This tiny glass disc can store 360TB of data for 13.8 billion years


It’s estimated that humans are producing the equivalent of 10 million Blu-ray discs’ worth of data every single day – and all of those ones and zeroes have to be stored somewhere. Now researchers in the UK just might have the solution: a five-dimensional (5D) digital data disc that can store 360 terabytes of data for some 13.8 billion years.

To create the data disc, researchers from the University of Southampton used a process called femtosecond laser writing, which creates small discs of glass using an ultrafast laser that generates short and intense pulses of light. These pulses can write data in three layers of nanostructured dots separated by 5 micrometres (that’s 0.005 mm).

So where do the five dimensions come from? First there’s the three-dimensional position of each dot within the layers, and then the extra dimensions are the size and orientation of the dot. The nanostructures created by the technology can be read using an optical microscope in tandem with a polariser (a filter designed to block specific polarisations of light).

The team behind the new 5D discs says these discs could be most useful for institutions who deal with large archives: libraries, museums, and anywhere else extensive records are kept (like a Facebook data centre).

“It is thrilling to think that we have created the technology to preserve documents and information and store it in space for future generations,” said one of the researchers, Peter Kazansky. “This technology can secure the last evidence of our civilisation: all we’ve learnt will not be forgotten.”

The researchers are presenting their work at the the International Society for Optical Engineering Conference in San Francisco this week, and after that, they’re hoping to find industry specialists to partner with in order to develop the technology further, finally getting it to a stage where it could be used in commercial products.

The storage medium has been dubbed the ‘Superman memory crystal’ in honour of the memory crystals from the Superman films. Not only can it store crazy amounts of data, but it can withstand temperatures up to 1,000°C (1,832°F).

While the technology was first demonstrated in 2013, it’s now capable of storing much more data: the team has already saved copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Newton’s Opticks, The Magna Carta and The King James Bible on these tiny discs.

Watch the video. URL:https://youtu.be/OP15blgK5oU

Oldest Human DNA Reveals Mysterious Branch of Humanity


http://m.livescience.com/41679-oldest-human-dna-reveals-mysterious-homnid.html

Why you should never drink whisky on the rocks


The Thirsty Explorer heads to the Scottish island of Islay where he learns the important differences between malt and whisky – and how to order it in a bar.

The first time I tasted Scotch whisky I was a broke student, chugging direct from a £3 bottle, lying outside my tent at the foot of Ben Nevis, Britain’s highest mountain.  It was after a meal of tinned macaroni and cheese – hardly a sophisticated sampling considering I was sipping the world’s most venerated style of whisky. I promised myself that the next time I returned to Scotland, I would drink the best the country had to offer, in great abundance and straight from the source, no matter what it took.

It turns out, for me, all it took was a smile and a stiff right thumb.

Celebrate Shakespeare’s 400th anniversary this year in the place he called home, right in the heart of England. #Shakespeare2016

That first Scotch whisky I drank was a blend. Of course, I didn’t understand the difference between single malt and blended whisky until I returned to Scotland eight years later; most people still don’t. Blended whisky, which comprises more than 80% of the market, including brands like Johnnie Walker and Dewars, is a mix o­f malt and grain whiskies that come from multiple distilleries. Single malt, which Scottish drinkers often refer to as malt rather than whisky (and never Scotch, like it’s known elsewhere around the world), is whisky created from malted barley at one distillery.

Single malts aren’t necessarily always better than blends, but most of Scotland’s highest regarded and most expensive whiskies are the former. Blended whiskies are smoother and easier to drink; malt can be almost overwhelming in flavour, a drink most work their way up to.

The vast majority of malt comes from three major whisky-producing regions. The Highlands (roughly the northern half of Scotland) and Speyside (in the country’s northeast) are both easily accessible from major cities, and their whiskies are relatively accessible to the malt novice, characterised by smooth, floral, often delicate flavours.

Then there’s Islay, the southernmost island of the Inner Hebrides, about 32km off the coast of Northern Ireland. As the crow flies, it’s a roughly 113km journey from Glasgow to Islay. But, unless you plan on flying into the island’s tiny airport, it’s about 2.5 hours by car from Glasgow to the hamlet of Kennacraig, and a nearly three-hour ferry to Islay – and that’s if you time the trip perfectly. Many people find Islay’s whisky even less accessible than the island itself.

