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