RE:
Boaz,
The proposal approved in Irvine was: group delay of 80 ps p-p below 1.56 GHz
with 3% window aperture. For simulation, you'll have to assume linear phase
or add non-linearities within this bound. We're working on gathering
measured phase data that corresponds to a real channel with loss near the
limit, but this may take several weeks. Can Mysticom help with real data?
-Dawson
-----Original Message-----
From: Boaz Shahar [mailto:boazs@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:20 AM
To: 'Kesling, Dawson W'; Serial PMD reflector (E-mail)
Subject: RE:
What about the phase?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kesling, Dawson W [mailto:dawson.w.kesling@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:53 PM
> To: Serial PMD reflector (E-mail)
> Subject:
>
>
> Attached are plots showing a proposed refinement to the XAUI
> compliance
> channel limit.
>
> Some comments received on the first proposal (red line) have
> been addressed
> (green line):
> 1. Skin effect was not well represented. It now dominates below 1 GHz.
> 2. The ISI loss was not sufficient. It is now 4 dB, as agreed
> to at the last
> Interim.
> 3. The low frequency loss was less than most of the data. It
> is now near the
> middle of the measured data.
>
> The refined coefficients are:
> a1 = 6.5e-6
> a2 = 2.0e-10
> a3 = 3.3e-20
>
> -Dawson
>
>
> <<HF.ZIP>> <<LF.ZIP>>
>