If you’re a seasoned malt drinker, chances are you have a bottle from Islay in your liquor cabinet. If, on the other hand, you tried Scotch whisky for the first time and hated it, thought it was too smoky, or tasted like medicine or ashtrays, it probably came from Islay.

Islay whiskies get their signature flavour from smoking peat – the same vegetation that Scots have long been burning to heat their homes – in order to dry the malted barley used to create whisky. The results are polarising; some purists believe the peat takes away from the true flavour of the whisky, others become addicted, perpetually searching for something peatier.

The amount of peat used varies widely. Bruichladdich is the only Islay distillery known for its non-smoked whiskies.Laphroaig, on the other end of the island and the other end of the peat spectrum, unapologetically overwhelms the palate with peat. Laphroaig’s recent “Opinions Welcome” campaignreceived feedback that varied from “like chewing on a well-tarred fishing boat” to “drinking the inside of an antique store”. The opinion that resonated most with me reads, “It’s like fighting a peat bog monster that is on fire, but suddenly you both pause, look in one another’s eyes and kiss.”

Wine drinkers like to talk about terroir: the environmental condition, geology and geography that give a wine (and the grapes that make it) its unique flavour. However, it takes a connoisseur of snobbish proportions to know a wine’s exact origin from a blind taste. Even an amateur drinker would probably know in one sip whether a whisky came from Islay.

I’ve never tasted another drink that has more successfully bottled a place. The whisky truly tastes like Islay, distilled – of the peat bogs that cover the island, of the smoke and fire used to stay warm during a seemingly endless winter, of the salty aftertaste of the sea.

Nothing about Islay is easy. The island is rugged and tempestuous; winds gusting straight from the sea are powerful and unrelenting. Clusters of white-washed buildings make up the two main villages of Bowmore and Port Ellen; the rest of the island is mostly inhabited by sheep and birds, and largely covered in peat. The peat bogs, which take thousands of years to form and require a perfect storm of climatic conditions, spread across the island for miles.

Public transportation on the 25-mile-long island is a nightmare, and driving and visiting distilleries don’t really mix. So for three days on Islay, I held out my thumb and was whisked away by kindly locals, travelling from the windswept shores to the warm and welcoming shelters of the island’s eight distilleries, sampling dozens of whiskies in all their smoky glory.

For me, distilleries are near magical places, where alchemy meets science to create something far greater than the sum of its parts. They are also museums of smells, where each room has a beautiful and distinct scent.

Visiting Scottish distilleries is also an incredible deal. Between £5 and £7 generally gets you a tour of the facility and a dram (a small glass) or two of cask-strength whisky (whisky before water is added). Many distilleries also offer pricier warehouse tastings (upwards of £25 each), giving the chance to sample rare whiskies straight from the barrel, including some whiskies that are impossible to find anywhere else and others that you may never taste again.

My favourite Islay warehouse tasting was at Lagavulin, where £12 (combined with the Friends of the Classic Malts free admission) got me a sample of an eight-year old whisky still too young for bottling (the unpleasant flavour highlighted how important those years in the barrel are). I also got to try a double-matured bottle (aged 16 years in bourbon barrels before being finished for a few months in sherry casks) and a 30-year malt that normally costs more than £50 a dram in a bar, if you can find it (most single malts are aged at least 10 years, and generally get more expensive with age).

Speaking of bars, there is a certain protocol to ordering malt in Scotland. First, please don’t call it Scotch. It’s whisky or malt. Second, unless you want to be the subject of ridicule, don’t order your malt on the rocks. Ice numbs the tongue and melts too fast. You either drink it neat or with a drop of water to open the flavours. Drinking it on the rocks is only acceptable if you’re drinking a blended whisky or if it’s scorching outside. But the odds of the latter happening are incredibly slim. In Scotland, summer is the second most famous myth after the Loch Ness Monster.

After having been to Islay – even during Brooklyn’s oppressive summer heat – I still order my malt neat. I carefully pore over the bar’s menu, having forgotten more about whisky than most people will ever know. And even if it’s eight months (or more) until I find myself in Scotland again, I know it will only take one sip of that 16-year Lagavulin to transport me back to Islay’s windy, mountainous, peat-covered shores.

Conventional ‘yogurt’ is junk food disguised as health food


Thanks to greater awareness surrounding the dangers of food that’s processed and doused with pesticides, consumer attitudes have blossomed from an interest to a demand when it comes to knowing what’s in our food and understanding what’s healthy.

