Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MileHigh who wrote (18357)	4/7/1999 5:07:00 PM
From: gcrieff	Respond to of 93625

ok, heres a quick cut n paste from the ener thread, the guy is tyler lowry formerly microns star theyve also got patents on the phase change process used in dvd as well as some other good stuff Fred, I agree that the OUM probably will be a very big winner for us. I have felt this for some time but had no specifics until the OUM addition to our web site appeared. I am trying to come up to speed on our memory chip technology, and our competitor's tech as well. Not there yet, by any means; but as luck would have it I opened a copy of a several-months-old Science magazine in the "John" this a.m. (my, uh, contemplative reading for decades now); and saw a paper on Spintronic technology. However, my bowels were faster than my brain and I only had time to skim the article. That smattering of info, plus the article below, and some odd things about the present ECD Web presentation of the OUM lead me to some comments. Remember (a) that the ECD Web Site stuff on the OUM looks like a slide presentation, (b) it stands to reason that Tyler Lowery must be making presentations to people who would also be interested in the Spintronic memory developments, and (c) Tyler has been heavily emphasizing some aspects of the OUM. I think he is making some compelling comparisons, specifically against the Spintronic devices - my speculations about this are as follows (and please remember that I am throwing some things out for further scrutiny, not laying out gospel). The Spintronic switch (i.e., a memory cell) is touted (see article below) as "could hardly be simpler". However, the Ovonic switch is simpler yet! Not counting the substrate layer and any protecting overcoat layers, here is what I think each device requires in the way of layers of materials. (Essentially, each feature of a chip device is formed from a layer that is then pattern-etched). The spintronic device has inherently five or six layers - three for the switch, two for the read wires (which are on opposite sides of the switch surfaces), and one or two for the write wire(s). The Ovonic switch has inherently only two layers - one layer for the switch and only one layer for the two wires (because they are on the same side of the switch layer) that serve both read and write functions. Tyler is emphasizing the EXTREME simplicity of the OUM, and we clearly win this important point. Spintronic memories can be fabricated using present chip making facilities. So can the OUMs - and even more simply! We win again. Spintronic memory cells are fast. However, I have seen no number less than 10 ns mentioned for the Spintronic switch. The OUM cells are only 1 ns!. We win again, on a key point. The Science magazine article brought out that, for one version of the Spintronic switch at least, the resistance increases rapidly for smaller cell size - so very small cells are difficult or impractical. Further, the resistance change mentioned is only 30%. Now we can see why Tyler is emphasizing the OUM works even better for smaller cells - and we have such a large resistance change that up to 16 levels can be used. We can store a byte rather than a bit - in very small cells! We win big, on a key point. As nearly as I can tell, we also give up nothing with regard to ruggedness/temperature-range/radiation-resistance. And our ten year non-volatile memory capability would be hard to beat, IMO.