Re: [10GBT] Updated Tables
Hi Sailesh,
At the meeting last week, there was a question raised (by Jose) about the PAM-8 SNR requirement of 19.9 dB for BER=1e-12 (column 3 of your table). I think he said that it was actually ~1dB worse than that (~20.9dB), but I'm not positive. There was a discussion, but I don't think the matter got resolved, so can you clarify?
Thanks,
Vivek
-----Original Message-----
From: stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org]On
Behalf Of sailesh rao
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:02 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GBT@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [10GBT] Updated Tables
10GBT'ers:
In the attached, I've updated the 3 tables in our July presentation based on
the following:
1. Change PAM12 symbol rate to 825Ms/s from 820Ms/s.
2. Delete PAM10 entry.
3. As Luc pointed out, add a 1.2dB emissions penalty for PAM12 due to its
higher transmit PSD.
4. As Jose pointed out, subtract 0.4dB from the PAM12 emissions penalty due
to the THP peak voltage adjustment.
Next, I integrated the WGN for 1E-12 BER over the Nyquist frequency range to
get a "wideband noise tolerance" measure for the two proposals. Finally, I
summed the noise immunity penalty and the emissions penalty for the PAM12
proposal to form a "Total EMI Penalty" metric over the PAM8 approach.
In Models 1 and 3, the penalty works out to be 2.6dB and 2.2dB respectively
for PAM12 over PAM8. However, in Model 2, which represents the existing
cabling infrastructure, the penalty for PAM12 over PAM8 works out to a
whopping 4.0dB!!
Regards,
Sailesh Rao.
srao@phyten.com
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page - FREE
download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/