Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: net.arch,net.micro.68k Subject: Re: Asynchronous State machines Message-ID: <6138@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Wed, 13-Nov-85 19:12:38 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.6138 Posted: Wed Nov 13 19:12:38 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Nov-85 19:12:38 EST References: <389@aum.UUCP> <6077@utzoo.UUCP>, <395@aum.UUCP> <6111@utzoo.UUCP>, <401@aum.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 28 > Even with FTTL you should have about two 50 ns sync times. (Do the math) > this then has the clock to output at the end tagged on. This assumes that > you have a state machine running that fast. You can run things a little faster than that. (Yes, I've done the math.) State machines running that fast are not insuperably difficult. > ... it's just that I know a lot of people who argued > this way who when they started actually using real world delay line and > adding up min/max times changed their tune rapidly. Well, when I started looking at real-world delay lines and adding up the times, I said "forget this garbage" and went back to using a state machine that didn't have things like +-10% all through the spec. 10% here and 10% there adds up awfully fast. As I've mentioned, I am told that one can get delay lines with tighter specs; I just didn't happen to find any. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik James Freed Aurora Systems San Francisco, CA {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry