[SI-LIST] Re: rise time performance
- From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <arpad.muranyi@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:22:35 -0800
Fred,
I am glad we only had a miscommunication here. Yes, I saw
the postings on the simulation errors, and I am glad that
they were found. No, I didn't think you attacked me at all,
I was just surprised that you disagreed with something I thought
was obvious and correct. I just wanted to prevent this thread
getting personal, that's why I ended it that way. I also want
to apologize if I made it feel too personal to you.
Thanks,
Arpad
==============================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Balistreri [mailto:fred@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:11 AM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] Re: rise time performance
Hello Arpad, I believe there was mass mis-communication in this
case. You responded to the message by Jason Jeung which started
the thread. His message was non-specific and a lot of things
could have been implied. My response was to Jeff Loyer's message.
That message clearly indicated ideal components. Incidently if
you have not followed Jeff's response, he found the cause of the
discrepency.
There was no name calling so I do not believe there was any personnal
attack. I think its ok to disagree or have a difference of opinion.
Sometimes that makes life interesting.
I was trying to point out a descrepency in the simulation. Which was
found. If you felt that I attacked you personally, you have my public
appology.
Best Regards,
"Muranyi, Arpad" wrote:
>
> Fred,
>
> Quote from the original posting:
>
> > I have found that using different impedance for a transmission line, I
> > can obtain different rise time at the receiver.
>
> For plain vanilla CMOS circuits "receiver" to me equals capacitance.
> The writer didn't specify what type of receiver he was talking about,
> and whether there was on die termination, or whether he used package
> inductance, etc., so I just assumed that he was talking about a simple
> T-line with a pure CMOS input, and that is what I was responding to.
>
> Also, I didn't intend to say that my simple answer was supposed to
> explain all the higher order effects and everything under the sun.
> >From the author's words it seemed to me that he was a newcomer to SI,
> and I felt that a simple example may have helped him more than RF theory.
>
> Even though I may have answered a different question from what was asked,
> I firmly believe that my posting is correct (as shown by the HSPICE
example
> I included) and therefore there is nothing to disagree with what I stated.
>
> Now, I think we should close this right here, I do not intend to start
> a personal or theoretical argument, and I do not mean to imply that all
> of the other responses were incorrect either.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Arpad Muranyi
> Intel Corporation
> ==========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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:
