If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:08:31 -0600, "dafon" wrote:
GREAT IDEA! WHY DON'T YOU GO INTO THE RAZOR BUSINESS AND MAKE A RAZOR WITH 18 BLADES. No need to be derogatory. It was a legitimate question. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
True. No need to be derogatory.
It just felt good! "Mark Landin" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:08:31 -0600, "dafon" wrote: GREAT IDEA! WHY DON'T YOU GO INTO THE RAZOR BUSINESS AND MAKE A RAZOR WITH 18 BLADES. No need to be derogatory. It was a legitimate question. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hi,
Actually its not a bad idea to have 2 heads attached to one arm in such a way that if one is over the outermost cylinder the other is over the innermost cylinder(ps see fig.). by doing this, you cut down both the seek time and the rotational latency by approx 50%.This can be a feasible first step towards faster disks. Spindle | | ___ V ___ Head 1 -- |___\ . /___| -- Head 2 \ / \ / \ / \ / \______/ || || || |-----| | | -- Actuator |_____| Akheel dafon wrote: GREAT IDEA! WHY DON'T YOU GO INTO THE RAZOR BUSINESS AND MAKE A RAZOR WITH 18 BLADES. "- C -" wrote in message hlink.net... If you ever opened a hard drive, you will see a couple of platters and an arm that has a head for each surface. So if 2 platters, then 4 surfaces and 4 heads. The arm moves the heads across the platters and the platters rotate, so any spot on the disk can be seeked with both movement together. So... why not have multiple heads on each surface? Imagine a row of heads evenly spaced out on a bar at a right angle to the arm, the arm attaching at the middle of the bar, forming a T shape. If there were 10 heads on each bar, then you get 10x speed and 1/10 lateral seek time. Good or bad idea? Feasible? Clayton |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Did you read the thread for this topic before you posted ? I guess not. In article , Akheel Ahmed wrote: Hi, Actually its not a bad idea to have 2 heads attached to one arm in such a way that if one is over the outermost cylinder the other is over the innermost cylinder(ps see fig.). by doing this, you cut down both the seek time and the rotational latency by approx 50%.This can be a feasible first step towards faster disks. Spindle | | ___ V ___ Head 1 -- |___\ . /___| -- Head 2 \ / \ / \ / \ / \______/ || || || |-----| | | -- Actuator |_____| Akheel dafon wrote: GREAT IDEA! WHY DON'T YOU GO INTO THE RAZOR BUSINESS AND MAKE A RAZOR WITH 18 BLADES. "- C -" wrote in message hlink.net... If you ever opened a hard drive, you will see a couple of platters and an arm that has a head for each surface. So if 2 platters, then 4 surfaces and 4 heads. The arm moves the heads across the platters and the platters rotate, so any spot on the disk can be seeked with both movement together. So... why not have multiple heads on each surface? Imagine a row of heads evenly spaced out on a bar at a right angle to the arm, the arm attaching at the middle of the bar, forming a T shape. If there were 10 heads on each bar, then you get 10x speed and 1/10 lateral seek time. Good or bad idea? Feasible? Clayton -- Al Dykes ----------- adykes at p a n i x . c o m |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Akheel Ahmed" wrote in message ... Hi, Actually its not a bad idea to have 2 heads attached to one arm in such a way that if one is over the outermost cylinder the other is over the innermost cylinder(ps see fig.). by doing this, you cut down both the seek time and the rotational latency by approx 50%.This can be a feasible first step towards faster disks. Nope, doesn't work. Read up on servo track following. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article k.net,
- C - wrote: So... why not have multiple heads on each surface? Imagine a row of heads evenly spaced out on a bar at a right angle to the arm, the arm attaching at the middle of the bar, forming a T shape. If there were 10 heads on each bar, then you get 10x speed and 1/10 lateral seek time. Blue sky time: Perhaps we can eliminate the arm altogether and instead place an imovable bar shaped IC above and perpendicular to the platter. The IC has thousands upon thousands of little read and write heads etched onto its surface to cover a small swath of the platter from the inside edge to the outside edge. No head movement. No settling time. Zero track to track seek time. Just rotational latency and head switch time. If reading and writing to from multiple parallel heads at the same time is