3 ms·

That's actually not what the article states. The close read on the article states that Graphene is used as a coating, which can function at higher temperatures

That's actually not what the article states. The close read on the article states that Graphene is used as a coating, which can function at higher temperatures so that when a different recording approach, Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording (HAMR), is used, in laboratory conditions, the coating performs well. Graphene here is not being used as a storage medium. It is a coating medium, and even in this application cannot be applied until a different method for storing data (HAMR) is utilized. And even then, the claim of 10x improvement has to do with the potential of increasing storage density if HAMR is used, which can potentially be facilitated by graphene. But graphene in and of itself is not the reason for the 10x improvement. The reasons why people are skeptical about graphene are many claims like this. Graphene has yet to show the ability to provide the benefits of the claims expressed in laboratory environments for many of the reasons other non-commercializable technology (such as flying cars) failed to materialize. Maybe one day Graphene will live up to its claims, but the past almost 2 decades is showing that so far, it is good at generating sensational news, but not much else. Maybe we'll be wrong this time around. But it won't be graphene in this case that's the star of the show, it's HAMR. So, no the article, is not literally about "graphene stores ten times more data". This is the sort of continuous problem with graphene. Graphene can enable something revolutionary if only this was also done, or if this approach works, or if this or if that.

Retric 5y ago
I think you misunderstood. That’s why I said, “graphene alone instantly on their own.” You also don’t get a better HDD by taking a traditional HDD designed for normal air and running it in a helium environment. But again, you’re sidestepping the point if in 20 years graphene is necessary for drives that are 10x current capacity and fit in existing enclosures by your definition it’s not revolutionary as long as the increased capacity showed up a little bit at a time and the transition point wasn’t obvious.

Retric 5y ago

I think you misunderstood. That’s why I said, “graphene alone instantly on their own.” You also don’t get a better HDD by taking a traditional HDD designed for normal air and running it in a helium environment. But again, you’re sidestepping the point if in 20 years graphene is necessary for drives that are 10x current capacity and fit in existing enclosures by your definition it’s not revolutionary as long as the increased capacity showed up a little bit at a time and the transition point wasn’t obvious.