They are trying :)
I think the main interesting thing is that it would (apparently) give a higher density of data storage than current solid state technologies. That might not be true by the time they make it practical, though....
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:11,
archived)
from wiki:
"1.8E22 bits (2.25 zettaoctets) – amount of information which can be stored in 1 gram of DNA", sounds hard to beat to me
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:16,
archived)
'1.8E22'?
whoever wrote that article needs to learn to right in standard form:
1.8x1022
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:44,
archived)
1.8x1022
it was written like that
but when i pasted it, it lost the formatting, and i couldnt be bothered to add it back in, since most people know what it means anyway
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:46,
archived)
ah reet
fair enough, thought some cunt at wikipaedia had well, been a cunt at wikipaedia.
/hates wikipaedia blog
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:49,
archived)
/hates wikipaedia blog
It's a lot...
But bases are reasonably sized molecules, not to mention the sugar phosphate 'scaffolding'; it's not totally unreasonable to imagine you could build something which handled the same amount of data with fewer atoms; or trim some of the extra stuff away, start substituting other atoms, or use other base modifications (e.g. methylation, glycosylation, I think) to increase data density.
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:29,
archived)
true
i guess one of the denseist you could get is a lattic of e.g a metal with two atoms, with the atom at the lattice point dictating the 1 or zero.
use Li/Na, one mole~10gms, which would give Nabits (Na= avagadros number)=~10E22B/gm, which is about the same, which makes me suspect that wiki may be lieing
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:37,
archived)
use Li/Na, one mole~10gms, which would give Nabits (Na= avagadros number)=~10E22B/gm, which is about the same, which makes me suspect that wiki may be lieing
That's bits stored per gram, which might be true.
Carbon and hydrogen atoms are lighter than sodium and lithium respectively....
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 15:15,
archived)