Fangyi,
I sent you an e-mail privately which disputes your analysis.
Do you dispute my claim that your proposed BIRD will not correct the
statistical flow with legacy models that do not support the extra IR
inputs and outputs?
So can we at least agree that:
1. The statistical flow in BIRD 166 is correct.
2. The statistical flow in IBIS 6.1 is wrong
3. The time domain flow in BIRD 166 is correct if all models have
GetWave_Exists=True.
4. The time domain flow in IBIS 6.1 is wrong if all models have
GetWave_Exists=True and the downstream Rx2 optimized itself based on its
IR input.
Walter
Walter Katz
<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx> wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 303.335-6156
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of RAO,FANGYI
(K-USA,ex1)
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 10:09 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Open Forum Presentation
IBIS_6.1_BIRD_190_BIRD_Fangyi_BIRD_166.pdf
Walter,
For the case you discussed on page 9, BIRD166 flow artificially inflates
redriver nonlinearity, device noise and crosstalk, and the amplification
dB equals the loss dB of the upstream channel, hence producing wrong
result, as shown in my 5/9/2017 presentation.
Fangyi
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Katz
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 11:14 AM
To: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: [ibis-macro] Open Forum Presentation
IBIS_6.1_BIRD_190_BIRD_Fangyi_BIRD_166.pdf
All,
IBIS_6.1_BIRD_190_BIRD_Fangyi_BIRD_166.pdf
Walter
Walter Katz
<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx> wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 303.335-6156
