Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
substitution, why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?
Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.
I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.
Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
but not quite!
"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1175631365.733441.289330@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com:
Yum, looks likr I get first bite. >:)
> Why do hard disc drives use magnetic discs?
>
> Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
> substitution, why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
> that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?
>
Possibly because decades ago, there were no blue laser diodes?
> Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
> magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
> environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.
>
It's been tried, but I'll not try to pr-empt the words of those who know
far more history than I do. As to volume, a single platter of a hard disk
can hold a few hundred GB. There is an optical disk being developed that is
said to have more, but I don't think it's on sale yet. Current blue diode
disks don't hold anything like this much. Multiply by four or so, per
layer, but not by a hundred.
> I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
> equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
> shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
> require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
> risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.
>
Less soze, no, as I said. Less time? Definitely not. And if you spun an
optical disk as fast as a hard disk, the laser would have to be extremely
strong to write to the surface it as it passes by so rapidly.
> Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
> space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
> tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
> but not quite!
>
If you can find a green laser in a DVD, and prove you found it, grab that
time machine with both hands and patent it before anyone else gets there
first.
On 3 Apr 2007 13:16:05 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Hi:
>
>Why do hard disc drives use magnetic discs?
High data density and speed, leveraging mature technology
incrementally updated for reasonable cost effectiveness.
>
>Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
>substitution,
They are, but it'd cost a lot. Too much mostly because Bill
Gates & Co. let windows become so bloated it now needs
Gigabytes of space, but the other software manufacturers are
to blame as well.
>why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
>that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?
Is what you have in mind as cheap and fast? Usually optical
is not.
>
>Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
>magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
>environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.
What makes you think a "magnetic disruption" is a
significant problem? What makes you think there is any
less vulnerability at all? A hard drive has a GREAT deal of
mechanical movement, other devices meant for lesser read and
write cycles might be viable if cheap enough, small enough,
and fast enough, but if only more expensive, no smaller and
no faster, the one thing you assume is not a clear victory.
>
>I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
>equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
>shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
>require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
>risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.
You seem unable to use current technology if you find it
such a problem. Thus, if we introduced this tech you want,
you would be as likely to just find it a problem and pretend
you have an advanced insight on some other thing that isn't
here yet either, only a hypothetical device which in
practice may also have drawbacks.
>
>Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
>space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
>tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
>but not quite!
>
Forget ideals and focus on real needs. The market doesn't
really need a concept drive they need something proven
through years of testing. That at an attractive price
point. Eventually there will be more optical alternatives
but it would be foolish to "dump all magnetic discs" before
the replacement technology is ready.
Your ideas are akin to "cars suck, dump all cars and use
space ships", but wordier.
Radium wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages
> over magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability
> to environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.
Not so. To prove it to yourself, go out and buy a 200 odd gig hard
drive. Rip it open, and discard all parts other than the rotatable
disk(s) itself. Now compare its volume with that of a DVD disk,
which holds maybe 8 gig.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http:/X-Mozilla-Status: 0009et>
Radium wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Why do hard disc drives use magnetic discs?
>
> Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
> substitution, why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
> that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?
>
> Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
> magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
> environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.
>
> I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
> equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
> shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
> require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
> risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.
>
> Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
> space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
> tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
> but not quite!
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Radium
>
You don't need permission from me -- or from Bill Gates -- to do so.
You may need to hack the OS a bit to boot/run from the DVD of your choice,
which is easier with a *NIX than a WinWhatever. Then boot from and run
from that DVD, and report back on how fast it is, relative to the
normal HD you will then be wanting back. Oh, and make sure you use a
PC with limited RAM, to feel the effects of swapping to your DVD.
--
Cheers, Bob
> Radium wrote:
> >
> ... snip ...
> >
> > Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages
> > over magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability
> > to environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.
>
> Not so. To prove it to yourself, go out and buy a 200 odd gig hard
> drive. Rip it open, and discard all parts other than the rotatable
> disk(s) itself. Now compare its volume with that of a DVD disk,
> which holds maybe 8 gig.
Not quite a fair comparison. A double sided double layer DVD can hold
around 20 GB. A similar blu-ray (405 nm) disc could hold 5 to 10 times
that. A holographic memory of the same volume could hold much more.
And when is the last time your harddrive was affected by an "environmental
magnetic disruption" short of an EMP from a nuclear blast? :)
Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.
I wonder why no one has commented on him (original topic starter) that he
saying they use green lasers for dvd.
"Bob Willard" <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote in
news:hJadnX0_E5qvGo7bnZ2dnUVZ_rqhnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Radium wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> > Why do hard disc drives use magnetic discs?
