Pioneer Ultraviolet Laser Promises 500GB Discs 298
No Fortune writes "Here's an article indicating that Pioneer is developing an ultraviolet laser for data storage. Since the wavelength of ultraviolet lasers is shorter than the wavelength of blue lasers, the beams are finer and they can pack more data into per square inch. This gives a data rate 20 times more than the blue laser Blue-ray disk."
Re:Ultraviolet? (Score:4, Informative)
Dr. Pantyhose is a known Troll. Please don't try to engage him in discussion, that's what he wants. Well, that and karma.
Re:Where is the end for "optical" media? (Score:5, Informative)
The other limit is finding a suitably reflective material that is cheap enough to be used as media. X rays pass easily through plastics, and they are absorbed by lead. Gamma rays pass through most kinds of material. You need something that reflects well, and doesn't absorb the radiation, that can also be used to store distinct states and be mass produced easily.
diode? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.laserinnovations.com/sabrefred.h
Or better yet.. (Score:2, Informative)
It should fix the knicks and scratches problem.
Re:Where is the end for "optical" media? (Score:5, Informative)
X-Rays, on the other hand, are much easier. X-Ray lasers have existed for some time (though they tend to be on the bulky side) and lenses that can focus X-Rays are used.
However, with X-Rays, you can build systems that don't just rely on reflection (as per traditional optic media). There is a phenominon called X-Ray Fluorescence, in which an atom, when struck by an X-Ray of the right frequency, emits electrons of a specific energy.
A disk using such a system would need to be layered and etched multiple times, which would make it impossible to write on any kind of domestic scale. However, it would mean that you could have maybe fifty or so "layers" to the disk.
You couldn't use this to read at the atomic level, but you could use it to determine the quantity of a given isotope. This would let you increase the effective density still further.
Re:New Term (and software needed) - RCOSM (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where is the end for "optical" media? (Score:3, Informative)
The lasers used for optical media keep on progressing to higher frequency light, which is better able to resolve things. Where is the likely end for optical media?
Past ultraviolet light is x-rays and gamma rays I think... Will they be used for optical media? They are known as "dangerous", but perhaps in low power situations they aren't too bad? Or, you could just have the optical drive shielded in lead
Microscopes haved moved past light, into "electron microscopes", which used streams of electrons to resolve things that light cannot. Will that be possible with our optical media techniques?
It would be so low power that it wouldn't be dangerous. But, x-rays and gamma rays don't act like normal light. They would just coast right through a plastic disc. You wouldn't be able to reflect it off of lead like a normal disc, either. Perhaps an xray disc might be more like a shadow mask. Alternating lead/no lead.
Don'thold your breath (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Protective cover or lots of redundant informati (Score:3, Informative)
Redundancy and error correction will make up for any casual-use scratches ("casual" meaning you generally take care of your CDs, but perhaps don't always put them back in their cases immediately or whatnot). The more space, the more error correction you have in the form of redundancy and things such as parity, not to mention faster chips allowing for interpolation to fill in any gaps that may exist.
Also, don't forget the way the data is physically read is AROUND the disc, so in order to do any real sort of damage would be to have large scratches also going around the disc. This is why when cleaning discs, you should always clean from the inside of the disc to the outside, NOT going around it.
Regarding your DVD problems, have you tried cleaning your lens properly (not trying to be a smartass, disc-read problems are more often than not a function of the laser)?
So in short, you have nothing to worry about (this also assumes that you don't buy a KMart brand unit with a poor laser). With more space, we get better error correction and opportunities for redundancy, and the physical nature of the media makes it more resiliant to every-day scratches (just remember how the data is physically read and it becomes apparent). If it wasn't for whatever strange reason, then the engineers who spend years putting the technology together would accomodate for that.
Hopefully that clears some of it up.
It's all about the photons (Score:3, Informative)
With optical storage, the data density is limited by the wavelength of the photons interacting with the medium, as well as the detail of the medium itself. A DVD can store more data than a CD because of the smaller wavelength of its red laser. The blue laser in blu-ray discs as an even smaller wavelength, and yields even more data per disc. Obviously, the media need to be altered to accept the higher data density - and photon energy for recordable discs.
The size of the laser unit itself is not really relevant, as its output is focussed into a tiny point on the recording layer.
Limits (Score:3, Informative)
For instance, at the energies X-rays, you're now talking electrons. The chance of an error increases enormously. The media would have have to be made of something akin to diamond,or another type of crystal so that the diffraction of the rays could be interpereted as data. And even then, random "tunneling" and such could cause data issues. You'd also have to keep the radiation energy low, or encase the drive in a lead sarcophagus. And forget about gamma ray discs.
I think the next big step will be solid state (crystal matrices or the like) and not disk based. Though if they do work out the dust/scratch problem on the UV discs I'd probably get one.
~X~