The source of your confusion is that you can get reflection at an impedance change, and you can get reflection at a parasitic element. In the former case you have constant, homogeneous line impedance Z1 before the change, and constant, homogeneous line impedance Z2 after the change, so you get a constant sized step back (rho=(Z2-Z1)/(Z2+Z1)), i.e. reflection amplitude form this particular discontinuity will not change over time, unless the incident signal changes again). On the other hand, a parasitic per definition is a localized deviation, i.e. spatial extent of the order of your signal rise time or less. In this case you see a "lumped, total effect", and the longer your signal rise time, the more this effect gets smeared out in time (smaller nut wider). You can picture a parasitic as a short section of transmission line with an impedance that is either higher (inductive) or lower (capacitive) than the line impedance before and after - and with a prop delay shorter than your signal rise time; in this picture you actually see TWO reflections (from the discontinuity at the beginning and the discontinuity at the end) lumped together, which explains the different behavior - if your signal rises very slowly, then both discontinuities see almost the same signal level (and same change) at every instant, and their responses mostly cancel - thus a long reflection (approx. as long as the rise time), but very shallow. On the other hand, a faster rise time means the signal level at the second discontinuity is lagging the first one quite significantly, and the composite reflection becomes larger - but on the other hand, the game is more or less over after the signal rise time (plus prop delay through the short section), so the reflection is shorter as well. Yet another way to explain this is that the parasitc has a frequency dependent impedance; e.g. a parasitic capacitance C will have an impedance of Zc=1/(2*pi*C*f), thus since Zc varies with frequency, your reflection amplitude will vary with frequency. On the other hand, a homogenous, lossless transmission line has an impedance that is independent of frequency, hence no influence of the rise time (remember, rise time is proportional to 1/frequency). Hope that helps Wolfgang "Preethi Ramaswamy" <preethi.gowtham@xxxxxxxxx> 05/06/2008 05:16 PM To "wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> cc si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject Re: [SI-LIST] Relation between slew rate and ISI Thanks Wolfang. That helps me concenptually justify what is happening in my simulation. I found that reflections are the cause of fast case being worse than slow at the point where I'm tapping the signal. I'm still finding it hard to wrap my head around the fact that faster the rise time, more pronounced the reflection is. How do you explain that formula ? Reflection due to parasitics is caused due to discontinuity in the line impedance. So, everytime a signal hits a parasitic, based on the impedance of the parasitic, there is a positive or negative reflection and the amplitude of the reflection is proportional to the discontinuity in the impedance. Why should this amplitude be any different for different slew rates ? Your input is much appreciated. On 5/6/08, wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx <wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: What your worst case will be depends on a variety of factors. If your main limitation is the drive signal rise time, then yes, slower rise time will degrade ISI as well as your vertical eye opening. Same goes if your path is dominated by skin effect and/or dielectric loss. On the other hand, if you have capacitive or inductive parasitics in the path, they will cause reflections, which will get more pronounced (larger amplitude but shorter duration) with faster signal rise times. As a rough rule of thumb, reflection = (approx) Tc/Tr x 100% where Tc is the time constant of the parasitic (Zo x C / 2 for capacitive, 2 x Zo x L for inductive), and Tr is the signal rise time (assuming linearly rising edge from 0% to 100%). A slower rise time will smear out the reflection in time, so it's longer but not as high. If the reflection happens to come back at the middle of the data eye then it will reduce your vertical eye opening. On the other hand, even in this case rise time has only second order influence on data dependent jitter (ISI) - shorter rise times create larger reflections, but at the same time shorter rise times reduce the timing hit of a given size reflection, so in first order approximation that is a wash. Wolfgang "Preethi Ramaswamy" <preethi.gowtham@xxxxxxxxx> Sent by: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 05/06/2008 03:52 PM To si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx cc Subject [SI-LIST] Relation between slew rate and ISI I'm looking for some information on the relation between slew rate and ISI effect on high speed memory data signals. From my SI simulation I'm observing that a signal looks much worse with a higher slew rate than a lower slew rate. But the point I'm tapping is not at the receiver but a point before the receiver. I don't expect the signal to look as good as at the receiver but I was hoping that the trends match. At the receiver itself, the fast corner signal looks better than the slow corner signal. The bus is properly terminated. Looking at the waveform, I see that in the fast corner case, whenever there is a 1010 pattern, the signal is not reaching its intended Vhigh and Vlow level. A similar thing happens at the slow corner but the signal swing is much better. Hence, the eye diagram in the fast corner is almost closed whereas the slow corner looks open. While searching some artciles on this, I found the opposite stated. It said that ISI effects are more pronounced in the slow corner case and Crosstalk is more pronounced in the fast corner case. Any experience or insight into this topic would be very helpful. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 technical documents are available at: http://www.si-list.net 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 technical documents are available at: http://www.si-list.net 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