Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Design How-To

PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains

7/22/2011 06:32 PM EDT
21 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 3 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Threaded | Newest First | Oldest First
JanineLove
User Rank
Blogger
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
JanineLove   7/22/2011 6:53:14 PM
NO RATINGS
I asked Ron Neale to take a look at some of the current work being done in PCM and he took the time to analyze some work being done by Stanford University. Look for more on PCM, with a new progress report coming in a week or two.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
krisi   8/2/2011 10:35:42 PM
NO RATINGS
Could you let us know where the report is published/posted? Kris

e.a.
User Rank
Rookie
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
e.a.   7/22/2011 11:02:20 PM
NO RATINGS
Volatile Memory, are you OK?

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
resistion   7/23/2011 1:10:02 AM
NO RATINGS
I think the desired outcome will be foiled by resistance drift. I also wonder if something similar could be accomplished by Flash? If not, the reason(s) would also be important.

R G.Neale
User Rank
Rookie
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
R G.Neale   7/23/2011 10:38:38 AM
NO RATINGS
Resistion-You could be right, I guess it's up to someone to prove the point experimentally, arm waving solutions and claims of brain functions or any other aspect of PCM developments are no longer acceptable. The 100 level resolution (1%)for Flash might result in some drift. In a modern scaled Flash how many electrons does that involve for each step? It is even possible if all devices in an emulated synapse network drift together the relative learned experience of the neural network is the same, others will have to answer that question. Drift tolerance is the feature that IBM use in their MLC-PCM. Both IBM-MLC and PCM-Onyx were originally part of this Progress Report I understand that material will now appear in the next PCM Progress Report, #5 in the near future.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
resistion   7/24/2011 4:02:10 AM
NO RATINGS
The drift can be compensated with a reference, but each new data input needs a new reference, so things (costs, power, delays) add up that way. 100 levels in flash I think is not doable, even 8 levels or 3 bits is borderline. Too few random electrons to tell the difference.

JanineLove
User Rank
Blogger
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
JanineLove   7/23/2011 8:44:17 PM
NO RATINGS
I have hidden some of the comments on this article because of their unproductive nature. My thanks to those readers who pointed them out. I understand and am glad that we are passionate about our work, but let's keep it professional. Thanks.

Volatile Memory
User Rank
Rookie
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
Volatile Memory   7/25/2011 2:58:32 PM
NO RATINGS
Dear RF/Memory Editor: Yes, let's keep it professional! When pseudo-research is touted as some kind of breakthrough in a respected publication, the duty of the editor is to notice, not to silence the whistleblower. The fact is, Mr. Neale dropped the ball on this one. He knew or should have known that Mr. Ovshinsky has claimed similar "results" for at least 25 years. Those claims and results turned out to be fraudulent. As will the latest "results" from the "researchers" at Stanford University.

JanineLove
User Rank
Blogger
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
JanineLove   7/25/2011 5:18:04 PM
NO RATINGS
Debate and conversation is welcome. In fact, it is the intent of the comments section. As long as you refrain from name calling, I'm happy to let the comments stand and the debate ensue.

Solster
User Rank
Rookie
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
Solster   7/25/2011 9:55:40 PM
NO RATINGS
The fact remains that this is an academic paper peer-reviewed by credentialed research scientists and a professor. Constructive dialogue is the cornerstone of academic research, while "commentators" to web-articles expressing opinions with no apparent personal credibility whatsoever, don't contribute much to the debate, really. There's hopefully a reason why R.G. Neale (and not a certain "commentator") was invited to write this review article and any real constructive debate on this paper could really just be a rebuttal paper in Nano Letters. Anything less, especially those without any technical discussions and instead full of dubious accusations, is worth little more than idle chit-chat for mere entertainment.

Volatile Memory
User Rank
Rookie
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
Volatile Memory   7/26/2011 1:05:42 AM
NO RATINGS
Solster: Care to explain how exactly Mr. Ovshinsky managed to publish a fraudulent paper, describing the 16-level magic neuron device, on the pages of the peer-reviewed Japanese Journal of Applied Physics in 2004: http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/43/4695/ I wonder what Mr. Neale has to say about it.

rbtbob
User Rank
Rookie
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
rbtbob   7/25/2011 4:44:11 AM
NO RATINGS
Some of the readers that are not current on the research being done on phase change materials and devices in the last few years might like to read some of the papers presented at the European Phase Change and Ovonics Science Symposium. Regarding the subject of Mr. Neale's analysis, I recommend the paper presented by Stan Ovshinsky at the 2004 Symposium. http://www.epcos.org/library/library2010.htm

Volatile Memory
User Rank
Rookie
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
Volatile Memory   7/25/2011 3:10:14 PM
NO RATINGS
Here is the 10x Microsofts quote, accompanied with the "results:" http://goo.gl/WCxQm The document was created in December of 2004 (and published in early 2005) when Mr. Ovshinsky was still at the helm of Ovonic Cognitive Computer and its parent.

R G.Neale
User Rank
Rookie
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
R G.Neale   7/25/2011 9:23:51 AM
NO RATINGS
rbtbob-I was careful to put the precedence claim in quotes in case I had missed a paper. My brief was to explore what the Stanford team had been able to get the PCM to do based on their real experimental data, not to research the whole field of bio-science for claims and counter claims. The word "promising" in the title of the paper you recommend gives cause for concern. I think to date the whole field of phase change memory has been beset and damaged by too many unfulfilled promises.

R G.Neale
User Rank
Rookie
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
R G.Neale   7/26/2011 2:57:13 PM
NO RATINGS
Solster: Outside of the subject of this paper, and your comment""The fact remains that this is an academic paper peer-reviewed by credentialed research scientists and a professor. Constructive dialogue is the cornerstone of academic research, while "commentators" to web-articles expressing opinions with no apparent personal credibility whatsoever, don't contribute much to the debate, really."" I think as the web takes over paper publishing peer group review will change and become web based with an opportunity for peer group review to come quickly from all quarters, including your professors etc. With the editors responsible for the removal of any offensive material. I am convinced that is the future of peer group review. Also would you care to explain your words regarding myself and my reputation in parenthesis and quotes.

R G.Neale
User Rank
Rookie
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
R G.Neale   7/26/2011 4:01:14 PM
NO RATINGS
Solster- On the subject of peer group review there is an interesting article "Putting Peer Review on Trial", by Raoul Franklin,in PhysicsWorld, December 2010,p17.Published by the Institute of Physics (IoP) Key quote "The system we use to judge our peers work must be made more transparent" He points out a number of problems and defects with the present method and offers some possible changes. If you read it it may shake your faith a little in the present system.I will try and assess if it is on the web.

Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week