RE: A couple of questions on clause 52
Tom,
Let us assume that we do as you say (and I imply) and convert everything to
OMA (pk-pk). What other changes are required for the document?
Would we "convert" the Average Rx power (I wouldn't think so)? Would we
change our representation of the link power budgets and penalties to be in
terms of OMA (again, I wouldn't think so)?
In short, this would seem to be a bounded an fairly simple change. What
might I be missing?
jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lindsay, Tom [mailto:TLindsay@stratoslightwave.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 4:13 PM
> To: 'Jonathan Thatcher '; 'serialpmd '
> Subject: RE: A couple of questions on clause 52
>
>
> Jonathan and others-
>
> There are some that prefer OMA (pk-pk) and others that prefer
> OMA/2 (pk). I
> strongly prefer OMA for the following reasons:
> 1. OMA has already been established and is well understood in
> Fibre channel
> and HIPPI.
> 3. OMA represents the contrast between logic 0 and 1, which
> is directly what
> matters.
> 2. OMA is simpler to explain, visualize, and implement (such
> as on a scope.
> Finding toplines and baselines are easier than finding a
> waveform midpoint).
> 4. Some may think they can relate and therefore measure OMA/2
> with average
> power on a power meter. Because of the loose control on
> extinction ratio,
> the two values can be quite different. We should not
> encourage any attempts
> at such a relationship.
> 5. To your question - we must be consistent throughout the
> optical link.
> That is, use the same definitions and units at the
> transmitter as we use at
> the receiver, etc.
>
> Tom Lindsay
> Stratos
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Thatcher
> To: serialpmd
> Sent: 4/16/2001 8:29 PM
> Subject: A couple of questions on clause 52
>
>
> Would someone please remind me:
>
> 1. Why is it that in the OMA tables that we spec the dBm
> range in OMA/2
> instead of just OMA? We specify the Rx in OMA (dBm). Are we
> just testing
> to see if the user knows to add 3dB when working on the link
> budgets? :-)
>
> [rest deleted...]
>
> jonathan
>