Hi:

Below is an example of "parallel Hz"

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/2427/clocksignalexample8is.gif

If each clock signal is 1 Hz, and you have a billion of them,
staggered such that every 1ns part of the CPU can start, and finish,
an instruction - making the effective 'clock rate' 1 GHz.

The benefit of using a billion 1 Hz clock signals to make a clock rate
of 1Ghz is that such a system would not get as hot as system running
one 1 GHz clock signal . While the overall amount of heat generated by
both systems maybe around the same, the system running a billion 1 Hz
clock signals will have less heat per area than the system running one
1 billion Hz clock signal. Hence, the former system is far less
vulnerable to thermal damage than the latter.

Let's say two CPUs of different frequencies have been running at the
same voltages and amperages and for the same amount of time. The CPU
with a higher-frequency will be hotter than the CPU with a lower-
frequency.

In a "parallel Hz" device the bits maybe completely in serial and the
algorithms and tasks maybe totally non-parallelizable. However, the
frequency is still parallel.

The device I am proposing is completely serial except for the clock
rate.

My proposed device is completely serial except for the frequency. It
uses "parallel Hz" but in terms of everything other than frequency, it
is totally serial and non-parallel. Only the clock rate is parallel.

Parallel Hz = a method using N number of 1 Hz clock signals to gain a
clock rate of N Hz.

My design has a clock rate of 4 GHz that is obtained by using 4
billion 1 Hz clock signals. But otherwise, it is completely serial.

This design would go great for any application that cannot be
efficiently parallelized [in terms of bits]. Examples of such are
arithmetics and Boolean logic. Parallel Hz would work for serial-only
problems because the bits are still in serial. Parallel Hz does not
require that the bits be parallel.

There is a significant difference between "parallel Hz" and "parallel
bits".

A parallel printer is an example of a device that uses "parallel
bits". This has nothing to do with "parallel Hz" because both serial
and parallel devices can use parallel Hz.


Thanks,

Radium

Radium wrote:
> 
> Hi:


  Bye:

-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Radium wrote:

> Hi:
> 
> Below is an example of "parallel Hz"
> 
> http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/2427/clocksignalexample8is.gif
> 
> If each clock signal is 1 Hz, and you have a billion of them,
> staggered such that every 1ns part of the CPU can start, and finish,
> an instruction - making the effective 'clock rate' 1 GHz.
> 
> The benefit of using a billion 1 Hz clock signals to make a clock rate
> of 1Ghz is that such a system would not get as hot as system running
> one 1 GHz clock signal . While the overall amount of heat generated by
> both systems maybe around the same, the system running a billion 1 Hz
> clock signals will have less heat per area than the system running one
> 1 billion Hz clock signal. Hence, the former system is far less
> vulnerable to thermal damage than the latter.
> 
> Let's say two CPUs of different frequencies have been running at the
> same voltages and amperages and for the same amount of time. The CPU
> with a higher-frequency will be hotter than the CPU with a lower-
> frequency.
> 
> In a "parallel Hz" device the bits maybe completely in serial and the
> algorithms and tasks maybe totally non-parallelizable. However, the
> frequency is still parallel.
> 
> The device I am proposing is completely serial except for the clock
> rate.
> 
> My proposed device is completely serial except for the frequency. It
> uses "parallel Hz" but in terms of everything other than frequency, it
> is totally serial and non-parallel. Only the clock rate is parallel.
> 
> Parallel Hz = a method using N number of 1 Hz clock signals to gain a
> clock rate of N Hz.
> 
> My design has a clock rate of 4 GHz that is obtained by using 4
> billion 1 Hz clock signals. But otherwise, it is completely serial.
> 
> This design would go great for any application that cannot be
> efficiently parallelized [in terms of bits]. Examples of such are
> arithmetics and Boolean logic. Parallel Hz would work for serial-only
> problems because the bits are still in serial. Parallel Hz does not
> require that the bits be parallel.
> 
> There is a significant difference between "parallel Hz" and "parallel
> bits".
> 
> A parallel printer is an example of a device that uses "parallel
> bits". This has nothing to do with "parallel Hz" because both serial
> and parallel devices can use parallel Hz.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Radium
> 
   Ya gots your persumptions ronggg.
   If each processor drew a microwatt, a billion would draw (and 
dissipate) a kilowatt.

