Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 12 Mar 2007 20:01 On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:41:36 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <public21(a)lakeweb.com> Gave us: >MassiveProng wrote: >> >> Note that TTL was the requisite defining element. > >No, it is, 'Jihad needs scientists' Well, now it's: You're a goddamned retard, as usual, BloomTARD!
From: MassiveProng on 12 Mar 2007 20:03 On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:37:13 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >"nonsense(a)unsettled.com" wrote: > >> Dan Bloomquist wrote: >> >> > MassiveProng wrote: >> > >> >> Note that TTL was the requisite defining element. >> >> Actually "the reason TTL was designed for 5 volts BCC" >> was the requisite defining element. As usual, when >> beaten to a logical pulp, one side attempted to shift >> the goalposts. > >It was nothing to do with 6.3 V AC either. The defining element for a logic voltage choice was then, is now, and will always be SLEW RATE.
From: nonsense on 12 Mar 2007 21:22 MassiveProng wrote: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:34:47 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > (Ken Smith) Gave us: > > >>In article <45F4CF7A.BD6428AD(a)hotmail.com>, >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>[....] >> >>>So Mr Expert. Why isn't TTL made on a 40 Volt process ? >> >>Thats obvious. Its so there is a market for MOSFET drivers. I still want >>a PIC made with Supertex's HV CMOS. >> > > > > Tell us, oh masterTARD, what would the maximum clock be on a 40 volt > logic swing. > > Do you even know what slew rate is? > > The reason it was 5 volts is because it was a reasonable voltage > that could be slewed to at a decent rate. > > NOW, we are at 3.3 volts and even 1.2V. The reason is slew rate, > and the fact that we can transition much faster at those swings than > we ever could at 5V. Here's a clue for you. High clock rates and complex high density chips have a significant problem with heat, the main reason for the ever lowering voltages in CPU's. Long leads, the essence of distributing heat sources, slows things down significantly. > There would be no GHz+ Pentiums if we were still at 5 Volt logic > levels. > Getteth thyself a clue. Speak to yourself, ProngHead.
From: MassiveProng on 12 Mar 2007 20:23 On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:04:02 -0600, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> Gave us: >Eeyore wrote: > >> >> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" wrote: >> >> >>>Dan Bloomquist wrote: >>> >>> >>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Note that TTL was the requisite defining element. >>> >>>Actually "the reason TTL was designed for 5 volts BCC" >>>was the requisite defining element. As usual, when >>>beaten to a logical pulp, one side attempted to shift >>>the goalposts. >> >> >> It was nothing to do with 6.3 V AC either. > >Good Grief! I notice you spew horseshit a lot among the posts we men are discussing. Are you ever going to actually attempt to post something where you expound upon your vast knowledge? Bwuahahahah! I think you are too wussified thinking that all the presumptions you made over the years are going to prove to be utterly wrong. Go ahead, boy... tell us what the truth is, so we can hit you upside the head with our rhythm sticks! Come on, WUSSY! Put up or shut up!
From: nonsense on 12 Mar 2007 21:43
MassiveProng wrote: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:37:13 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >> >>"nonsense(a)unsettled.com" wrote: >> >> >>>Dan Bloomquist wrote: >>> >>> >>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Note that TTL was the requisite defining element. >>> >>>Actually "the reason TTL was designed for 5 volts BCC" >>>was the requisite defining element. As usual, when >>>beaten to a logical pulp, one side attempted to shift >>>the goalposts. >> >>It was nothing to do with 6.3 V AC either. > > > The defining element for a logic voltage choice was then, is now, > and will always be SLEW RATE. Here we go again. Read this and think about your statement for a while. Preferably while wearing a dunce cap. http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~wylie/ICs/monolith.htm and http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=1421 |