Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oakhill.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!hunter
From: hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: CD cleaner and laser MTBF.
Message-ID: <523@oakhill.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 11:07:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: oakhill.523
Posted: Tue Sep 10 11:07:29 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 11:48:29 EDT
References: <236@cmu-ri-rover.ARPA>
Reply-To: hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales)
Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx
Lines: 27

In article <236@cmu-ri-rover.ARPA> nivek@cmu-ri-rover.ARPA (Kevin Dowling) writes:
>CD cleaner:
>
>I still think CD cleaners are kind of silly but I take pretty good care of
>my discs and haven't had any skipping problems that weren't quickly wiped
>off. But for those interested I saw that Radio-Shack has a lower cost
>version of some CD cleaners I've seen. Page 26 of the new RS catalog: $12.95

	The instructions on some of the CDs I have purchased state
explicitly that CDs should be wiped with a soft cloth (*no liquids) in
a radial direction (i.e. from the center of the disc outward.) This
makes sense given the way that the information is layed out in
concentric rings and the type of error-correction scheme.  A tangential
or circular scratch would destroy a lot of data and, more importantly,
have a better chance to destroy the redundant info, as well.

	Since *all* of the CD cleaners that I have seen involve wiping
the disc while spinning it, doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that
these devices are not only unnecessary but also undesirable?



-- 
Motorola Semiconductor Inc.                Hunter Scales
Austin, Texas           {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!hunter

(I am responsible for me and my dog and no-one else)