Re: [BP] Simulations for EIT
Howard,
It might be worse than this. We allow all 3 Tx taps to be
adjusted. My understanding was that we did this to allow for a
nominal Tx voltage of less than 1000 mV ppd, which implies that
minimum Tx amplitude could be less than 800 mV ppd.
It could be argued that we would probably only use this
on short links and that, therefore, the received signal-to-
interference would tend to even out. So your proposed conditions
look reasonable.
Steve A.
-----Original Message-----
From: Howard A. Baumer [mailto:hbaumer@broadcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:17 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