Will it work? BiFeO3

Not sure how the molecule illustration squares with the BiFeO3 formula?

Cheers

It shows the arrangement of the bismuth atoms around an iron atom, but you could presumably construct an identical bismuth-centred arrangement of iron atoms.

It you extended either arrangement to infinity you should come up with equal numbers of bismuth and iron atoms.

Yes, I get that, but O3 seems too much on the face (!) of it. There must be other oxygen atoms not shown, probably they're not directly involved.

Cheers

Bismuth and iron form Bi2O3 and Fe2O3. The oxygen atoms in the iron-centred arrangement shown also have to be seen as spread through a lattice.

Oxygen atoms are rather smaller than iron atoms and even smaller than bismuth atoms - there would be plenty of gaps in the lattice where they could be fitted in.

That makes sense, thanks.

Six O atoms on the faces of the cube, but only 1/2 in each unit cell. For the Bi there are 8 on corners, but only 1/8 each.

George H.

Yes, I can see that now, thanks.

So ignoring the Fe, there's a cubic array of Bi with an octahedral array of O interspersed. While the octahedra only have six vertices, they're smaller than the cubes so overall there's more O than Bi. 3 times more.

Whoda thunk it?

Cheers

Based on the proportion of press-release science that does ever work, the odds are a few PPM.

John Larkin wrote

Yes, but but but it was IBM research, so maybe a few percent more?

Confirmation will be when it is on ebay, if not on ebay then it does not exist (yet).

Intel has contributed its share of hype too.

This looks like a better technology for memory than for logic.

There will probably be some neat new physics for fast nonvolatile memory some day. The wonderful new failures include ovonics, bubbles, memristors, xpoint, nanotubes, and a bunch of others.

The press releases are always ahead of the devices.

John Larkin wrote

Yes, it immediately reminded me of core memory, like that thing you have? was wondering how to do the wiring in it, top \ bottom / top etc etc..., Could be complicated.

Problematic for memory, if it can be erased with a magnet. The use of electrodes near the bit-site would seem to make memory density limited to aluminum wire spacing, not a big improvement over silicon. Speed would be the place to look for benefit.

Based on the proportion of press-released science that John Larkin comprehends, the odds that John has made a correct assessment of the odds are in the same ball-park.

He really should confine himself to improvising electronics - he's almost competent there.

nductor era

gic circuits

They wouldn't be much use if they weren't. It's probably a bit early write off nanotubes - there's usually a big gap between something that is new, po tentially interesting and likely to show up in the news, and reliable produ cts that you can buy off the shelf.

So can a hard drive. Don't do that.

"In my day, we defragged hard drives by editing the inodes by hand with a magnet."

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

We have a big box full of old hard drives. I'd dump them in the trash but some people are worried about revealing secrets, and want to send them to some expensive outfit that will guarantee to disappear the data. I'm going to hit them with an axe, or crush them in a vise.

A band saw would work, too.

Luxury. We used to scrape off t'ferrite wi' our teeth and glue it back on int' right place wi' our spit.

Cheers

If the data's really sensitive, you should incinerate them, heating the interior and the platters to above the Curie temperature of the alloy used in the recording surface.