[ibis-macro] Re: AMI Flow BIRD - Editorial Comments: Explaining what is meant by "convolved with the Rx filter".
- From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "IBIS-ATM" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:42:02 -0700
Walter,
This is much better now, except for some problems with English...
If I may make a suggestion, I would write it this way:
| Step 6b. If the Rx GetWave_Exist is False, the output of
| Step 5 is convolved with the impulse response of the
| Rx filter. The impulse response of the Rx Filter may
| be obtained by deconvolving the input and output of
| Step 3.
Thanks,
Arpad
===================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:22 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; IBIS-ATM
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI Flow BIRD - Editorial Comments:
Explaining what is meant by "convolved with the Rx filter".
Arpad,
Thank for making your concern clearer. You want to know how to get the
"Rx
Filter".
| Step 6b. If the Rx GetWave_Exists is False.
| The output of Step 5 is convolved with the Rx filter.
|
I suggest the following:
| Step 6b. If the Rx GetWave_Exist is False.
| The output of Step 5 is convolved with the impulse
| response of the Rx filter. The impulse response of
| the Rx filter can be determined by using deconvolution
| on the input and output of step 3.
Walter
Walter Katz
303.449-2308
Mobile 303.883-2120
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
www.sisoft.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:05 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI Flow BIRD - Editorial Comments: Explaining
what is meant by "convolved with the Rx filter".
Scott, Walter,
Aside from your valid comments, I think we need to keep in mind
that Walter wrote the suggested text for a reason you may not
be aware of.
This suggested change seems to be an attempt to address my first
comment I wrote about the flow BIRD draft on August 16 (see below).
I was commenting that we shouldn't say "convolved with the Rx filter"
in the AMI specification without at least giving some hints to the
reader what this "Rx filter" really is or how it can be obtained,
or where it is available in the flow.
It seems that this recent suggestion attempts to introduce some
terminology in the General Assumptions section of the specification
so that later in the flow section the text could refer to it by
using the words "convolved with the impulse response of the filter"
instead of "convolved with the Rx filter".
In my opinion, this change doesn't really address the main problem
I was having with the text of the flow BIRD. Whether we say "Rx filter"
or "impulse response of the filter" is irrelevant. The issue is
that the flow doesn't have a "node" (so to speak) where this data
is available. This data has to be derived somehow from other data.
This and how this could be done is not mentioned in the BIRD, and
this was my complaint. This latest wordsmithing doesn't address
that problem.
Thanks,
Arpad
======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
Other related posts:
