250 kilobyte = 476,837.158 megabytes
476,837.158 megabytes = 465.661287 gigabytes
8 bits = 1 byte
1024 bytes = 1 kilobyte
1024 kilobytes = 1 megabyte
1024 megabytes = 1 gigabyte
nyxerebosAug 17, 2010
These are drive maker's gigabytes, 465 standard GB are at least 500 of those. It will probably have a sticker which says OVER 500GB*
fritzekAug 17, 2010
I don't like inches
trax852Aug 17, 2010
My girlfriend likes my big 10 inch
record - Aerosmith
sirmasterboyAug 17, 2010
Wow!
That's 6.27264×10^19 nibbles/furlong^2
atarioAug 18, 2010
6.1 × 10^23 yottabytes/Parsec^2
oxidaneAug 17, 2010
It's over 9000, that's for sure...
jantikAug 17, 2010
The RIAA is going to have a hissy fit.
jdh24Aug 17, 2010
how does this compare to data density available on the market now?
luciddr34m3rAug 17, 2010
This is way more.
carl27Aug 18, 2010
thanks tips
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
There are a lot of comp sci noobs in here. 4 Trillion bits is ((2^2*2^40)/2^3)/2^30=512GB. Not 500GB.
gamerxr72Aug 17, 2010
No, its more like 465.6612873077392578125 GB
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
I stand corrected.
heliox2000Aug 18, 2010
Guess you're a comp sci noob.
psypher1Aug 17, 2010
LCARS v 1.0
mattrmcgAug 17, 2010
But...will it blend?
cosmicrAug 17, 2010
whats the big deal? they dont describe the benefit of the technology? you can get SDXD cards that hold 2TB, thats a lot more...
nullcodesAug 17, 2010
The highest SDXC card you can buy is .. I believe 64 GB. The _format_ supports 2 TB, but nobody's made that yet.
tnoyAug 18, 2010
I don't trust a storage medium with 2TB on it that I could accidentally swallow.
trax852Aug 17, 2010
Apparently the math of 4 Tb :)
The heads ride on the surface as well, that can't be a good thing.
The storage unit uses electrical pulses to write a nibble/nybble, instead of a magnetic force.
It's just another storage device hoping to strike it big and make lots of money. I would think data retention could be a big deal here.
misteratozAug 18, 2010
Is this the tech in the 1 petabyte hard drive being released soon into the future?
barnettizerAug 18, 2010
YEAH!!!
alias1431Aug 18, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital#SDXC
Cool beans.
writeghostAug 20, 2010
Leave it to Japan.