> If you try to build a mechanical computer, the main thing stopping you
> from running it faster is inertia. Components have to have connecting
> rods to transmit mechanical force from one component to another, and the
> further apart these components are, the larger and heavier the
> connecting rods. So you have to waste power accelerating them, and then
> waste power bringing them to a halt again. The faster you want to
> compute, the more force you end up needing to use, and the more power
> you waste.

Not to mention inducing vibrations that can skew results - or even 
physically damage the device.

>
> Now consider trying to build an electronic computer. Now the problem is
> that the long connections from component to component act as tiny
> capacitors, each one a low-pass filter trying to filter out your
> high-frequency data signals. And the only way to overcome this, it
> seems, is to use higher and higher voltages.
>

Not to mention inducing harmonics (yes, even with digital signal) that 
can skew results - or even worse physically damage the device.

> Inertia verses capacitance. Mechanical force verses voltage. It's in
> interesting parallel...

Not only are both signal analysis and vibration dynamics using the same 
differential equations, they even use the same symbols for schematics 
diagrams (a resistor looks exactly like a spring, a capacitor looks 
exactly like a damper or shock absorber)!

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message