However, consumers aren’t the only ones who’ve changed their attitude toward “conventional” food. Large food manufacturers have also transformed their tactics in regard to producing and labeling food products (mostly labeling), but instead theirs is driven by money rather than concern for consumer health.

While many have become diligent at reading labels and checking ingredients, there are some foods out there that are cleverly marketed as “healthy” but are anything but. Sometimes these products need to be examined more closely for harmful ingredients.

One product to watch out for is yogurt.

When it comes to being portrayed as healthy, yogurt is kind of like beef jerky. Many think beef jerky is super-low in calories, and a great source of protein; however, in reality it’s filled with massive amounts of sodium and MSG, making it very unhealthy.

Advertisers market yogurt as a quick, low-calorie, healthy snack, even labeling it with a seal that reads “Live and Active Cultures.” This is meant to fool customers into believing that it provides a high level of healthy microorganisms, or probiotics.

The “Live and Active Cultures” seal is used only on products made by popular brands like General Mills or Groupe Danone. Interestingly, organic companies don’t use this seal at all.

Tests done by the Cornucopia Institute, an organic watchdog group that promotes family-scale farming, showed that many farmstead organic yogurt products without the “Live and Active Culture” seal actually contain higher amounts of probiotics than conventional yogurt.

When you study the ingredients in “conventional” yogurt, you’ll find that it’s made from milk produced by a cow that’s been confined to one space its whole life, pumped with antibiotics and hormones, and fed GMO grain. Ingredients can also include artificial sweeteners, chemical defoamers, processed sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, synthetic preservatives and the controversial thickener carrageenan.

Numerous health problems have been associated with aspartame, including migraines, blurred vision, depression, gastrointestinal complications and many others. Carrageenan, or seaweed extract, is a preservative used to maintain the thick, milky texture of yogurt and to keep contents from separating. It’s been linked to inflammation, ulcerations and even bleeding. It’s also received FDA approval to be used in USDA Certified Organic food.

These ingredients make for anything but a “healthy” product. In fact, if you eat them regularly, you could be doing more harm than good.

When you’re buying yogurt, look for products that have the USDA Certified Organic label. This is regulated by the USDA’s National Organic Program and must meet strict requirements.

Try to avoid buying products just because they say “all-natural.” This sounds really good but doesn’t mean anything because it’s completely unregulated.

Any business can use this label for advertising without changing any of their ingredients. It’s basically a loophole for companies trying to be part of the healthy, non-GMO food revolution without actually being healthy or non-GMO.

Look for yogurt brands that say “grass-fed, no added hormones” or, even better, “gluten-free.” Stonyfield Organic Greek yogurt uses NO toxic pesticides, artificial hormones or antibiotics. It’s also non-GMO and USDA Organic.

Popularity surrounding organic, non-GMO food has reached an all-time high but has also sparked the attention of food manufactures, and not always in a good way. Be skeptical when you see companies labeling their products as “all-natural,” especially major name brands like General Mills, Kraft Foods and PepsiCo. If possible, try to stick to items made by smaller companies interested in providing a healthy product through practices that often give back to the environment, rather than buying food filled with chemicals and packaged with lies.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044989_conventional_yogurt_junk_food_chemical_ingredients.html#ixzz42CIWTkRX

Growing number of people recognize adverse health effects of Wi-Fi radiation


Most people go about their day without thinking twice about possible health effects that may be caused by the Wi-Fi radiation that surrounds them. The majority of us can shop, work and engage in hobbies with ease.

However, that’s not the case for 63-year-old Mary Coales. She represents just one person among a growing number of people who are recognizing the detrimental health effects caused by Wi-Fi radiation.+

Wi-Fi

Daily challenges of living in a Wi-Fi world with EHS

The Britain resident says she suffers from electromagnetic hypersensitivity intolerance syndrome (EHS), in which she experiences pain when she’s in Wi-Fi environments. The pain is so intense that she wears a special shirt over her regular clothing that’s designed to help protect against the dangerous waves. “At its worst,” Coales says, “it has felt like I’m being tasered inside my mouth.”

She explains how she must wait outside of buildings for appointments until the last minute when she’s called in, that trips to the supermarket are extremely quick and that she even avoids movie theaters, restaurants and airports – most of the things the average person does day in and day out – due to the pain she experiences.

“I’ve had to change my entire life to find ways to avoid being exposed to Wi-Fi and phone signals,” she says. “Wi-Fi is everywhere now, so it’s very difficult to avoid. It’s even more difficult to avoid people with mobile phones.”

The notion of health hazards cause by Wi-Fi radiation seem to be all over the board. Some argue that there’s no cause for concern, while others say there should be.

The link between Wi-Fi and cancer

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for example, notes that no scientific evidence exists to prove that cellphone use can cause cancer. They do mention, however, that they use radio frequencies (RF) which the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified as a “possible human carcinogen.” Laptops, routers and the like have also been linked to cancer and other conditions or ailments.

So, which way is it?

Many people beyond Coales are adamant that the link between Wi-Fi radiation and ill health is irrefutable.

Ethan Wyman, a young New Zealand boy, was diagnosed with brain tumors just three months after he was given an iPod with a Wi-Fi connection. His parents, who later discovered that their child was sleeping with the iPod under his pillow, are demanding that the school Ethan attended rid their classrooms of Wi-Fi now that they’re convinced of the harm it causes. Ethan ended up dying less than a year after his diagnosis.

In the United States, where over 90 percent of adults own cellphones, Diane Schou made a significant lifestyle change to escape the problems she encountered with electronic radiation.

She moved from her hometown in Iowa to Green Bank, West Virginia where Wi-Fi is actually banned. The area’s been dubbed a kind of haven for those like her who have suffered from the effects of Wi-Fi sensitivity.

“I used to be sick all the time when I lived in Iowa. I was in constant pain. If anyone came near me with a cellphone or a device with Wi-Fi I would be in agony,” Schou says. “But since I’ve moved to Green Banks the illnesses have cleared up.”

It’s not just people that are impacted by Wi-Fi radiation, either.

Plants, pets also impacted by dangers of Wi-Fi radiation

Ninth graders in Denmark conducted an experiment in which they planted seeds, some near routers that gave off about the same amount of radiation as a cellphone, others in a different room away from routers. The shocking results? Ones planted near routers didn’t grow. The other ones thrived.

Pets, too, can be impacted.

Deborah Cooney, a former San Diego, CA resident who moved to Green Bank after a Wi-Fi meter was installed near her home, says that her cat was bothered by Wi-Fi. She explains that “Mimi went from being a typical house cat to one that would never stay home and eventually she ran away and never came back.”

Bill Gates to introduce remote-controlled sterilization microchips for women


Image: Bill Gates to introduce remote-controlled sterilization microchips for women

Bill Gates, Microsoft mogul, inventor and philanthropist, is considered to be one of the world’s biggest and most famous visionaries. Unfortunately, however, Gates has decided to take his vision a step further, by developing a computer chip technology that could essentially aid him in his quest for population control and reduction.

Gates’ medical microchip implants are intended to serve as “the new face of medicine that polygamously marries Big Pharma, biotech, nanotech and wireless remote technology,” if Activist Post’s Heather Callaghan has any say in the matter.

“Maybe hooking oneself into the Internet of Things will be an additional app, although this sounds like a passive form of medicine where someone else gets to call the shots, so to speak,” she added.

Pro-choice or no choice?

Unsurprisingly, the same developers who are bringing wireless, remote-controlled implants are currently focused on a product that is the cornerstone of future efforts: Gates Foundation-funded birth control microchip implants.

The wireless implants are intended to essentially activate a woman’s ability to conceive, or prevent it, at will, thereby amounting to temporary sterilization. Just imagine: If an all-powerful government agency decides to prevent a woman from bearing child, the government could transform itself from “pro-choice” (by giving women the option of abortion) to no choice at all.(1)

Moreover, the chips are to be encrypted; thus, neither cyber criminals nor technologically gifted individuals could try to bypass the government, you know, if it ever decides to utilize the implants for less than charitable purposes.

Why encrypt the chips, anyway?

As reported by TheWindowsClub.com:

“The birth control chip is the brain child of a professor, Robert Langer, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Bill Gates and Melinda Foundation has funded the research and the prototype is ready for human testing. The chips will be ready for sale by the year 2018 according to Robert Langer. The institute’s Chip Foundation and Bill Gates’ Foundation have been working on the birth control chip for past three years.

“The safety tests would begin by the end of year 2015 and Robert Langer is confident that the chips will hit market sometime in 2018. The main target of these chips are women in third world who are often subject to pain and risks of death during early pregnancies.”

