Re: Dances with wolves I mean Pairs!
Roger, no one has said that your approach is without merits.
Indeed, I think we could agree on your list of good points below rather
quickly.
But if you are not going to address the other concerns as well, then we
will get nowhere.
You will have your chance at our approaches, never fear. You are at this
moment the beneficiary of aggressive company support and have a lead, but
we are working on things when we are not arguing with you!
There is, of course, the possibility that a concensus cannot be reached.
This would not be the first time that has happened (Betamax vs VHS,
Select-a-Vision vs Laservision, 33-1/3 RPM vs 45 RPM, 8-track vs cassette
tapes come to mind).
Larry
At 09:46 AM 5/15/00 -0700, R karam wrote:
>
>
>Hi Dan and Larry
>
>I repeat that we agree with you- that using the "unused" pairs for mid span
>insertion sounds more conservative and may be a better idea.
>
>at the same time, I look at the signal pair for a new switch, and say.
>there is a good chance that I will be able to place all the circuity inside
>the phy, possibly come up with a way to use very little silicon to
>do current management out of the center tap. and I am done.
>what I mean is (what we called switches, and filter can go inside
>the phy) now, the detection is done without any added parts on the
>board, not only that, a bonus to this is 2000v isolation and better
>transient performance, I think as good as it can be .
>
>at this point, I don't think that I can have all the data I need to prove
>it all, but we need to know more about your schemes so we can judge
>how solid they are. You can Impress too!- you know.
>
>for instance, I am curious to see how Dan's approach of using a diode
>in the DTE will deal with transients, how low would the threshold of the
>Transient detection device have to be to protect a diode. in there
>where our approach is the classic magnetic differential signal kinda
>of simple but will always get you there.
>
>roger
>
>
>
>
>
>