From: D. C. Sessions (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Dec 21 1999 - 11:14:21 PST
Charles Bishop wrote:
> You say "for a reflection free system...". Who wants a reflection free system? As long as there
> are no differential reflections, and as long as all receivers on the line reject common-mode,
> what little common-mode signal there is can bounce back-and-forth all day for all I care. Of
> course for low EMI and cross-talk we'd like no common-mode at all, but that's a different issue.
Keep in mind that common-mode potential almost^H^H^H^H^H^H always
affects input delay, so those reflections WILL show up as receiver
jitter. If your application is completely insensitive to jitter,
well and good. Offhand I can't think of any like that.
> > I strongly disagree. The differential impedance for the line is definitely needed. Otherwise,
> there will be reflections at the terminator/transmission line interface for the differential mode of
> the signal. The common mode will not be affected because the approach you suggest will handle the
> common mode. For a reflection free system, BOTH 50 ohm transmission lines and 100 ohm differential
> impedance for the transmission line is required along with a 100 ohm tremination across the
> differential pair.
-- D. C. Sessions email@example.com
**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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 ****
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 11:39:10 PST