Talk:Spin-transfer torque

Page Name?

Should this page specifically cover just the physical phenomenon of spin torque transfer? Or should STT-RAM redirect to this page -- in which case it should cover not only the physical mechanism of STT but also its commercial use and development, and products that rely on it?

My thought is that if STT is a complex enough physical mechanism to justify its own page with equations and models (like the Spin (physics) page), this page should restrict itself to that, and the commercialization/productization aspects (similar to pages like MRAM) should remain separate. If STT is simple enough that a paragraph or two of explanation in the article will suffice, then STT-RAM should redirect to this page and it should be developed in a manner similar to the MRAM page. Thoughts? Fhaigia (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

i think that spin transfer torque and spin transfer should be in the same article. they are the same effect, i dont feel two seperate articles are necessary. but its seems that one is for grandis and one is for freescale semiconductor. Fowleyc (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange that this page is called "spin torque transfer" and not "spin transfer torque". The latter was used first and has about 4x as many hits on google scholar. Unless there are any objections, let's make this one a redirect and move everything over there. A13ean (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

writing technology?

Like Fhaigia stated above that Spin transfer torque is a physical mechanism and I agree. It is not a writing technology (the first sentence of the article claims this), the writing technology is just an application of this mechanism. So in my point of view the first sentence should be altered. --Do ut des (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. A13ean (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks better now... "Spin-transfer torque is an effect in which the orientation of a magnetic layer in a tunnel magnetoresistance or spin valve can be modified using a spin-polarized current." This still neglects the movement of domain walls by STT as used in race track memory devices... so I propose to delete this specific application of STT in the first sentence. I am rather sure, there are even more application one can think of or at least there will be...--Do ut des (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I agree. A13ean (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Propose merging Spin Transfer Switching and Spin Transfer into this page

All three of these articles are about the same thing, and all three of them need work. Rather than fixing them separately I believe we should merge them together into this page with redirects from the old names. A13ean (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Corporations working on related technologies

There are a large number of corporations working on similar technologies. I don't think that any specific ones merit discussion, besides a brief list of all those involved. As was previously discussed, this article is about the effect, not the industry. Also I don't believe that the statement that "The name STT-RAM was first coined by Grandis, Inc." could possibly be true, since MRAM devices that used spin torque transfer were discussed several years before the founding of the company. In any case, it certainty should not be included without a third party reference. A13ean (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A13ean was right that spin transfer had been discussed before. However, the name STT-RAM was not coined until later by Grandis in their patents. Discovering/inventing and naming a phenomenon are 2 different things. A13ean, the best way to resolve this disagreement is for you to produce evidence that shows that the term "STT-RAM" was used before Grandis's first relevant patent that mentioned it. Thanks.

Specifically, Slonczewski filed a broad-reaching patent for the process in 1995, even if he didn't call it by name: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5695864.html . See also http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1362642 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1059019 . A13ean (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this proves the above point that Grandis, not Slonczewski, coined the name "STT-RAM". The disagreement seems to arise from a misunderstanding. Nobody questions Slonczewski's broad-reaching contributions. The disagreement is in who first came up with the name "STT-RAM", and unless we can produce documentation that shows "STT-RAM" was first used before Grandis's patents were filed (instead of just someone's "opinion" of the real history), we must acknowledge the fact that Grandis did coin this name.

Sorry, just to clarify something that was lost in all the back and forth discussion: my original complaint was that the term "Spin torque transfer random access memory" is only one of several different terms for the same thing that have all been floating around for a while. It's not even the most prevalent term -- Spin-transfer torque magnetic random access memory (STT-MRAM) generates more hits on google and in google scholar. One company has made it their practice to drop the "magnetic" part, and all the power to them, but it doesn't belong in this article. A13ean (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

In principle, I think it's quite reasonable for a physics/technology article to mention applications of a technology, including particular businesses or people, if they meet some minimal level of significance. For example, Compact Disk mentions Sony, Phillips, JVC, and Kodak - but it doesn't list every business with a CD press. If in doubt, look at sources; if sources seem to show that one particular party is prominent, then they should be in the article. If there are several others with a similar level of prominence (other users or other innovators or whatever), add them too, subject to sourcing. If a source cannot be found to support a claim, that claim should be removed - a good first step might be to fact-tag it or query whichever person added that claim. bobrayner (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)—bobrayner (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as a follow up, the claim that Grandis named this technology is belied by the references to the patent now used to support this claim: [1] A13ean (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The claim for the first use of the term "STT-RAM" is unsourced. I've left it in for now with a "citation needed" tag. It needs a reliable, third party source establishing that in fact Grandis was the first to use the term. (It is incumbent on the editor introducing the information to source it properly, not on other editors to establish its falsity.) If no such source can be provided then the claim should come out. (Other detailed references to Grandis personnel, or its investors' returns, is tangential to this article and needn't be included either.) Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the "successful exit" for investors as "unsourced" but now see that the article does say that. It is sourced. But it is still tangential. This article is about Spin Torque Transfer, not about investors who made money on it. Indeed if this information is as important as the anon editor(s) suggest, then presumably Grandis is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, which could be wikilinked from here. If it's not notable enough - well, then it begins to seem a bit like just PR and puffery here. JohnInDC (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spin-transfer torque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020075408/http://www.bama.ua.edu/~tmewes/Java/dynamics/MagnetizationDynamics2.shtml to http://www.bama.ua.edu/~tmewes/Java/dynamics/MagnetizationDynamics2.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)