David, the issue here is one of: 1) I have a physical phenomenon, what is it, and how does it affect my circuit? AND 2) How can I test to see how this phenomenon affects my circuit? In the case of 1) we are interested in the behavior over a very long period of time and over many events. 2) imposes an economic practicality that implores upon us to find a way to predict 1) from necessarily truncated results. That practical test consideration does not cause the natural process to truncate. Regards, Steve. At 07:31 AM 7/17/2006, David Instone wrote: >Steve, and list > Lets try this another way. The original statement that started > all this was: >>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? >My take on this is that in real world circuits the jitter, or the >effects of the noise, is bounded and only behaves in a Gaussian like >manner within limits. >Why do I say this? Well if I want to produce a signal with random >jitter, ie as per definition unbounded and Gaussian, then I buy a >noise source add its output to my perfect un-jittered signal using a >limiting amplifier and I get a signal with 'Random Jitter'. Well >for a start I have to pay around $5000 to get a noise source that >stands half a chance of actually being Gaussian down to just +/- 7 >sigma and even then unless the waveform I'm adding it to has the >right shape it's still not going to produce truly Gaussian >jitter. So back to reality, is my 50c IC with $50 PSU really going >to have truly Gaussian unbounded jitter out to infinity, or even +/- >7sigma, when my lab source is struggling to do +/- 7 sigma? Not a >chance in hell, well maybe 1 in infinity. > >So the spec says RJ is unbounded and Gaussian, nice, convenient and >simple. But what does it mean in practice? Could it mean that >within the limits of your measurement, and also the ability of the >jitter producing mechanisms in your product, that the jitter >approximates a Gaussian curve, I believe so. Now I'm going to risk >diverting the thread again. A Gaussian curve is a mathematical >function that best fits naturally occurring events that seem to be >random. Does this force randomly occurring events to fit a Gaussian >curve out to infinity? Dave > > >steve weir wrote: >>David, I did not regard it as an attack just an opinion that is >>different and worth discussing. >> >>The basis of our disagreement appears to be in the definition of >>bound. I look at things from the standpoint of electrical noise. >>Time interval in a timing circuit is the result of the magnitude of >>some electrical quantity, and is always causal, each event defining >>a new interval follows the previous. This means that noise >>effectively multiplies the interval by some factor 1/oo <= K <= >>oo. Jitter is still unbounded, but every incremental interval has >>a positive duration. >> >>So far we have been talking about noise in the oscillator itself. >> >>Now, let's see what a PLL does to this quagmire. If noise hammers >>the VCO then the PLL feedback loop applies gain to divide the >>effect of the noise. If we still believe in infinity, infinity >>divided by anything is still infinity. In practice will the >>oscillator stop for an unlimited time? It will only when it >>fails. On the other end, two successive pulses can occur >>essentially on top of each other. >> >>A receiver PLL will take a finite amount of time to realign within >>a fixed amount of phase to the jittered stream for the case of the >>oscillator event, and will take a different, much longer amount of >>time to align to the short term frequency offset that noise in the >>PLL error amplifier causes. The phase error between the source >>stream and the recovered clock in the latter case generally follows >>a classic 2nd order step response. The golden PLL is a PLL with >>specific frequency response and damping. Even if we have a PLL >>that uses N=1, the PLL only starts correcting after a timing error >>is already apparent. For a timing error of sufficient magnitude >>data moves outside the timing window, a data recovery error is >>guaranteed, and no PLL is going to prevent that. A nasty little >>problem that gets into systems is power supply noise coupled into >>the VCO and/or error amplifier by one means or another. For >>systems with high Ns it can get really ugly. >> >>On a slightly different tack, for a PLL using a PFD, the unit >>interval is that at the phase comparator input which is VCO/N or >>Fref. Noise whacking the error amplifier will push the VCO off >>frequency until new information arrives to get it back. If the >>noise jumps the VCO up it can take up to VCO/N cycles before we >>start correcting. If noise slows the VCO down, it will take at >>least one cycle of Fref to get it back. >> >>So, I think the only place that we are having any semantic trouble >>is on the notion of unbounded noise. While we likely will never >>see such a thing, the math really does tell us that an interval can >>go virtually to zero 1/oo, or last forever. I think the important >>part of this concept is that it says that random noise ( jitter ) >>will create data errors sooner or later. And I think doubt about >>that is where the discussion began. The tough issue is finding the >>actual random jitter. The value is often way overestimated because >>deterministic jittter that we have difficulty correlating gets >>incorrectly classified as RJ. People turn the crank on the math >>and conclude that their links are 10E-12 or 10E-14 when they are >>really more like 10E-20 from an RJ standpoint. >> >>Regards, >> >> >>Steve. >>At 06:35 AM 7/4/2006, David Instone wrote: >>>Steve, >>> Firstly, my initial response was in support of Alan's posting >>> not an attack on your reply to him. Your definition follows that >>> of FC and other serial standards. FC defines random jitter in FC-PI-3 as >>>>jitter, random (RJ): Jitter that is characterized by a Gaussian >>>>distribution. Random jitter is >>>>defined to be the peak-to-peak value for a BER of 10-12, taken to >>>>be approximately 14 times >>>>the standard deviation of the Gaussian distribution. >>> >>> >>> So lets look at it both ways >>>>That means that any single incremental interval can never have >>>>jitter of more than -(1UI-epsilon). >>>If that jitter is all Gaussian then hasn't it been truncated, or >>>do we have to say that it's not RJ because it's bounded? >>> >>> >>>>If on the other hand we want to integrate phase compared to some >>>>distant fixed timing reference, then a stream can theoretically >>>>precess total time interval error by an unbounded amount. >>>FC measures jitter against a timing reference derived from a >>>golden PLL. If over any finite period of time the RJ causes the >>>frequency as seen by the PLL to change then the PLL will move the >>>VCO, thus creating a limit to the max observed RJ. If the RJ is >>>distributed so that the frequency does not have to change then the >>>'single incremental interval' effect will apply. >>> Have we not then got a jitter distribution that is Gaussian in >>> form but with limits to the maximum deviations? >>> >>>Regards >>>Dave >>> >>>steve weir wrote: >>>>David, >>>> >>>>I would just like to make certain that we are talking along the >>>>same lines here. The operation of the oscillator, no matter what >>>>its construction is causal. So the closest that any two events >>>>can occur is epsilon. That means that any single incremental >>>>interval can never have jitter of more than -(1UI-epsilon). >>>> >>>>If on the other hand we want to integrate phase compared to some >>>>distant fixed timing reference, then a stream can theoretically >>>>precess total time interval error by an unbounded amount. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>>Steve. >>>>At 03:10 AM 7/4/2006, David Instone wrote: >>>>>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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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