What innovative, unconventional cartridge designs can you recommend?

@pindac 

"Assumptions are made and most assumptions are wrong."

Once again, you quote an unnamed individual of your own acquaintance as an authority!  I would remind you that in science, and especially physics, there are two sorts of assumptions.

The first type lists the axioms that are held to apply to the question being asked.

The second type is an assumption (called a guess by renowned physicist Richard Feynman in his lectures Richard Feynman explains science in 60 seconds. : r/videos) about a solution to the question.

A good example is Isaac Newton’s Laws of Motion. In his Principia, Newton sets out his underlying assumptions - the universe is based on a three-dimensional recti-linear system of Cartesian coordinates and time is the same everywhere.

Then he makes a guess - an object travels at constant speed in a straight line unless acted on by a force.

This guess is so far from everyday lived experience that it must have been quite shocking at the time.  For example, Icelanders believed the sun was pulled across the sky by two dogs.  But Newton calculated the consequences of his guess for two bodies attracted by the force of gravity, and they turned out to be remarkably accurate.  He even wrote exact equations for their motions.

It took hundreds of years before a young Albert Einstein challenged Newton’s axioms, and postulated that time is not a universal constant, and that his 4-dimensional space-time is bent by gravity.

Note that Newton’s laws of motion are still used without modification in almost all use-cases, except for the clocks in the satellites used for global positioning systems (and for some experimental physics).

By the way, nobody has ever managed to formulate the exact equations for three bodies attracted by gravity.  Newton's assumptions were slightly wrong in extreme situations but are still extremely useful.

PS: The university I attended in the UK insisted on a pass in O-level Latin even for science degrees.  Maybe so we could read Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in its original form. Or more likely as a form of torture

@devinplombier I'm pleased you found a sense of stimulus and was encouraged to ponder around my inquiry. I feel very very confident other onlookers into this threads recent posts have developed their own inquisitiveness. I'm also confident any who stumble on the recent posts content at a later date, if interested in a certain Cartridges Technology will be pleased with the info supplied around inquiries already made and to be made.  

The fundamental from my side about the referencing the materials selected for use on the modern Optical Read Cartridge has been "an inquiry" made by myself.

The inquiry was made as a result of what I know about Photocells used generally. I was keen to learn where the Typical go to Structure for a Cartridge, was beneficial to a Cartridge dependent on " Photon - Shadow - Electron - Electrical Impulse" 

To save too much delving into the prior posts, which you are more than welcome to analyse for the useful constructive and useful content. It is quite easy to see that I use the prompts "how are" , "how is", "Someone will be much much better for explaining" ,My net remains cast to discover a description that really does make sense of this" , "The inquiry is how does" ,  "I am taking my inquiries away from the Gon Analog Section, an alternate source of info is to be consulted on this same inquiry ".

There is other side commentary that is not an inquiry, that I am contented with, as a reporting on what is to be found broadcast on other forums. 

@pindac Is content in their contribution for requesting info and comments made outside of this info request. There is no unpleasantries projected towards others who are not accepting of such content.

@veridian

What is innovative about the Art 1000? It is Miyata san’s reimagining of the Neumann DST design of the 1960s, a very, very, old design

You have to blame me for not knowing that.

However, it seems to me that the end results are totally new in virtually every respect.

It is quite possible to re-invent the same thing independently, for the same good reasons.