I'm with you on that one, Lee. There is just too much going on when RF measurements are made in environments that are significantly unmatched. Best Regards, Michael Vrbanac On 12/17/2012 3:32 PM, Lee wrote: > I'm not sufficiently convinced by the paper that I plan to deviate from 50 > /100 ohm which matches most connectors and test equipment. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph.Schachner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:27 PM > To: jeff.loyer@xxxxxxxxx > Cc: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Routing diff pair HDMI signals at 85 Ohms as opposed > to 100 Ohms reduces radiation? > > Re: "Much of the reasoning for 85 ohms is outlined in the paper "Improve > Storage IO Performance by Using 85Ohm Package and Motherboard Routing"..." > I bought that paper today and read it, after seeing your reference. The > paper seeks to prove that 85 ohms is in fact better, and has a small (one > sentence) explanation in the first section that gives a couple of reasons > why that should be so. I think I am within the license terms if I quote > that one sentence: > "Generally speaking, the reasons for 85Ohm design over 100Ohm include less > loss, ease in routing (cost saving), and better overall impedance match > (and hence better interconnect performance) when via on board and vertical > path in package are considered. " > > The rest of the paper seems focused on demonstrating, by simulation and > measurement of a particular structure, that 85 ohm design is in fact > better. It does not go further into the reasoning behind why we expect > that that is so. Is there something more that you could say about that? It > does not give any guidance in the way vias should be constructed to yield > better impedance, for example. > > ---- Joe S. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 forum is accessible at: > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list > > List archives are viewable at: > //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list > > Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: > http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5966 - Release Date: 12/17/12 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 forum is accessible at: > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list > > List archives are viewable at: > //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list > > 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 forum is accessible at: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list List archives are viewable at: //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu