First, to wlvbrit - welcome aboard. As for the the "varying together" vs. your preferred "varying independently", you seem to miss the point. The point is, as I understand it, that the CPU and clocking mechanisms, per the patent, are placed on the same substrate. Thus, as the environment may change for one component, the other, interdependent component is subjected to the exact same environmental changes. So their performance "varies together". Using "vary independently", you lose this point, in that if these components were placed far apart, in a differing environment, then they would indeed "vary independently". While I get your intent, hopefully you get why your change in terms could distroy the point attempted to be made.

To Opty: To respond to your question re: limits, I think I already nailed that (unless an EE posts a dispute). It seems that two components on the same substrate/chip that are designed to act in direct proportion (due to such placement) would continue to operate in this fashion until the system fries or freezes to the point of total non-performance of one of the components. There's your limit. That's why, in my earlier post, I said that I didn't get the question (as it seemed too simplistic), and then offerred "Limitations? When smoke starts pouring out of the box! LOL". And I said this because it is far more likely that the componentry would cook rather than freeze due to cold.

Hope this helps....and I strongly suspect that I am correct.

But, then again, I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE