John,
Thanks for the response.
I did look at bugg_01_0511 prior to my comment. The presentation only contained IL data, not bend radius data. My statement about 22 AWG was only an example that if the IL required for a 5m twinax copper cabling reach could only be satisfied by a 22 AWG twinax cable, that while the electrical properties would satisfy the objectives the bend radius and probably diameter of said cable would be unlikely to have broad market potential.
Cheers,
Brad,
My apologies for not replying sooner, as I had limited email
access this week due to travel.
There was a considerable amount of discussion on this issue,
which I won’t rehash. One thing that I would say that was left out
is that if you look at bugg_01_0511, data based on 26 AWG and 30 AWG has been
provided to the group for consideration. Therefore, I would say that the
conversation at the March meeting did have an impact, as I am sure we could
agree that the IL data would improve if 22AWG had been provided, but it wasn’t.
Regards,
John
Glad to hear that the meeting was successful.
Was there any consideration for listing the gauge of the
wire for the 5m twinax copper cabling objective?
At the meeting in Singapore, there was a request during the
straw poll to list the gauge of wiring and it did slightly alter the results of
the poll. Even the presentation by Mark Gustlin at last week's meeting
highlighted the importance of bend radius and diameter which can be directly
related to the gauge of wire. Did the study group discuss the bend
radius and diameter requirements? Is it fair to assume that the gauge of
wire for the twinax copper cabling objective is the same used in the Singapore
straw poll (24 AWG)? If 24 AWG is assumed, was there any information presented
or provided to indicate that the cable would be able to meet the bend radius,
diameter and weight requirements for the intended application?
If there is no information provided that indicates 24 AWG
twinax copper cabling can meet the bend radius, diameter and weight
requirements for inter-rack and intra-rack interconnect, then has the study
group sufficiently responded to broad market potential?
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:39 PM, John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear
Study Group Participants,
I
hope everyone had safe journeys home. I have to say it was
one of my more adventurous travels. However, given the success of the
meeting, the travel was well worth it!
The
Study Group was successful in reaching consensus on the objectives, PAR, and 5
Criteria responses. They have been posted, and may be found at http://www.ieee802.org/3/100GCU/index.html.
July
will be the next key milestone, as we look forward to the necessary approvals
to move from Study Group to Task Force.
The
minutes will be posted shortly.
Best
Regards,
John
D’Ambrosia
Chair,
IEEE 802.3 100Gb/s Backplane and Study Group
|