Replace magnetic with optical

Hi:

Why do hard disc drives use magnetic discs?

Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
substitution, why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?

Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.

I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.

Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
but not quite!


Regards,

Radium

"Radium" wrote in
oups.com:

Yum, looks likr I get first bite.

Why do hard disc drives use magnetic discs?

Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
substitution, why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?


Possibly because decades ago, there were no blue laser diodes?

Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.


It's been tried, but I'll not try to pr-empt the words of those who know
far more history than I do. As to volume, a single platter of a hard disk
can hold a few hundred GB. There is an optical disk being developed that is
said to have more, but I don't think it's on sale yet. Current blue diode
disks don't hold anything like this much. Multiply by four or so, per
layer, but not by a hundred.

I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.


Less soze, no, as I said. Less time? Definitely not. And if you spun an
optical disk as fast as a hard disk, the laser would have to be extremely
strong to write to the surface it as it passes by so rapidly.

Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
but not quite!


If you can find a green laser in a DVD, and prove you found it, grab that
time machine with both hands and patent it before anyone else gets there
first.

On 3 Apr 2007 13:16:05 -0700, "Radium"
wrote:

Hi:

Why do hard disc drives use magnetic discs?

High data density and speed, leveraging mature technology
incrementally updated for reasonable cost effectiveness.



Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
substitution,

They are, but it'd cost a lot. Too much mostly because Bill
Gates & Co. let windows become so bloated it now needs
Gigabytes of space, but the other software manufacturers are
to blame as well.


why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?

Is what you have in mind as cheap and fast? Usually optical
is not.



Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.

What makes you think a "magnetic disruption" is a
significant problem? What makes you think there is any
less vulnerability at all? A hard drive has a GREAT deal of
mechanical movement, other devices meant for lesser read and
write cycles might be viable if cheap enough, small enough,
and fast enough, but if only more expensive, no smaller and
no faster, the one thing you assume is not a clear victory.


I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.

You seem unable to use current technology if you find it
such a problem. Thus, if we introduced this tech you want,
you would be as likely to just find it a problem and pretend
you have an advanced insight on some other thing that isn't
here yet either, only a hypothetical device which in
practice may also have drawbacks.


Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
but not quite!


Forget ideals and focus on real needs. The market doesn't
really need a concept drive they need something proven
through years of testing. That at an attractive price
point. Eventually there will be more optical alternatives
but it would be foolish to "dump all magnetic discs" before
the replacement technology is ready.

Your ideas are akin to "cars suck, dump all cars and use
space ships", but wordier.

Radium wrote:

.... snip ...

Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages
over magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability
to environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.

Not so. To prove it to yourself, go out and buy a 200 odd gig hard
drive. Rip it open, and discard all parts other than the rotatable
disk(s) itself. Now compare its volume with that of a DVD disk,
which holds maybe 8 gig.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
http:/X-Mozilla-Status: 0009et


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Radium wrote:
Hi:

Why do hard disc drives use magnetic discs?

Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
substitution, why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?

Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.

I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.

Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
but not quite!


Regards,

Radium


You don't need permission from me -- or from Bill Gates -- to do so.

You may need to hack the OS a bit to boot/run from the DVD of your choice,
which is easier with a *NIX than a WinWhatever. Then boot from and run
from that DVD, and report back on how fast it is, relative to the
normal HD you will then be wanting back. Oh, and make sure you use a
PC with limited RAM, to feel the effects of swapping to your DVD.
--
Cheers, Bob

CBFalconer writes:

Radium wrote:

... snip ...

Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages
over magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability
to environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.

Not so. To prove it to yourself, go out and buy a 200 odd gig hard
drive. Rip it open, and discard all parts other than the rotatable
disk(s) itself. Now compare its volume with that of a DVD disk,
which holds maybe 8 gig.

Not quite a fair comparison. A double sided double layer DVD can hold
around 20 GB. A similar blu-ray (405 nm) disc could hold 5 to 10 times
that. A holographic memory of the same volume could hold much more.

And when is the last time your harddrive was affected by an "environmental
magnetic disruption" short of an EMP from a nuclear blast?

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

I wonder why no one has commented on him (original topic starter) that he
saying they use green lasers for dvd.

"Bob Willard" wrote in
. ..
Radium wrote:
Hi:

Why do hard disc drives use magnetic discs?

Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
substitution, why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?

Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.

I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.

Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
but not quite!


Regards,

Radium


You don't need permission from me -- or from Bill Gates -- to do so.

You may need to hack the OS a bit to boot/run from the DVD of your choice,
which is easier with a *NIX than a WinWhatever. Then boot from and run
from that DVD, and report back on how fast it is, relative to the
normal HD you will then be wanting back. Oh, and make sure you use a
PC with limited RAM, to feel the effects of swapping to your DVD.
--
Cheers, Bob

"Sam Goldwasser" wrote in message
...
Not quite a fair comparison. A double sided double layer DVD can hold
around 20 GB. A similar blu-ray (405 nm) disc could hold 5 to 10 times
that. A holographic memory of the same volume could hold much more.

Now you've done it, Sam...Radium will be after us now re his
latest and greatest fantasy, the holographic-storage laptop. And
it will be entirely YOUR fault....

Bob M.

"LaserUser" wrote in
l.nl:

I wonder why no one has commented on him (original topic starter) that he
saying they use green lasers for dvd.


Two people have, at least. Doug and me. How are you accessing usenet? How
many posts do you see in this thread?

On Apr 4, 9:34 am, "LaserUser" wrote:
I wonder why no one has commented on him (original topic starter) that he
saying they use green lasers for dvd.

"Bob Willard" wrote m...

Radium wrote:
Hi:

Why do hard disc drives use magnetic discs?

Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
substitution, why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?

Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.

I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.

Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
but not quite!

Regards,

Radium

You don't need permission from me -- or from Bill Gates -- to do so.

You may need to hack the OS a bit to boot/run from the DVD of your choice,
which is easier with a *NIX than a WinWhatever. Then boot from and run
from that DVD, and report back on how fast it is, relative to the
normal HD you will then be wanting back. Oh, and make sure you use a
PC with limited RAM, to feel the effects of swapping to your DVD.
--
Cheers, Bob


Cant find info now but last year radium was found to be FOS. Instead
of Radium he should be called Random.