🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <759.6820T...@Redrobe.demon.co.uk>,
Mi...@Redrobe.demon.co.uk (Mike Redrobe) wrote:

> Hi, Jan Eric Andersson , on 30-Aug-96 15:36:58 you scribbled....
> >p.k...@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) wrote:
> >
> >>I -was- asked by a local software agent (email me if you really want to
> >>know which one) to photocopy my install diskettes, both sides, and fax
> >>that thru to them as proof of purchase when getting an upgrade...
> 
> >Did the disks actually work afterwards? Wouldn't the blast of static
> >from the copier do nasty things to them?
> 
> static won't harm em, but the dust+stuff that's attracted by the
> static might grind a bit ;)

He probably means X-rays, which a large number of 1970s photocopiers
produced while scanning.  X-rays can, indeed, remagnetise some parts
of a floppy disk.  How do I know ?  I did a physics degree, wondered
about it, and tried it with a 5.25 inch disk.  After two or three
copies I was getting general read failures.  So not only could
photocopying a floppy not produce the copy required, it might also
make the original unreadable.  Not a good backup method.

I think the construction of a 3.5 inch disk would greatly reduce the
exposure to the X-rays, besides which newer designs of photocopiers
don't waste so much power producing so much irrelevent EM radiation.

Simon.
-- 
Lest anyone think advertisers aren't beginning to catch on, a recent Letter
to the Editor from a disillusioned direct marketer with, apparently, some 
experience on Usenet noted that "Usenet users are some of the cheapest 
bastards on the planet."    -- Paul Havemann on alt.internet.media-coverage