[SI-LIST] Re: 4-port node numbering
- From: "Clewell, Craig" <Cclewell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx'" <ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:08:10 -0500
Ray,
In my opinion (A) is really the way I would think of it for the same reason
you cited. The other reason I would think of it this way is due to the
natural progression from a 2 port network, which is usually tackled before
the 4 port. It's much easier, and more practical when working with a 2 port
to have them numbered 1 and 2, and when you add two more ports it makes
sense that they would be 3 and 4.
I believe that after you understand network analysis port numbering is
really up to the user as long as they can keep the ports straight in their
mind. The equations for conversions become a pain in the giggy since you
have to renumber the ports since most are written using convention (A). If
you change the port numbering scheme and then try to use them it is much
easier to end up with an incorrect solution.
...just my own thoughts.
Regards,
Craig Clewell
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Anderson [mailto:ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:49 PM
To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ray Anderson
Subject: [SI-LIST] 4-port node numbering
I have general question regarding 4-port s-parameter files. Does anyone
know if there is a generally accepted industry standard for node
numbering?
I have seen both of these schemes used in various places:
a)
+-----+
1---| |-----2
| |
3---| |-----4
+-----+
b)
+-----+
1---| |-----3
| |
2---| |-----4
+-----+
It has been my observation that scheme a) is the most common and
intuitive (when I think S12 I think transmission and when I think S13 I
think crosstalk) however scheme b) has popped up often enough to be a
possible contender.
Comments???
-Ray
Raymond Anderson
Senior Signal Integrity Staff Engineer
Product Technology Department
Advanced Package R&D
Xilinx Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
List FAQ wiki page is located at:
http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ
List technical documents are available at:
http://www.si-list.org
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
or at our remote archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
|**************************************************************************|
This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged
material. Any review, distribution, reliance on, or other use of this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please immediately notify
the sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system. Thank you.
|**************************************************************************|
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
List FAQ wiki page is located at:
http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ
List technical documents are available at:
http://www.si-list.org
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
or at our remote archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
Other related posts:
