Re: Disk II Phase Question

["Bryan Parkoff" <nospam@nospam.com>]

Jplcsch,

    Do you mean that head contains a "BIT" scanner which it is wider than 
normal "BIT" scanner?  It looks like it reads and write each 1 1/2 track 
instead of 1 track.  You receive valid data from full track while you ignore 
invalid data from half track at the same time.  Is it correct?

Bryan Parkoff

"Jplcsch" <jplcsch@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message 
news:41e81c12$0$7090$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
> Eric is right : the problem is the high diaphony of the head.
> If the head was a better head with an accurate resolution so you'll write 
> on
> each track and "half track"
> it's not the case :-(
>
>
> "Bryan Parkoff" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:LrGFd.1846$2e7.1013@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>> Eric,
>>
>> > The head physically has a gap between its poles.  The width of this gap
>> > determines the width of the track that gets written to the disk.  In 
>> > the
>> > Disk II, the width of the head gap is more than 50% of the
> track-to-track
>> > spacing, thus making it impossible to reliably store data on two
> adjacent
>> > stepper-motor positions ("half-tracks").
>>
>>     I am not sure that I can understand your comment.  Is it true that
> head
>> writes data on track 5 which it contains valid data while extra unused
> data
>> can be written on track 4.5 and track 5.5.  Extra unused data is like
>> invalid bit stream.  How can you draw a picture to explain what head gap
> is
>> for.
>>
>> Bryan Parkoff
>>
>>
>
>