possible using this non-moving set of heads, then head switch time can be reduced. Perhaps rotational latency can even be reduced by placing multiples of these bar ICs above the platter and using them simultaniously. Feasible today? Feasible tomorrow? Or just an impractical bunch of BS both now and forever? I think likely something totally different (and technologically much less Rube Goldberg oriented) will come along to make the whole rotating platter storage media concept obsolete -- long before stuff like the above ever becomes practical. - Dan |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ron Reaugh wrote: Nope, doesn't work. Read up on servo track following. Perhaps if you can have thousands and thousands of little heads on an imovable IC that floats above the platter and covers the platter from the inside to the outside edge (in the shape of a bar), with each head having a width on the order of a transistor etched onto the surface of the IC, you can do your servo track following by switching between adjacent heads as the track "wanders." Likely impractical with today's technology, eh? - Dan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... In article k.net, - C - wrote: So... why not have multiple heads on each surface? Imagine a row of heads evenly spaced out on a bar at a right angle to the arm, the arm attaching at the middle of the bar, forming a T shape. If there were 10 heads on each bar, then you get 10x speed and 1/10 lateral seek time. Blue sky time: Perhaps we can eliminate the arm altogether and instead place an imovable bar shaped IC above and perpendicular to the platter. The IC has thousands upon thousands of little read and write heads etched onto its surface to cover a small swath of the platter from the inside edge to the outside edge. No head movement. No settling time. Zero track to track seek time. Just rotational latency and head switch time. If reading and writing to from multiple parallel heads at the same time is possible using this non-moving set of heads, then head switch time can be reduced. Perhaps rotational latency can even be reduced by placing multiples of these bar ICs above the platter and using them simultaniously. Feasible today? Feasible tomorrow? Or just an impractical bunch of BS both now and forever? I think likely something totally different (and technologically much less Rube Goldberg oriented) will come along to make the whole rotating platter storage media concept obsolete -- long before stuff like the above ever becomes practical. If you spin the disks backwards then negative polarity magnetics can be read faster. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
ffOn Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:31:52 GMT in comp.arch.storage,
wrote: In article k.net, - C - wrote: So... why not have multiple heads on each surface? Imagine a row of heads evenly spaced out on a bar at a right angle to the arm, the arm attaching at the middle of the bar, forming a T shape. If there were 10 heads on each bar, then you get 10x speed and 1/10 lateral seek time. Greater head mass slows the arm and takes longer to settle. Perhaps we can eliminate the arm altogether and instead place an imovable bar shaped IC above and perpendicular to the platter. The IC has thousands upon thousands of little read and write heads etched onto its surface to cover a small swath of the platter from the inside edge to the outside edge. No head movement. No settling time. Zero track to track If they could make heads so small, they would have done so already, and seek time would be reduced somewhat proportional to the mass. seek time. Just rotational latency and head switch time. If reading Rotational latency is the current bottleneck, as heavier platters spin slower and lighter platters shatter due to rotational stress. Current need is for lighter, stronger, cheap substrates that can spin faster, and have magnetic media permanently bonded to them. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca) fake address use address above to reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Invalid system disk | seabat | Homebuilt PC's | 23 | November 21st 04 03:03 AM |
P4S333 hard drive capacity | Katy | Asus Motherboards | 6 | September 19th 04 04:26 AM |
Why Boot and System Disk? | mo | Asus Motherboards | 1 | September 5th 04 10:01 AM |
SATA disk, slow? | Tomaz Koritnik | General | 5 | June 6th 04 04:13 AM |
Nero 6 Burn Rom - Help file, cd-rw disks, cd audio/data combination disk | Bun Mui | Cdr | 2 | January 12th 04 01:26 AM |