| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hey Jonathan/Ryan, On slide 6, there is a list of electronically-performed functions. After CDR power consumption decreases over time, its power consumption is still close to 0.5W, which is significant. It isn't directly compared with the power consumed by the other electrical functions, just inferred on the "Size" slide 9. Are those total powers estimated using today's values for the other functions, or using similarly-projected power-reduced values? I.e. should the powers for the 100m and 20m reach modules on slide 9 be closer to 2.5W and 2.0W, or even 2.0W and 1.5W? Makes a difference for the percentage power consumed by CDR. Thanks, Jack From: Jonathan King <jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:44 PM To: <STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jonathan King <jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <a_flatman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Abbott, John S Dr" <AbbottJS@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Amezcua, A. (Adrian)" <adrian.amezcua@xxxxxxxxx>, Andy Moorwood <amoorwood@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Anslow, Peter" <panslow@xxxxxxxxx>, Anthony Torza <anthony.torza@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Bernstein, Gary" <GBernstein@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Brad Booth <Brad_Booth@xxxxxxxx>, Daniel Dove <ddove@xxxxxxx>, Ephrem Wu <ephremw@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gary Nicholl (gnicholl)" <gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx>, Harry Fu <harryf@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jack Jewell <jack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeffery Maki <jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx>, John Petrilla <john.petrilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keith Nellis <knellis@xxxxxxxxx>, "Kolesar, Paul" <PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Lian Zhao <lzhao@xxxxxxxxx>, Martin Gilpatric <marting@xxxxxxxxxx>, <Phil.McClay@xxxxxx>, Mike Peng Li <mpli@xxxxxxxxxx>, <mike.dudek@xxxxxxxxxx>, <mnowell@xxxxxxxxx>, Oren Sela <orens@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Piers Dawe <piers.dawe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rabinovich, Rick (Rick)" <rick.rabinovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Rick.Pimpinella@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Coenen <rcoenen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ryan.latchman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Scott Kipp <skipp@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Shmuel Levy <shmuel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Swanson, Steven E" <SwansonSE@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tracy, Nathan L" <ntracy@xxxxxx>, Vipul Bhatt <Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx> Subject: 802.3_100GNGOPTX : 'Cost power and size differences of proposed MMF PMDs' - seeking supporters/detractors Dear all , Ryan and I are seeking supporters and detractors for the attached joint presentation: “Cost, power, size differences of proposed MMF PMDs: 20 m reach un-retimed vs 100 m reach retimed baseline”, which will be submitted for to the May meeting of 802.3bm in Victoria, BC. The slides conclude that “• By about the same time 802.3bm is technically stable (H2 2014) there will be no significant power, cost, or size, advantage to be gained from an un-retimed short reach PMD. – A 20 m reach un-retimed PMD would not meet the criteria for distinct identity. • The 20 m reach objective is met by the 100 m reach PMD, a separate 20 m PMD is not required” If you agree (or disagree) with the presentation and wish to be listed as a supporter (or detractor) of the presentation, please let me know by e-mailing me. Thanks ! Best wishes jonathan |