On May 2, 4:46 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Below is an example of "parallel Hz"
>
> http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/2427/clocksignalexample8is.gif
>
> If each clock signal is 1 Hz, and you have a billion of them,
> staggered such that every 1ns part of the CPU can start, and finish,
> an instruction - making the effective 'clock rate' 1 GHz.
>
> The benefit of using a billion 1 Hz clock signals to make a clock rate
> of 1Ghz is that such a system would not get as hot as system running
> one 1 GHz clock signal . While the overall amount of heat generated by
> both systems maybe around the same, the system running a billion 1 Hz
> clock signals will have less heat per area than the system running one
> 1 billion Hz clock signal. Hence, the former system is far less
> vulnerable to thermal damage than the latter.
>
> Let's say two CPUs of different frequencies have been running at the
> same voltages and amperages and for the same amount of time. The CPU
> with a higher-frequency will be hotter than the CPU with a lower-
> frequency.
>
> In a "parallel Hz" device the bits maybe completely in serial and the
> algorithms and tasks maybe totally non-parallelizable. However, the
> frequency is still parallel.
>
> The device I am proposing is completely serial except for the clock
> rate.
>
> My proposed device is completely serial except for the frequency. It
> uses "parallel Hz" but in terms of everything other than frequency, it
> is totally serial and non-parallel. Only the clock rate is parallel.
>
> Parallel Hz = a method using N number of 1 Hz clock signals to gain a
> clock rate of N Hz.
>
> My design has a clock rate of 4 GHz that is obtained by using 4
> billion 1 Hz clock signals. But otherwise, it is completely serial.
>
> This design would go great for any application that cannot be
> efficiently parallelized [in terms of bits]. Examples of such are
> arithmetics and Boolean logic. Parallel Hz would work for serial-only
> problems because the bits are still in serial. Parallel Hz does not
> require that the bits be parallel.
>
> There is a significant difference between "parallel Hz" and "parallel
> bits".
>
> A parallel printer is an example of a device that uses "parallel
> bits". This has nothing to do with "parallel Hz" because both serial
> and parallel devices can use parallel Hz.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium

That's hilarious.

Dave.

Robert Baer wrote:

> Radium wrote:
>
> > Hi:
> >
> > Below is an example of "parallel Hz"
> >
> > http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/2427/clocksignalexample8is.gif
> >
> > If each clock signal is 1 Hz, and you have a billion of them,
> > staggered such that every 1ns part of the CPU can start, and finish,
> > an instruction - making the effective 'clock rate' 1 GHz.

Hey idiot.

You already asked this one before. It's as stupid as all your other ideas.

Graham

On Wed, 02 May 2007 07:46:36 +0100, Radium <g...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If each clock signal is 1 Hz, and you have a billion of them,
> staggered such that every 1ns part of the CPU can start, and finish,
> an instruction - making the effective 'clock rate' 1 GHz.

I note that actually producing a compiler that can exploit an ILP
of 10**9 is left as an exercise for the reader. That would be a 51
on the Knuth scale of difficulty, no?

> My design has a clock rate of 4 GHz that is obtained by using 4
> billion 1 Hz clock signals. But otherwise, it is completely serial.

Very Big LOL
Let me guess, you are mentifex in disguise.
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/
http://en.nothingisreal.com/wiki/The_Arthur_T._Murray/Mentifex_FAQ

Radium <g...@gmail.com> wrote:
: Hi:
:
: Below is an example of "parallel Hz"
:
<snip rant>

"Sir, there is a multi-legged creature crawling on your shoulder." [Spock, 
c.1967]

"Radium" <g...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> Below is an example of "parallel Hz"
>
> http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/2427/clocksignalexample8is.gif
>
> If each clock signal is 1 Hz, and you have a billion of them,
> staggered such that every 1ns part of the CPU can start, and finish,
> an instruction - making the effective 'clock rate' 1 GHz.
>
<snippity>

> Thanks,
>
> Radium
>


LMAO!!!!!!!!!!  And just how are you going to make a CPU with a billion separate 
clock lines going into it, not to mention all the supporting inter-CPU 
communication circuits?  All those CPU "parts" need to be managed somehow... the 
microcode to do that would require gigabytes of memory on the CPU.  Heat would 
be the least of your worries.

The OP needs to redirect his/her energy to earthbound reality and stop watching 
so many StarTrek reruns.


-- 
Dave M
MasonDG44 at comcast dot net  (Just substitute the appropriate characters in the 
address)

Life is like a roll of toilet paper; the closer to the end, the faster it goes. 

x-posting reduced

Robert Baer wrote:
> Radium wrote:
>
>> Hi:

<snipped typical Radium troll>

>   Ya gots your persumptions ronggg.
>   If each processor drew a microwatt, a billion would draw (and
> dissipate) a kilowatt.

Hmmm....... not seeing Radium over here on Supernews.  Don't see the flood 
messages on Supernews either....... double hmmmmm........  Gee, I wonder if 
there is a correlation?