> >
> > Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
> > substitution, why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
> > that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?
> >
> > Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
> > magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
> > environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.
> >
> > I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
> > equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
> > shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
> > require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
> > risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.
> >
> > Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
> > space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
> > tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
> > but not quite!
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Radium
> >
>
> You don't need permission from me -- or from Bill Gates -- to do so.
>
> You may need to hack the OS a bit to boot/run from the DVD of your choice,
> which is easier with a *NIX than a WinWhatever. Then boot from and run
> from that DVD, and report back on how fast it is, relative to the
> normal HD you will then be wanting back. Oh, and make sure you use a
> PC with limited RAM, to feel the effects of swapping to your DVD.
> --
> Cheers, Bob
"Sam Goldwasser" <sam@red.seas.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:6w3b3gmiva.fsf@red.seas.upenn.edu...
> Not quite a fair comparison. A double sided double layer DVD can hold
> around 20 GB. A similar blu-ray (405 nm) disc could hold 5 to 10 times
> that. A holographic memory of the same volume could hold much more.
Now you've done it, Sam...Radium will be after us now re his
latest and greatest fantasy, the holographic-storage laptop. And
it will be entirely YOUR fault....
On Apr 4, 9:34 am, "LaserUser" <SPAMFILTERcumul...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> I wonder why no one has commented on him (original topic starter) that he
> saying they use green lasers for dvd.
>
> "Bob Willard" <BobwB...@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote innews:hJadnX0_E5qvGo7bnZ2dnUVZ_rqhnZ2d@comcast.co m...
>
> > Radium wrote:
> > > Hi:
>
> > > Why do hard disc drives use magnetic discs?
>
> > > Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
> > > substitution, why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
> > > that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?
>
> > > Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
> > > magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
> > > environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.
>
> > > I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
> > > equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
> > > shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
> > > require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
> > > risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.
>
> > > Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
> > > space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
> > > tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
> > > but not quite!
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Radium
>
> > You don't need permission from me -- or from Bill Gates -- to do so.
>
> > You may need to hack the OS a bit to boot/run from the DVD of your choice,
> > which is easier with a *NIX than a WinWhatever. Then boot from and run
> > from that DVD, and report back on how fast it is, relative to the
> > normal HD you will then be wanting back. Oh, and make sure you use a
> > PC with limited RAM, to feel the effects of swapping to your DVD.
> > --
> > Cheers, Bob
Cant find info now but last year radium was found to be FOS. Instead
of Radium he should be called Random.
> "Sam Goldwasser" <sam@red.seas.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:6w3b3gmiva.fsf@red.seas.upenn.edu...
> > Not quite a fair comparison. A double sided double layer DVD can hold
> > around 20 GB. A similar blu-ray (405 nm) disc could hold 5 to 10 times
> > that. A holographic memory of the same volume could hold much more.
>
> Now you've done it, Sam...Radium will be after us now re his
> latest and greatest fantasy, the holographic-storage laptop. And
> it will be entirely YOUR fault....
Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.
"LaserUser" <SPAMFILTERcumuluss@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4613d3d1$0$9063$e4fe514c@dreader12.news.xs4al l.nl...
> I wonder why no one has commented on him (original topic starter) that he
> saying they use green lasers for dvd.
Actually, I did think about that one...I just felt it was like a waste of
effort to
submit a correction.
On Apr 4, 11:09 am, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:
> Radium will be after us now re his
> latest and greatest fantasy, the holographic-storage laptop.
In which the holographic-storage laptop is fully laseronic and does
not require electricity to any extent, but instead, is powered by a
remote nuclear fusion reactor.
Instead of electronic chips, this PC contains laseronic chips [laser
circuits instead of electric circuits]. No magnetism, no electricity.
Just 400 nm lasers power by a long-distance Deuterium-Tritium reactor.
All storages devices are solid-state. No discs, no tapes. Everything
is purely hardware. There is no microcoding. Everything is hard-wired,
except for the RAM chip. The laseronic RAM chip acts as a solid-state
HDD. Windows 98 SE is the OS and Mozilla 1.8b is the browser and,
Creative Music Synth is the MIDI synth.
Last but not least, all the lasers use a wavelength of 400 nm.
"Each machine instruction (add, shift, move) was implemented directly
with circuitry. This provided fast performance, but as instruction
sets grew more complex, hard-wired instruction sets became more
difficult to design and debug."
I still prefer the "hard-wired instruction sets"
"a bug could often be fixed by replacing a portion of the microprogram
rather than by changes being made to hardware logic and wiring."
But I still perfer the "hardware logic and wiring".
Yup. Just for personal preference, I also like my PC to be massively-
parallel.
