In article <o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05>, "Paul M. Cook" <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <spambait@milmac.com> wrote in message
>news:JZzDi.1266$7P7.177@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>> In article <13dtgtthjufh65f@news.supernews.com>, "HeyBub"
><heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> >> In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
>> >> <pmcook@gte.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.
>> >>
>> >> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed?
>> >
>> >Waves hand!
>> >
>> >I do! I do! Pick me!
>>
>> You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite?
>
>First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers
>have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be
>passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any
>clock we can employ

You think so, do you?

1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light
moves in a nanosecond?

> therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we
>are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle. So
>in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were 1
>inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it already
>is.

I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't matter at
all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the
approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and three
*does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing processors
in that range.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.