In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 at 16:10:20, Jerome Grimbert wrote: >(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] makes some magical things to make me read >>} > Wafer memory... >>} "Wafer Scale Integration" I believe he referred to it as at the time. >> >>Bzzzz. Wrong. It refers to a bigger microdrive like device, with magnetic >>tape. The same infinite tape trick as in microdrive, no rewind needed. >>It was the alternative to floppy. (or the evolution of classical tape). > > >Ian was right - Sinclair was definitely developing a wafer chip - or >whatever the name was. > >The thought was also that being so large, it could incorporate parallel >logic. The idea behind this was that if there were faulty logic paths >in production, then others could take over. > >........ or maybe other logic paths could be created to bypass faulty >sections. > >Even with current low cost silicon, there is still a high rejection >rate. > >That, as was said , cannot be afforded with a bigger chip.
At the time, it was one of those technical 'glitches' that held a great idea back. Had he ( Sinclair ) been successful, he would have made far more millions than he ever did with computers, and his numerous other inventions ( anyone got a figure on how many inventions ... ? ). Probably at some time in the future fabrication techniques for silicon 'wafers' will improve so much that this 'glitch' will be overcome. Then again other technologies come along too, with even more potential. Does anyone know if he still holds the patents ? -- Malcolm Cadman