That report also mentions that the chip is expected to remain viable for at least 16 years once implanted.

While the supposed intentions behind the chip could be seen as admirable, there’s no denying the fact that sinister motives could make such technology susceptible to abuse. Now, just a food for thought: If women from third world countries really are the target demographic of the chip, is encryption really necessary? How many third world populations have the ability to hack into these chips, anyway?

Once the chip officially enters the market, we’ll see.

Thanks to science, you can soon wipe out your worst memories


Imagine being able to erase your most traumatic memories. For a soldier, that would mean no longer being haunted by images from the battlefield. For a movie critic, no longer recalling having seen “Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2.”

It’s just one of the fascinating peeks into the mystery of the human mind chronicled on“Memory Hackers,” airing Wednesday at 9 p.m. on PBS’ “Nova.”

“Memory is an inherently interesting thing,” the show’s writer, director and producer, Michael Bicks, tells The Post. “You think you know what it is, but when you think about it, you realize that you don’t.”

Many of us assume that memory is like a faithful recording of our lives stored in our brains, persistent and unchanging.

Shockingly, that’s not the case. Researchers have discovered that memory is changeable. The act of recalling something alters it.

Forming memories actually causes a physical change in the brain — a seismic discovery made by Nobel Prize-winning ­neuroscientist Eric Kandel of Columbia University. When you create a memory, new synaptic connections grow between neurons in the brain. But each time you call up a memory, it must then be resaved like a file on your computer — and it gets modified in the process.

This finding has led scientists into “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” territory, the 2004 Jim Carrey movie about a man who has a memory of a bad breakup erased.

Dutch psychology professor Merel Kindt has seemingly found a way to erase the emotional anxiety associated with bad memories without erasing the memories themselves.

Working with arachnophobes, she discovered that subjects who were given a drug called ­propanolol after being exposed to a spider were later able to handle the creatures without fear. The drug is believed to change the way a memory (in this case, terror associated with spiders) is resaved in the brain after being accessed.

But what’s the point of manipulating memories anyway?

“It might be possible to work with PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder], and that’s a huge deal,” Bicks says. “It could happen very soon.”

watch the video. URL:https://youtu.be/MZXmWOju1V8

Scientists Are About To Resurrect A 30,000-Year-Old Virus “To Discover If It Is Harmful To Humans”


A ‘monster’ virus which has lain dormant in the frozen wastelands of northeastern Russia is about to be resurrected by researchers curious of its potential effects.

Scientists anticipate “reanimating” a 30,000-year-old virus to learn more about it and discover if it is harmful to animals or humans. Mollivirus sibericum, which translates to soft Siberian virus, has been dubbed “Frankenvirus” by many who are in opposition of the quest to bring it back to life. 

In contrast to other viruses, the soft Siberian bug is a monster. Not only does it have 523 genetic proteins and measures 0.6 microns, it can also be seen using light microscopy.

As BBC News reports, the Mollivirus sibericum virus is the fourth prehistoric virus to have beendiscovered since 2003, and experts warn climate change and thawing ice could resurrect similar – and perhaps even more dangerous – pathogens.

The French National Center for Scientific Research made the discovery in the Kolyma lowland region of Russia. The soft Siberian virus is the second of its kind to be found by the team. In 2003, researchers discovered the Minivirus, followed by the Pandoraviruses in 2013, and Pithovirus sibericumwhich was discovered last year.

Reserachers wrote in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): 

The saga of giant viruses started in 2003. Two additional types of giant viruses have been discovered [and] we now describe Mollivirus sibericum, a fourth type of giant virus isolated from the same permafrost sample. These four types of giant virus exhibit different structures, sizes, genome length, and replication cycles. Their origin and mode of evolution are the subject of conflicting hypotheses. The fact that two different viruses could be easily revived from prehistoric permafrost should be of concern in a context of global warming.

The regions in which these mega microbes are being discovered are being increasingly exploited for their mineral resources, especially oil. As Upriser shares, the rate at which they are exploited will no doubt increase as the areas become more accessible due to melting ice and climate change.

Survival medical training – keep your friends and family alive during crisis (Ad)

Said lead researcher Jean-Michel Claverie:

A few viral particles that are still infectious may be enough, in the presence of a vulnerable host, to revive potentially pathogenic viruses. If we are not careful, and we industrialize these areas without putting safeguards in place, we run the risk of one day waking up viruses such as small pox that we thought were eradicated.

