RE: PAM-5, what are your BERs ?
Ed:
At 02:17 PM 29-02-2000 -0500, Edward Chang wrote:
>We are discussing the product developments, which are based on proved
>theorems and equations to mathematically calculate all designs. After that,
>setting up tests to confirm that the test data, and the analyses are
>correlated. Otherwise, repeat the procedures to achieve the goals.
>Finally, it will go through extensive system tests and BER tests to certify
>a product.
>
>Engineers do not just "looking at a scope", then make the comment. They
>theorize it, quantify it, then make comments.
right. that may have been a bad choice of analogy, on my part. i apologize
if i have offended anyone. in my read of this thread things seem fairly clear --
i gather, from all of this, that Vivek has a lot of experience in this, perhaps
you do too. it's my experience that Vivek's assessment is accurate, as posted.
>Unless, some one has extensive communication product development experience
>in the past, it is hard for a one to grasp, and appreciate the contents of
>the comments put forward on reflectors by those serious contributors.
agreed. in any event a more rigorous proof is best delivered in an HSSG
meeting. here, we can best highlight one or more concerns.
>[...]
>The cascading of the frequency response of each component to predict the
>over-all system frequency response is a well known basic tool implemented by
>all circuit designers. It is as predictable as, 1+1 = 2.
well, i suppose so, though i'm not certain i follow your analogy. here, i want
to suggest that observation of "a closed eye diagram" may be 'necessary'
but isn't always -sufficient- indication of intolerably high BER. i believe there
must be additional work.
--
J M Wincn, Staff Engineer
Cielo Communications, Inc.
325 Interlocken Pkwy, Bldg A
Broomfield, CO 80021-3497
Voice: 303-464-2264
Cell: 408-394-5283
Fax: 303-460-6348