[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi! |
A|A
(n n)
\_/
Maarten ter Huurne wrote:
> (...) I didn't connect the grounds because I was out of wire.
> Is there a reason why the grounds should be connected? (...)
Wow! I'm impressed that the "thing" worked without ground
connection! Imagine this: you have two circuits, each one
supplied by an independent battery. Then you connect the two
circuits by a single wire. What do you have? Well, you still
have two completely independent circuits, because there are no
way back from one to the other. No way back means no way the
electricity can cycle, `id est', no "circuit". In your device,
very interesting, by the way, there are more than one wire
connecting the computers, but none is a "common reference",
the "standard zero". I think that the signals weren't positive
or negative all at the same time, so the electric flux could
returned by one of the other wires, what probably stressed the
coupling transistors of both computers. No, I don't think it
was enough to melt them down, but you shouldn't put them to the
test again without the ground connections.
A question raised by someone else was left in the air: what
is the (estimated) transference rate of the device? I don't
consider transfering files by disk a "cute" way of data
interchange. Even if the transmission rate is not as high, the
single fact that no mechanical medium is involved is already a
gain (of course, if the difference is reasonable - we must
remember that disk transference must be counted twice, once for
writing and one more time for reading - I doesn't require any
"Superman" to win this race, just a well done coding...)
Keep on the good job...
... Cyberknight...
<Over>
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the
quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
****