That’s definitely concerning. 

In the lab, Professor Claverie and his team will attempt to resurrect the newly discovered virus by placing it with a single-cell amoeba, which will serve as its host. The virus Pithovirus sibericum was revived in March 2014 using similar techniques.

UPDATE:

Research has been carried out, and according to co-author Dr Chantal Abergel, the virus “comes into the cell, multiplies and finally kills the cell. It is able to kill the amoeba – but it won’t infect a human cell.”

Still, a lot of controversy surrounds the scientists plan to “revive” theMollivirus sibericum virus. Different than most viruses circulating today, these ancient pathogens are not only bigger, they’re far more complex genetically.

The recently discovered virus has more than 500 genes, and the Pandoravirus found in 2003 has 2,500. Compare that to the Influenza A virus which has eight genes.

Of course, a philosophical debate will not deter scientists from doing their work, but a number of pros and cons deserve to be weighed before further research is conducted.

In 2004, United States scientists resurrected the “Spanish flu” virus, which ended up killing tens of millions of people at the start of the 20th century. The revived the virus to understand why the pathogen was so virulent. 

Researchers from the States traveled to Alaska to take frozen lung tissues from a woman who was buried in permafrost, and teased genetic details out of the samples and from autopsy issues stored in formalin. Their work allowed the team to reconstruct the code for the virus’ eight genes – but at what cost? All the work was done in a top-security lab at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), yet still wasn’t contained.

We have to ask ourselves as an informed public – and voice our concerns to those ‘in charge’ – if “reviving” a monster virus and is really in the best interest of the public. 

Stability of the tinniest device.


In 2011, the research group of Roland Wiesendanger, Physics Professor at the University of Hamburg in Germany, fabricated a spin-based logic device using the spins of single atoms, a feat that represents the ultimate limits of miniaturization. In these tiny devices, all of the atoms must be precisely positioned so that their spin information can be transmitted from one atom to the next.

The problem is that the atoms don’t want to stay in their designated positions for very long. Even the tiniest amount of heat can overcome the weak between an atom and substrate that helps keep the atom in place. As a result, the spin-based logic only works at temperatures below 0.3 K, barely above absolute zero.

Now in a new paper published in Nano Letters, Wiesendanger’s team has demonstrated spin-based logic devices that are made of molecules instead of atoms. The molecules are held in place by superexchange magnetic coupling, which is much stronger than weak magnetic coupling. The stronger interactions translate to an order of magnitude higher operation temperature, up to 6 K. The molecular spin devices, which are almost as small as the atomic version, have much higher stability and they still offer the same potential advantages of high-speed operation and low-power consumption that make spintronics devices so attractive.

“We now have all the building pieces on the surface to create devices out of molecular building blocks,” lead author Maciej Bazarnik, a physicist at the University of Hamburg and at the Poznan University of Technology in Poland, told Phys.org.

In general, spin-based devices work by controlling the spins of electrons, just as conventional electronics devices control electron charge. Similar to how charge is considered to be either negative or positive, spin is regarded as being either up or down. By applying a magnetic field, researchers can generate an excess of spin up or spin down electrons, creating a net spin polarization and producing a current.

To build an all-spin , the challenge is that the atoms and molecules must be arranged so that they act as wires, junctions, and other building blocks for transmitting the easily disturbed spin information from one place to another.

In the new study, the researchers built these components out of coordination compounds, which are magnetic molecules that consist of a central metal atom (here, cobalt) linked to surrounding groups of atoms. These groups are carefully chosen to achieve strong magnetic interactions between the spin-carrying metal atoms of adjacent compounds, allowing the spin information to be transferred.

The researchers also engineered the chemical structure to alleviate another problem facing atomic-scale spin devices: by transporting the spin information more directly between junctions, they could greatly reduce unwanted interference with neighboring devices.

With their greater stability, the molecular spin logic devices represent a step toward making very small spin devices at higher temperatures, which is necessary for realizing future applications.

“We are exploring different magnetic centers in our molecules to achieve stronger magnetic couplings and raise the operating temperature even higher,” Bazarnik said. “Since all-spin devices are ultimately small, using them in future nanoelectronics would be beneficial. They operate on a degree of freedom and therefore no flow of [electric] current is necessary for the information to be transmitted. Hence there is no heating and very low power consumption.”