The power supply starts off as a high-power 400 nm laser that is
pumped by D-T fusion at a power station. As the laser light runs to my
home, it does not do so at full-blast -- that would mean total
destruction in everything in the path of the laser. Instead this
gigalaser is used to power smaller less intense 400 nm lasers, these
lasers are less intense but powerful enough to energize my photonic
PC. Withing the PC itself, the intensity of the 400 nm laser light are
much less still, just like the electric voltages in conventional PC
are much lower in the motherboard, HDD, and other devices, than the
110 volt socket with takes in the initial electricity.
On 5 Apr, 00:44, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> It doesn't matter what you tell him, he's a troll.
Radium reminds me of certain bright, but uninformed, ten-year-olds
that I have met. Is there a possibility that he has some kind of
condition? Like being autistic or having development issues, or just
being a snot-nosed little prick?
Radium wrote:
> On Apr 4, 11:09 am, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Radium will be after us now re his
>> latest and greatest fantasy, the holographic-storage laptop.
>
> In which the holographic-storage laptop is fully laseronic and does
> not require electricity to any extent, but instead, is powered by a
> remote nuclear fusion reactor.
>
> Instead of electronic chips, this PC contains laseronic chips [laser
> circuits instead of electric circuits]. No magnetism, no electricity.
> Just 400 nm lasers power by a long-distance Deuterium-Tritium reactor.
> All storages devices are solid-state. No discs, no tapes. Everything
> is purely hardware. There is no microcoding. Everything is hard-wired,
> except for the RAM chip. The laseronic RAM chip acts as a solid-state
> HDD. Windows 98 SE is the OS and Mozilla 1.8b is the browser and,
> Creative Music Synth is the MIDI synth.
>
> Last but not least, all the lasers use a wavelength of 400 nm.
>
> quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcode :
>
> "Each machine instruction (add, shift, move) was implemented directly
> with circuitry. This provided fast performance, but as instruction
> sets grew more complex, hard-wired instruction sets became more
> difficult to design and debug."
>
> I still prefer the "hard-wired instruction sets"
>
> "a bug could often be fixed by replacing a portion of the microprogram
> rather than by changes being made to hardware logic and wiring."
>
> But I still perfer the "hardware logic and wiring".
>
> Yup. Just for personal preference, I also like my PC to be massively-
> parallel.
>
> The power supply starts off as a high-power 400 nm laser that is
> pumped by D-T fusion at a power station. As the laser light runs to my
> home, it does not do so at full-blast -- that would mean total
> destruction in everything in the path of the laser. Instead this
> gigalaser is used to power smaller less intense 400 nm lasers, these
> lasers are less intense but powerful enough to energize my photonic
> PC. Withing the PC itself, the intensity of the 400 nm laser light are
> much less still, just like the electric voltages in conventional PC
> are much lower in the motherboard, HDD, and other devices, than the
> 110 volt socket with takes in the initial electricity.
>
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:46143859.FE7DCC20@earthlink.net
> LaserUser wrote:
> >
> > I wonder why no one has commented on him (original topic starter) that he
> > saying they use green lasers for dvd.
>
> It doesn't matter what you tell him, he's a troll.
"contrex" <mike.j.harvey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175764053.946053.66950@n76g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
> Radium reminds me of certain bright, but uninformed, ten-year-olds
> that I have met. Is there a possibility that he has some kind of
> condition? Like being autistic or having development issues, or just
> being a snot-nosed little prick?
The smart money at this point seems to be on the
latter...
On Apr 5, 2:07 am, "contrex" <mike.j.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Apr, 00:44, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > It doesn't matter what you tell him, he's a troll.
>
> Radium reminds me of certain bright, but uninformed, ten-year-olds
> that I have met. Is there a possibility that he has some kind of
> condition? Like being autistic or having development issues, or just
> being a snot-nosed little prick?
Contrex, I dont hae a problem with his conditions he may have, I do
have a problem of him picking up a magazine and discussing it as if he
had first hand knowledge on the particular topic. I applaud him for
trying to grasp technology and some day he may be good, he just needs
to stop pretending that he has knowledge on the topic. Kid has a ton
of spare time on his hands. Look at his postings, can you imagine if
he spent all that time actually learning about technology...he would
be good. At least he gets people talking :)
On Apr 5, 5:00 am, danek <d...@mmll.mit.edu> wrote:
> "no magnetism, no electricity" = no light
Sorry. I was talking about the use of electricity/magnetism for power,
communication, and storage.
I am aware that light is made of electric and magnetic fields and that
a laser does involve electrons at some level to produce its light even
if the laser is not powered or pumped by electricity.
