To: Sam who wrote (3313 ) 5/13/1998 11:07:00 AM From: Stitch Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 9256
Sam,<<Just some thoughts.>> And some good ones they are. <<I still tend to disagree with her on the point about all of the players being stable future participants,>> I puzzled over this comment a bit also. But I think she means that among the majors there isn't an obvious weak player at this point. In other words, we have to wait to see where the next shoe falls. In the meantime we are faced with continued extraordinary competitive pressures. At least I think this is what she means. But that is one of the reasons we are here. Perhaps through these threads we can cipher where the strengths and weaknesses are. Gillian Munson, by the way, is a knock out looker with the smarts to match. If I was a single (and VERY much younger) guy I'd be carrying a torch.<<Is there any reason why Bigfoot couldn't spin at 5400 with some retooling? Does the larger footprint make it harder or more costly, that you know of?>> Yes, the added mass of the larger disks make it much more difficult and expensive to spin at higher RPMs. For one thing, the motor would be large and therefore dissipate a lot of heat and power. The torque would have to high with a fast ramp to overcome stiction/friction. Its a prohibitive motor design I would guess. Secondly the larger disks would have a greater tendency to runout, velocity, and acceleration problems. These are better understood as flatness and roundness issues for lack of a better description. The larger disks have a tendency to "potato chip" or deform due to sheer gravitational forces. The result can be wobble, microwaviness, and other nasty things which can affect a recording channel or even threaten head flying stability. These all refer to the true geometric form of the disk which are likely to be more difficult to make perfectly round and flat at that size in order to meet stability at higher rotational speed. Best, Stitch