[SI-LIST] Re: Fibre channel interconnect margins
- From: David Instone <dave.instone@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: steve weir <weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:10:29 +0100
Steve,
I didn't disallow an infinite time between events. I allow for the
time between events to be between 0 and infinity, but not negative.
Thus if I'm measuring the time between edges and my reference I can
measure an infinite time between my reference and a following edge but
never more than 1 UI between the last edge and my reference. That last
edge could of course be from a edge that should have occurred an
infinite amount of time in the future, but from the point of view of the
measurement it's only 1 UI early.
Regards
Dave
steve weir wrote:
> David, I disagree. It does not change causality. It changes the
> incremental delay between two events. Imagine for a moment that we
> have a simple relaxation oscillator as the basis of our VCO. In the
> presence of an infinitely large noise pulse, which is the limit for
> random noise, it takes an infinite amount of time for the ramp to
> reach the threshold. The next cycle will not begin untilt he current
> cycle completes. It may sound like something from Douglas Adams, but
> it really is mathematically and physically sound.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve.
> At 01:50 AM 7/4/2006, David Instone wrote:
>> Because it makes for a nice simple clean definition. However, I
>> believe you have to take the real world into consideration. Allowing
>> the RJ to be really unbounded means that each edge in a bit stream
>> could be advanced or delayed by an infinite amount. Taken to
>> extremes this means that the order of edges could be reversed.
>> This is obviously absurd, the measured time between edges can reduce
>> until it is zero, it cannot go negative. The time between edges can
>> of course go to +ve infinity, but that isn't a bit error, the system
>> has failed or been switched off.
>> steve weir wrote:
>>> RJ really is unbounded by definition.
>>>
>>> Steve.
>>> At 09:46 AM 7/3/2006, Steven Kan wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:48:56 -0700
>>>>> From: Alan.Hiltonnickel@xxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Fibre channel interconnect margins
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, I think that companies DO ship products that toss a random
>>>>> error approximately every 10e-xx or so. Why? Because the statistical
>>>>> theory behind those errors is that random/Gaussian noise is, by
>>>>> definition, unbounded - errors are a fact of life, even if the error
>>>>> rate is very low.
>>>>>
>>>> I suppose we're way off in the weeds, here, but is the noise actually
>>>> unbounded? Or does it just behave in a Gaussian-like manner within
>>>> the realm
>>>> of times/rates that matter for shipping product? I suppose if I sat
>>>> in my
>>>> chair for long enough, a truly unbounded system might cause a gold
>>>> bar to
>>>> pop into existence on my desk, but my empirical GBR (gold-bar rate) is
>>>> currently 0.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Instone
>> Oxford Semiconductor Ltd
>> 25 Milton Park
>> Abingdon
>> Oxon ox14 4ea
>> UK
>> www.oxsemi.com
>> +44 (0)1235 824963
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Dave Instone
Oxford Semiconductor Ltd
25 Milton Park
Abingdon
Oxon ox14 4ea
UK
www.oxsemi.com
+44 (0)1235 824963
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
