This not a limit without real world consequences... I was hamstrung with the 1 foot per nanosecond limitation back in 1979. We had a CGI rack with a 6 foot backplane clocked at 25 MHz Of course 1 foot/ns is a theoretical limit. Although we had 40 ns we ran into not only the time it took to get from the bottom(CPU) to the top (MPU) of the 6 foot backplane but keeping 32 parallel bits in sync. We had so many errors that we had to design a repeater in the center of the backplane to re-sync the bits. The challenges of keeping parallel data in sync in a copper medium is why parallel SCSI and IDE hard drives were jettisoned for high speed serial. With present technology it's easier, cheaper and more reliable to use ultra fast serial rather than slower 32 or 64 bit wide parallel busses to achieve the same effective data rate. This is another one of those real world things that the casual bystander finds hard or refuses to believe. The fact that serial is better that parallel is not intuitive but true.
Ralph DiMola IT Director Evergreen Information Services rdim...@evergreeninfo.net -----Original Message----- From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of Mark Wieder via use-livecode Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 9:47 PM To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Cc: Mark Wieder Subject: How big is a nanosecond? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEpsKnWZrJ8 -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
