24 May
2016
24 May
'16
2:09 p.m.
On 2016-May-24, at 1:49 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Brent Hilpert
<hilpert at cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
Yes, I examined this in some detail last year after mention on the list, and wrote it up:
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~hilpert/e/corerope/index.html
The short of it is, schemes like TROS are using simple induction / transformer principles
with a selective weave through the transformer cores to represent the data. In contrast,
(AGC-style) core ropes are using switching cores and core-logic principles to also do the
1-of-n address decoding within the cores. The address decoding requires a varied weave of
address wires through the cores, in addition to the selective weave for the data. The
read/access operation also becomes far more complex for the AGC-style core rope.
We were discussing this last year, perhaps
I'm being pedantic but I would note that while, as you say, there is commonality of
principle in use of induction and the selective weave to represent the data, TROS and core
rope (of the sort used in the AGC) also have differences in their principles of operation
- they're not just physical variations on each other.
My understanding is that both used drive lines that either went
through the transformer, or around it, to either couple a drive line
to a sense line, or not. In the case of CRM, the wires are essentially
braided with the cores, while in TROS, holes are punched in strips of
flex circuit to break one of the two paths the drive line can take for
each sense position, and the transformer core is a two-part
rectangular thing rather than a little toroid.
If I'm wrong, or missing some fine point distinguishing them, I'd
welcome corrections or additional information.