Talk:Propagation delay

Is that a typo?
"Wires have an approximate propagation delay of 1 ns for every 6 in of length." should that be inch instead of in? I fail at finding the information in the referenced book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billiska (talk • contribs) 10:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed section about metastability
The following section was removed:


 * Often one logic gate is connected to another that is connected back to the first. When an invalid input is applied to such a system, the amount of time from when the external inputs to the system become stable and valid to the time the output of both logic gates become stable and valid can be far longer than the normal propagation delay. This is the problem of metastability in electronics.

Looping back gates generates latches and is strongly discouraged, but possible. Invalid input relates to observance of setup and hold timing requirements of a synchronous flip-flop. Failure to observe these requirements does precipitates metastability, which has nothing to do with simple, unclocked logic. Michagal 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Typical propagation delay?
I think this article should give some idea as to what the typical propagation delay for a logic gate is. At least the approx order of magnitude - i.e. is it a few ns / ms etc? And does it vary much between different types of logic gates? --Vclaw 23:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like info regarding how propagation delay relates to time rise and time falls and other delays associated with electronics. Jksgvb (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Different definition of Propagation Delay
"Often this refers to the time required for the output to reach from 10% to 90% of its final output level when the input changes."

Another definition (according to http://books.google.de/books?id=q-PwBNuAEVYC&dq=definition+propagation+delay&hl=de&source=gbs_navlinks_s, http://www.ece.msstate.edu/~reese/EE4743/lectures/timing/timing.pdf and many others):

Tplh -- time between a change in an input and a low to high change on the output. Measured from 50% point on input signal to 50% point on the output signal. The ‘lh’ part (low to high) refers to OUTPUT change, NOT input change

Tphl -- time between a change in an input and a high to low change on the output. Measured from 50% point on input signal to 50% point on the output signal. The ‘hl’ part (high to low) refers to OUTPUT change, NOT input change

I think this definition is more common and should therefore be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.3.72.109 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal about definitions

 * Speaking of definitions, they are not directly related and thus shouldn't belong in a single article. The networking, electronics, and physics definitions have more appropriate places, as specified below:
 * The Networking section should be merged with and become a new section in the article Transmission delay, and a page Propagation delay (networking) redirect there.
 * The Electronics section should be moved and renamed to Gate delay as that is by far a more common term, and a page Propagation delay (electronics) redirect there.
 * The Physics section should be merged with and become a new section in the article Velocity factor, and a page Propagation delay (physics) redirect there.
 * Note: as for this page itself, it would be best to make it redirect to Gate delay and appropriate hatnotes added to link to the other definitions. A dab page would not be necessary. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Coping with propagation delay?
The article mentions that propagation delays can cause problems in electrical circuits, but provides no insight into how this problem can be managed. Surely there must be a way to do this, as VLSI would be unweildy without such consideration. Possibly many ways. Can these be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.168.209 (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Split proposal
A split proposal banner was added in March 2015. I don't see any discussion of this proposal so I'll start one.
 * Oppose for now. The three types of propagation are related to the same basic electromagnetic properties. Since there is a common mechanism and the article is not long, I don't see a compelling reason to split at this time. ~Kvng (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)