Xref: utzoo comp.arch:6643 alt.next:147 Path: utzoo!mnetor!cxsea!ssc-vax!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!gould!steinmetz!uunet!serene!rfarris From: rfarris@serene.CTS.COM (Rick Farris) Newsgroups: comp.arch,alt.next Subject: Re: The NeXT Problem Summary: Multiple heads per surface aren't all that new. Message-ID: <291@serene.CTS.COM> Date: 16 Oct 88 22:12:48 GMT References: <26435@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <7774@gryphon.CTS.COM> <9287@bigtex.cactus.org> <1988Oct16.054306.1884@utzoo.uucp> Reply-To: rfarris@serene.cts.com (Rick Farris) Organization: Serenity Systems, Del Mar, Ca. Lines: 29 In article <1988Oct16.054306.1884@utzoo.uucp> (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <9287@bigtex.cactus.org> (James Van Artsdalen) writes: >>As an aside, one interesting idea for linear voice coil drives is to >>place several heads along the arm, dramatically cutting the maximum >>seek distance... > >Uh, Jim, you may not be aware of this, but the Fujitsu Eagle has two >heads per surface on its linear actuator. Not a new idea. (Darn, I wish I had the balls to say "Uh, Henry,"...) Actually, mulitiple heads per surface is an old idea. It used to be quite common to have "head-per-track" drives. Of course these were generally single platter machines. I believe the reason for shifting to a multiple platter "head-per-surface" scheme was cost. Actually, there are still a few applications where head-per-track drives are still used. I believe Univac (err, Sperry, errr, Unisys) makes one for military aircraft. 100 MB as I remember. The problem with placing multiple heads on a *moving* actuator is that each head adds mass. It may not have to move as far, but it's slower getting started (for a given servo system) and slower stopping. Any physicists want to talk about the tradeoffs between moving a large mass a short distance, and moving a small mass a long distance? Rick Farris rfarris@serene.cts.com voice (619) 259-6793 POB M KCBIW public access 259-7757 Del Mar CA 92014 ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.uucp 259-3704