3 ms·
I'm not sure I understand the sarcasm (i.e. why TB/ns is an unrealistic A.) ...one gram of DNA can store up to 215 Petabytes or [215,000 Terabytes], knowing th
by mojomark 3y ago
I'm not sure I understand the sarcasm (i.e. why TB/ns is an unrealistic
A.) ...one gram of DNA can store up to 215 Petabytes or [215,000 Terabytes], knowing that the human being has about 600 grams of DNA [129,000,000 TB]. (1)
B.) Now assume a human is traveling at the speed of sound in air on earth (~343m/s):
343 m/s * 129,000,000 TB * 1/1,000,000,000 s/ns,
The result is that for every kilometer the human travels at the speed of sound, the information stored in that human’s DNA yields a data transfer rate of approximately 44.3 TB/ns. Seems reasonable.
1.) https://www.bibalex.org/SCIplanet/en/Article/Details.aspx?id=13621#:~:text=A%20great%20advantage%20for%20such%20a%20transformation%20is,human%20being%20has%20about%20600%20grams%20of%20DNA https://www.bibalex.org/SCIplanet/en/Article/Details.aspx?id....
- lostlogin 3y agoThe only problem is getting useful data into and out of the human.
- mojomark 3y agoMeh, it was just an example. The point is that extremely dense data storage is now concievable, though perhaps not yet practical (e.g. using a "DNA drive") so this magnitude of units has it's place in the real world.
- HWR_14 3y agoMost of the DNA is redundant copies. We need the amount of DNA in a single cell.
- mojomark 3y agoUsing a human host was just an example to show there are certainly real possible applications whe magnitudes of these units is useful. DNA-based data storage doesn't necessarily mean humane genome data - you can store any data (1) in a DNA strand and the strands in a container could all be unique datasets. Possible, albeit not yet practical - but to discuss the realm of the possible you still need appropriate units, and TB/ns seems to be appropriate for such an application.