Re: [BP] Simulations for EIT
Maybe next should be same as victim and Fext should be higher.
... Ric
-----Original Message-----
From: DAmbrosia, John F [mailto:john.dambrosia@TYCOELECTRONICS.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 7:16 PM
To: STDS-802-3-BLADE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [BP] Simulations for EIT
Howard,
My only concern with your suggestion regarding the amplitude of the
crosstalk is that we agreed to use the lower voltage because that is the
only level that can be guaranteed. Your simulation condition supplies
that the higher level is available, and ok that is fine, but if it is
available for the aggressor it would be available for the victim as
well.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Howard A. Baumer [mailto:hbaumer@BROADCOM.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:17 PM
To: STDS-802-3-BLADE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [BP] Simulations for EIT
Charles,
When are we planning the next channel adhoc phone conference?
Should we have one sometime next week? One possible set of goals would
be to report the results for the listed General Idea #1, simulation of
the selected channels with the selected conditions.
I noticed an item missing from these conditions, the transmit
transition time. What does the group thing we should put this at? Also
a second set of simulations on these channels under more worse case
condtions should be done. I'd recommend the change to the conditions to
be: Tx amplitude target=800mVpp, crosstalk=1200mVpp; Tx equalization for
crosstalk set to the preset state; add ideal delays between the
transmitter and channel and between the channel and receiver such that a
worse case result is obtained. Any other worse case conditions not
already covered?
Howard