Shaking Hard Drives Instead of Spinning?
Twyko64 writes "A UK startup called Dataslide aims to develop 'hard drives' made of oscillating sheets of LCD-screen-like material with piezo-electronic actuators and many, many read:write heads. A 'hard drive' could be the same size and shape as an LCD screen. I wrote a this piece on Techworld about it."
Cue jokes about "shaken, not stirred..."
Which one? The one on my watch, the one on my cell phone, the one on my calculator, or the one on my laptop?
I hate grammar Nazi's.
I wrote a this piece on Techworld about it.
That really makes me want to go read the article.
FORTUNE FAVORS IRONY
It seems to be wor
I've recently being doing a report for Physics on the Piezoelectric effect, and it is really interesting thing.
When you put a current through a piezoelectric material (e.g. Quartz), it vibrates. The oscillations are used to create sound in Ultrasound Transducers, and they are used in watches as a time measurement.
Conversely, if you mechanically compress a piezoelectric crystal, a charge will occur at the edges. This is used in Ultrasound to detect sound waves, in guitar pickups, and even in those cigarette lighters in cars.
You can read more about it at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectric
Just thought this might interest someone.
- Jax
This is surely the most useless article I've seen posted here in some time, and that's saying a lot, considering we're just out of election season. The article doesn't tell you anything significant about how it works, the company's website consists of two press releases that don't tell you jack shit, so how about it folks - someone want to fill in a poor /. poster by telling me how this ------- thing works?
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
While I appreciate innovation, I think companies should really try to improve the current state of solid state storage devices. Obviously, no moving parts mean fewer points of failure. Also, other than saying that these devices could theoreticly be better than current spinning disks and flash memory, this article is pretty scant on hard specs about the tech. I guess it's way too early for them to release such information, but I'd like to see some specs on it. Like how they are going to cancel out background noise vibrations. Seems to me like this technology would be very exposed to faults due to things like that, perhaps even small vibrations due to loud noise/etc.
stuff
The signal processing done to the analog signal from one read/write head is tremendous. The performance of modern hard drive comes from the signal detection algorithms and advanced error correction that is performed.
You simply cannot do this at low cost when you have got several thousand or million r/w heads.
--- Eat my sig.
This "new drive" seems to have all the disadvantages of a drum, plus another: it doesn't spin. Instead it just shimmies back and forth.
Well, maybe the new magical material will handle this OK. With the old drums, spinning them up often took several minutes because of the huge inertia (weight was often in the hundreds of pounds for the bigger ones... disaster when the bearings seize and the drum smashes through brick walls!)
The idea seems to be that a vibrating sheet could move, while a grid of read/write heads could stay in place, just so something moves to generate a changing magnetic field. While that's certainly true, a spinning disc could also have mutiple heads per arm, multiple arms per disc, and so on. Getting a closely packed array of read/write heads is an equal challenge in either case, and having the surface move continually in the same direction is much easier than having it oscillate.
This would affect what shapes a drive could be manufactured in, but that's unlikely to matter enough to make the idea catch on.
Who is John Cabal?
I can just imagine the racket this thing would make. As shake velocity increases to reduce seek time, so will the inertia of the object being moved. Your laptop would take on a life of its own, as it bounces across the desk like a thing posessed.
My rights don't need management.
More often than not, power supplies fail because of the fact that they are the first line of defense against the electrical supply with all its surges and spikes. Those spikes cause damage to capacitors and voltage regulators that builds up over time until the part fails. The result is that the power supply ends up delivering the wrong voltage (usually higher than desired on one rail, lower or zero on another) and often pulsating DC.
I've only had two computer PSUs fail. One of them went open on the output, but both coils of the transformer seemed to check good. (I didn't pull it out of circuit, so I can't be certain, but the resistance seemed reasonable.) The other one shut itself off repeatedly. After analysis, it was hitting a thermal cut-off because the fan had stopped spinning.
I've had many laptop power supplies fail, but that's always a cable break or short. I have had three such supplies replaced and a fourth that just started sparking....
Never a single case of a coil shorting. A coil shorting would just result in a voltage drop if it happened on the secondary or a voltage boost if it happened on the primary. It would take a very serious short before you noticed it, unlike motors where a short often means that the motor won't have enough strength to start.
More than that, the part of a hard drive that fails is almost never the motor. It's usually something stupid like a bearing leaking oil all over the platter or a head sticking somewhere and then either gouging the platter or snapping off and then gouging the platter.
The real question is whether micromotive hard drives would be more reliable than spinning ones. Depends. How are those devices lubricated (or are they lubricated)? What prevents a head crash? I assume that the heads aren't supported by a cushion of air, which would be an improvement, but beyond that, they still have the same potential mechanical issues, only now there's more than one or two heads to deal with. The more heads, the more interconnects, and thus the more potential points of failure.
This sounds an awful lot like probe-based storage. If it is, the advantages are in terms of increased density, not increased reliability. We won't know about reliability until those things are widely deployed. Until then, it's just conjecture.
Just my $0.02.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.