Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Following are the notes from the 350uH sub call held on
6/10/08 to reconcile technical approaches to analysis and laboratory proof,
offline from the main group That goal appears to have been achieved. These minutes
have been reviewed by the attendees via email and have attained email
consensus, but a formal approval was not taken. They are provided FYI for
other members of the 350uH ad hoc who were unable to make the call. -george zimmerman Date: 6/10/08 Attendees: Mike Grimwood – Broadcom Yair Darshan – Microsemi ( At 8:08 AM PDT, the attendees were asked if they had read
and understood the IEEE Patent policy, they confirmed. There were no
disclosures. Yair opened with a summary of the understanding reached by
the email discussion: -
He had tried to use
the tools from midspan tools to check how sensitive the channel is to changing
the OCL. -
These indicated
that the System Channel Model changes are small (~1dB or less). However,
based on our discussion his thinking has moved to checking the transient
response, rather than the steady state response that the System Channel Model
reflects. -
His intent is to
look at different OCLs to determine the minimum OCL, with his key question as
to whether we could go to the 70% droop, something intermediate, or do we need
to stay at 80% droop. There was some discussion where Yair focused on DUT #6 and
whether it might be an invalid data point. He suggested that he might ask
UNH to pursue further testing of DUT#6, at least to determine it’s
sensitivity vs. OCL. Mike Grimwood clarified that the two questions we were
considering were:
There was further discussion that we would not want to
ignore a device that failed, but would likely pursue further testing. Yair volunteered to go back to UNH and ask them to test
sensitivity vs. OCL for DUT #6, and, based on those results might run further
tests at an intermediate OCL. Yair polled the group as to whether they would consider
changing the specification to be equivalent to a lower inductance if tests show
that dut#6 passes with an inductance between 170uH and 350uH . 3 members
responded affirmatively, with discussion suggesting that they would consider
it, but more tests would be required to actually confirm such a decision. Yair asked whether the issue of magnetics saturation by the
test waveform had been resolved. Yair suggested that George ask Mike & David Law
for a 2 hour block before the meeting in We then reviewed the notes and the following action items:
Fred joined the call during the notes review and asked a
question regarding the length of the killer packet response used in the tests.
It is much longer than the DDJ test pattern. George deferred to Dan
Dove and the two agreed to take the subject offline. Call was adjourned at 8:58 AM PDT. George A. Zimmerman Founder & CTO, PHY Technologies Solarflare Communications gzimmerman@solarflare.com Tel: 949-581-6830 x2500 Cell: 310-920-3860 |