On 5 Apr, 21:33, "Radium" <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2:07 am, "contrex" <mike.j.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Radium reminds me of certain bright, but uninformed, ten-year-olds
> > that I have met. Is there a possibility that he has some kind of
> > condition?
>
> I've been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome.
Yes, but you might well say that if it wasn't true, as part of the
trollery.
HDD data density is over 10 times more than 50 GB BR disk.
What "risk of cancer" are you talking about? Are you completely clueless,
like dumb blonde?
"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175631365.733441.289330@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi:
>
> Why do hard disc drives use magnetic discs?
>
> Since non-volatile flash RAM chips are not yet feasible for HDD-
> substitution, why not replace the magnetic platters with optical ones
> that use 400 nm lasers to write, read, erase, and re-write data?
>
> Optical platters using 400 nm lasers would surely have advantages over
> magnetic platters. More data per area and less vulnerability to
> environmental magnetic disruptions -- to name a few.
>
> I say dump all magnetic discs and replace them with the optical
> equivalent. Use 400 nm lasers because 400 nm is the sweet spot between
> shortest wavelength and non-ionizing radiation. Shorter wavelengths
> require less size to write/read data. Too short and you increase your
> risk of cancer. So use 400 nm and dump those useless magnetic discs.
>
> Red lasers -- used by CDs -- are horrible because they require so much
> space on the disk to write data. Green lasers -- used by DVDs -- are a
> tad better. Blu-ray -- at 405 nm -- is almost at the best wavelength
> but not quite!
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Radium
>
On Apr 5, 6:55 pm, "Alexander Grigoriev" <a...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> HDD data density is over 10 times more than 50 GB BR disk.
What if -- in my theoretical optical HDD -- the recording/playback
laser is made thinner and the optical platters made the same size as
magnetic platters, and if this optical HDD has the same amount of
platters as magnetic HDD?
> What "risk of cancer" are you talking about?
Direct exposure to extremely short-wave radiation can cause cancer.
You know, melanomas, etc. are often associated with frequent exposure
to short-wave UV from sunlight.
As for 400 nm, this is long-wave UV, and if often referred to as
"black light". So 400 nm is safe UV.
On 5 Apr 2007 20:09:28 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 5, 6:55 pm, "Alexander Grigoriev" <a...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> HDD data density is over 10 times more than 50 GB BR disk.
>
>What if -- in my theoretical optical HDD -- the recording/playback
>laser is made thinner and the optical platters made the same size as
>magnetic platters, and if this optical HDD has the same amount of
>platters as magnetic HDD?
>
LOL
What if - since we're allowed to make up imaginary hardware,
we consider a hypothetical hard drive with thinner platters
about the same size as Texas that spin fast enough to pull
small asteroids in and hold a few Googlebytes each?
>> What "risk of cancer" are you talking about?
>
>Direct exposure to extremely short-wave radiation can cause cancer.
>You know, melanomas, etc. are often associated with frequent exposure
>to short-wave UV from sunlight.
>
>As for 400 nm, this is long-wave UV, and if often referred to as
>"black light". So 400 nm is safe UV.
> On 5 Apr 2007 20:09:28 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 5, 6:55 pm, "Alexander Grigoriev" <a...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> HDD data density is over 10 times more than 50 GB BR disk.
> >
> >What if -- in my theoretical optical HDD -- the recording/playback
> >laser is made thinner and the optical platters made the same size as
> >magnetic platters, and if this optical HDD has the same amount of
> >platters as magnetic HDD?
>
> LOL
>
> What if - since we're allowed to make up imaginary hardware,
> we consider a hypothetical hard drive with thinner platters
> about the same size as Texas that spin fast enough to pull
> small asteroids in and hold a few Googlebytes each?
A "thinner" laser is not fantasy. Search for "near field recording".
Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.
"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175805217.328809.164290@n59g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> On Apr 5, 2:07 am, "contrex" <mike.j.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Radium reminds me of certain bright, but uninformed, ten-year-olds
>> that I have met. Is there a possibility that he has some kind of
>> condition?
>
> I've been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome.
>
Okee Dokee, shall we presume you are not Schizophrenic then?
Diagnostic Criteria For Asperger's Disorder
A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least
two of the following:
1.. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as
eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate
social interaction
2.. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental
level
3.. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or
achievements with other people (e.g. by a lack of showing, bringing, or
pointing out objects of interest to other people)
4.. lack of social or emotional reciprocity
B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests,
and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
1.. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted
patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2.. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or
rituals
3.. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger
flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
4.. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social,
occupational, or other important areas of functioning
D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g.,
single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)
E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in
the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior
(other than social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in
childhood
F. Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental
Disorder or Schizophrenia
Replace magnetic with optical 
Linear Mode
