Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [10GBT] Request for Cat6 Emissions Characteristics


It appears you have a bug in your program. You are assuming that PAM12
is transmitting 0.8dB more power than PAM8 which is unfair. When you
correct for this PAM12 should have better EMI.



When I compute the total power transmitted for the PAM8 case by
integrating the PSD I get 4.1dBm

10*log10(sum(10.^((f8mag-116)/10)))+60 = 4.1dBm

But when I compute the total power tx for the PAM12 case I get 4.9dBm

10*log10(sum(10.^((f12mag-116)/10)))+60 = 4.9dBm

PS. You probably made a mistake in the Butterworth filtering sampling
rate adjustment or in a amplitude/power log mix-up.

-----Original Message-----
From: stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG [mailto:stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of sailesh rao
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [10GBT] Request for Cat6 Emissions Characteristics


It turns out that when you take into account the analog filtering and do
an accurate calculation of the PSD/"EMI PSD", neither PAM8 nor PAM12 has
an advantage in terms of EMI. I'm attaching the PDF ouput and the matlab
code to generate the PSDs using both Ungerboeck's analog filter
construction (3rd order BW LPF at fs/4) and using the (0.75+0.25D)
approach used in our July presentation (with 5th order BW LPF at fs/2).
In both cases, the peaks for the so-called "EMI PSD"s are within 0.01dB
of each other for PAM8 and PAM12.

Sailesh Rao.

>From: Jose Tellado <JTellado@TERANETICS.COM>
>Reply-To: "IEEE P802.3an" <>
>Subject: Re: [10GBT] Request for Cat6 Emissions Characteristics
>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 00:06:30 -0700
>From talking to several 10GBase-T EMI experts, the general consensus is

>that EMI emissions increase with frequency as 20*log10(f).
>Thus the system with the higher symbol rate (PAM8 at 1000MHz) will have

>worse EMI if the tx power is the same and both have equivalent digital
>and analog filtering.
>The plot below shows the EMI PSD for 1GBase-T, PAM12 and PAM8 assuming
>all have the same digital filter 3/4+1/4D. As expected the PAM8 is the
>worse, since it has the most signal at higher frequencies.
>I only plotted the PSD up to 0.4*SymbolRate, because the analog filters

>will typically have >3dB attenuation at 0.5*Symbol rate and the PSD is
>mostly dependent on the analog filters. PAM12 and PAM8 will both have
>similar analog filters.
>For those interested in the details I included the matlab code. For a
>fixed tx power the PSD level (dBm/Hz) will drop as -10*log10(BW) when
>we increase the bandwidth, BW. But as we increase the BW, the EMI
>increases as 20*log10(BW). Clearly the increase in EMI in PAM8 is twice

>as bad as the PSD level drop.
>Thus PAM12 has 10*log10(1000)=0.8dB more signal at low frequencies, but
>PAM8 has 1.6dB more EMI at high frequencies. Therefore PAM8 has 0.8dB
>more EMI
>-----Original Message-----
>From: stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG [ <mailto:stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG>
>mailto:stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of sailesh rao
>Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:55 PM
>Subject: [10GBT] Request for Cat6 Emissions Characteristics
>Hi All,
>At the request of a task force member, I computed the transmit PSD for
>PAM12 and 1000BASE-T, and discovered that I added the contribution of
>Jose's 0.4dB incorrectly in my Total EMI Penalty calculations in the
>updated table.
>Actually, in the passband, the transmit PSD for PAM8 after THP is 1.6dB

>lower than the transmit PSD for PAM12 after THP, and not 0.8dB lower as

>I had reported earlier.
>However, rather than simply adding another 0.8dB to the PAM12 EMI
>penalty, I would like to propose that we compute the estimated
>emissions characteristics of the PAM8/PAM12 transmit PSDs, for
>different transmit filtering choices, over typical Cat6 cabling and
>assess the difference in peaks to estimate the true emissions penalty
>for one PAM approach over the other. I know Scott Powell had published
>a PDF version of measured 4-connector Cat6 emissions characteristics
>for a flat transmit PSD (powell_1_0303.pdf), but do cabling experts
>agree with Scott's measurements and can the task force use that data to

>assess the emissions characteristics of PAM8 vs. PAM12? If so, I would
>like to request Scott to publish a file version of his measurements on
>the task force web site so that we can all use it to do fair
>comparisons. If not, are there other typical Cat6 cabling emissions
>measurements that we can use to do the emissions comparisons?
>Any input from the cabling experts on the reflector would be greatly
>Sailesh Rao.
>Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>  <>
><< PSDPAM12andPAM8.m >>

Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from
McAfee(r) Security.