Roy Leventhal wrote:
> But, I would guess that the 20% to 80% IBIS convention was chosen to fit in a
> more linear range of the I/O characteristics. I'm not sure that the choice has
> been a good one.
> Best Regards,
The 20% to 80% convention of IBIS is as good as any for getting
in the rough ballpark. However, since version 2.1 Ibis has
allowed the use of rising and falling waveform tables. One may
replicate the output edge response using this construct to any
desired degree of accuracy. Mine are often within 1 or 2 ps
of Hspice simulations.
-- Scott McMorrow Principal Engineer SiQual, Signal Quality Engineering 18735 SW Boones Ferry Road Tualatin, OR 97062-3090 (503) 885-1231 http://www.siqual.com
--------------ACCB9FCD90FB50ABB738CCC7 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="scott.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Scott McMorrow Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="scott.vcf"
begin:vcard n:McMorrow;Scott tel;work:503-708-4320 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.siqual.com org:SiQual, Signal Quality Engineering adr:;;18735 SW Boones Ferry Road;Tualatin ;OR;97062-3090;USA version:2.1 email;internet:firstname.lastname@example.org title:Principal Engineer note:asdfsdaf fn:Scott McMorrow end:vcard
**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to email@example.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list ****