RE: [SI-LIST] : Interesting theoretical questions

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: subas ([email protected])
Date: Mon Nov 01 1999 - 20:08:12 PST

Hi Jian,

When the signal is digital, its not exactly necessary that you have clocks
for synchronisation. Provided the path delay and switching time
(capacitance) is taken into consideration, we can predict the state of the
swiches correctly. Playing with these variables, it can be possible to
"synchronise" the signals.
If such machines are made, they will be the ultimate, limited only by the
process technology. "Clocks" are used because we are trying to play safe
that signals do synchronise but if you think carefully, this clock business
is all but arbitrary. Look at the Intel chips for example, they sell chips
which can be overclocked easily to higher frequencies to get higher

My two cents worths!


-----Original Message-----
From: Jian Zheng [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 9:29 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] : Interesting theoretical questions

Following are my answers to the questions (check keyword ANSWER in the
following attached context):
> 3) Has there been any computer made without any clocks (asynchronous)? How
> fast is this computer?

ANSWER: I have no idea about it. However, it seems to me it is impossible.
For a computer without a clock, it has to be analog. When I was in school, I
learnt that there were analog computers. However, you can not guarantee the
accuracy because analog signals are affected by noise. In order to guarantee
the accuracy, we have to digitize the signals. When we digitize it, we
should need the clocks for synchronization.

> Thank you very much.
> Subas

**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to [email protected] In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at ****

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 11:39:30 PST