4 ms·
MRI machines do something like this. Probably not at the atom scale accuracy. UV light can be ignored because the crystal would sit in a opaque case. A trivial
by frongpik 6y ago
MRI machines do something like this. Probably not at the atom scale accuracy. UV light can be ignored because the crystal would sit in a opaque case. A trivial error correction is writing a bit to many places, the idea similar to bloom filters.
- lazide 6y agoIf it's sitting in a truly opaque case, it definitely isn't a tape! Shutters aren't perfect, and they open every time the cassette is used. That sounds more like a hard drive? UV and other short wavelength light can come from inside the case or the crystal from background radiation or cosmic rays as well. Reed-solomon encoding, n-copies, they all have capacity tradeoffs and error rate detection/correction limits, and get away from the 'single bit' ideal quite a bit (for n-copies, at least by 2x, usually 3x even in the most ideal situation). It's also non-trivial to avoid something like a background radiation emission 'tunneling' through and causing non-trivial damage to a sector. It's going to be statistical level analysis for awhile, at least at temps near room temperature or devices only practical in a specially shielded lab. MRIs are heavily shielded and regularly calibrated, and are only doing bulk statistical analysis. AFM or MFM [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscopy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscopy] is the closest we can currently get, and they suffer from a number of issues, including damage to what it's touching, repeatability/precision issues, thermal drift, etc. and that is just getting what is usually a one time read.