On 2016-May-24, at 1:49 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Brent Hilpert <hilp...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote: >> 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.
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.