CDRW/CD-ROM drive faster than 52x ?

[oct]

Hello,
can anyone answer this question:

Are there going to CDRW drives faster than the current fastest
of 52x24x52x ?
(I.E.)
Is 52x the "fastest limit" for CDRW Drives and CD-ROM drives ?

Or are there going to CDRW drives
faster than 52x ?

Maybe 52x52x52x ?
No faster than that ?

Thanks, replys are appreciated!

[Matt]

52x using a single laser seems to be the technical limit of the drives due to high rotation speeds. There were faster drives from Kenwood using multi-beam drives up to 72x but the technology went defunt aparently and Kenwood stopped pushing the units out to stores.

We're coming to the end of the CD-RW era and DVD is moving in heavily now. Plextor just announced their first DVD+RW writer a few days ago.

[vinnie97]

Someone needs to bring back multi-beam technology and perfect it!

[cfitz]

How about a 144x drive? Would that be fast enough, at least for now? You can buy such a drive today for around $40. What is this wonder drive? A DVD-ROM drive. 1x of DVD-ROM = 9x of CD-ROM, so a 16x DVD-ROM drive transfers data at a rate equivalent to a 144x CD-ROM drive.

Like Matt said, DVD is the future (at least until it also is overtaken).

cfitz

[jase]

And of course with DVD, it's still possible to ramp the rotational speed much higher than we have currently. In fact I frequently find myself asking why DVD-ROM drives haven't gone any higher than 16x yet, it's not as if the disc is spinning that quickly!

[Pio2001]

DVDs are burned smaller, so the bitrate must be the same, for a slower spinning speed.

At 140x CAV, or 52x CLV, CDs explode http://www.paintbug.com/cdexplode/

[jase]

Cool link, lol.

[dodecahedron]

ya!
they spun DVDs too!

here's a bit copied from the follow up article about DVDs:

The Medical Expert Opinion
The research group contacted a well know traumatologist and consultant in hypersonic traumatology to have the damage assessment and treatment investigated. This is the statement of the medical expert:

Med. Dr. H. Brüggener, of Axis Medical

- The fact that T. Discus Frag, TDF (Trauma diskus fragmentis, injuries from a blown-up disk, editor's comment) is a relatively new concept of injury, seen in the light of medical history, means that we haven't had any cases yet. But they will be around soon, and it is only positive if the medical profession is able to offer a target-oriented action procedure of suitably high quality.

What to primarily observe in a patient affected by TDF is the target point, so that measures can be directed towards the proper part of the body, and an assessment of the degree of coverage, that is, how much of the body has been affected, as a large fragment distribution may need immediate, and medically sophisticated measures, such as a blood transfusion or confinement to bed.

What we have here is full or partial penetration of the abdominal wall, of the tangential shot type with intra-abdominal pressure increase and shrapnel fragments in antero-posterior, and infero-superior directions in those cases where the user have had the computer standing in front of him on the floor. 40 - 60 % coverage is not unlikely.

It is misleading to believe that the subcutaneous fat, which is usually quite substantial in modern computer users, would provide any form of protection in an invasive TDF injury situation. On the contrary. The subcutaneous fat cells are sparsely distributed in the inter-cellular substance, allowing free passage for the invading discus fragments to underlying tissues, which in turn may be aggravated if the victim has consumed carbonised beverages. This is the classical fermentative-associated cascade syndrome, typical of invasive ventricular injuries.

It is important that the treating physician is able to quickly and safely assess the injuries to the one, or those injured, and then remove all fragments, using e.g. Braun's Pincer #5 or Hasting's Pincher. If the fragments are deeply seated, an operation of the injured limb is needed, and local anasthaetic or heavy narcosis should be applied. As acrylic fragments have negligible x-ray density, a CT scan could be opted for, but this is usually a waste of time, valuable time that is better spent at the operating table.

It is important that all the fragments are located, as they could otherwise follow the venous blood vessels to a new location, far from the initial damage or puncture area. Fragments could, for example easily move to the brain and cause secondary injuries there.

by the way, here's a bit from the beginning:

“It just said bang...”, “Can I quote your article in a court case against Microsoft...” and similar, have been in the e-mails. The final proof that our research has a function to fill for humanity was when my previous article was slashdotted (noted on the Slashdot news service) in the beginning of 2002 and took down my web server.

Since our last scientific venture, DVD and DVD-RAM media have become common, and the research committee decided to run a new series of tests. At this point in time (November 2001) there are 16X DVD drives available, and 24X is around the corner. In the inner track a 16X DVD (26,528 rpm) is already at the tensile limit.

hmm 24x around the corner more than 2 years ago...

[dodecahedron]

And of course with DVD, it's still possible to ramp the rotational speed much higher than we have currently. In fact I frequently find myself asking why DVD-ROM drives haven't gone any higher than 16x yet, it's not as if the disc is spinning that quickly!

this has been discussed a while back (can't find the thread), but i think it was Inertia who wrote that as far as rotational speeds, DVD is about 3 times as fast as a CD. so 16x DVD is roughly as fast a a 48x CD, so no we can't expect DVDs to go much faster, just like with CDs its the mechanical strength of the disc that limits the ramping up of rotational speed.

[cfitz]

this has been discussed a while back (can't find the thread), but i think it was Inertia who wrote that as far as rotational speeds, DVD is about 3 times as fast as a CD. so 16x DVD is roughly as fast a a 48x CD, so no we can't expect DVDs to go much faster, just like with CDs its the mechanical strength of the disc that limits the ramping up of rotational speed.

Is this what you were looking for?

http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6708

[dodecahedron]

no, cfitz, that wasn't it.
but a useful link for this discussion, nonetheless.
the thread i was thinking of was longer, and i think it was Inertia who mentioned this 3x difference. but i'm not sure. also i don't think this was the topic of the thread, it came up as a side-issue (which makes it harder to find... )