What
we are calculating is the S/N of a signal with relative noise, i.e. different
amounts on each level, with a PP of 0.9dB. The TP3 compliance signal will
then simulate this relative noise with equal noise on each level yielding the
same S/N.
Also,
doesn't the simple formula still need to take into account the extinction
ratio?
In any
case, you are probably right that the approximation of equal power is
fine.
Lew
Original Message From:
Tom Lindsay [mailto:tlindsay@IEEE.ORG] Sent: Wednesday, October 27,
2004 3:22 PM To:
STDS802310GMMF@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [10GMMF] TP3
calculation of OSNR for compliance test
Lew 
Your development assumes that the rms value due to RIN is
proportional to the optical signal power. In the case of TP3 testing, we plan
on adding a white noise generator before the E/O, such that its rms noise is ~
the same at both levels.
In this case, the math can get much simpler and should revert to the
simple textbook formula PP(dB)=5*log[1(Q/Qn)^2], and Qn
=Q/sqrt(110^(PP(dB)/5)).
For 0.9 dB, Qn=12.1. (Compare to your equation (8)).
Comments?
Tom
 Original Message 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:45
AM
Subject: [10GMMF] TP3 calculation of
OSNR for compliance test
Sorry for the late email, my first attempt got bounced as
too large a file size.
Please find attached a calculation I have done
for the optical S/N we need to have on the TP3 compliance signal. It
also has some calculations of the resulting EDC S/N for different receive
powers and receiver front end sensitivities.
Lew
Original
Message From: Michael Lawton
[mailto:mike_lawton@AGILENT.COM] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:22
AM To: STDS802310GMMF@listserv.ieee.org Subject:
[10GMMF] TP3 meeting Agenda + dial in Oct 26
Dear
TP3'ers,
Here is the agenda for today's meeting:
Tuesday
October 26th at 9am SJ, 5pm UK, 6pm Germany Dial in (650) 5990374,
Meeting ID:
136169
1. List
Attendees 2. Review meeting
notes from last
week 3. Agenda
additions/changes? 4. Static
Channel
Methodology
 Noise loading  review calculations from
Lew
 Channel types and exact
characteristics
o review comments from Tom reference rise and fall
time 5.
Jitter
 Petre kindly agreed to evaluate jitter testing requirements and the need
for a high
frequency
sinusoidal
interferer 6. Link
Budget
 I think we have agreed that the testing is designed to emulate the
budget
 Do we need to do more work on the
budget?
 Is our thinking on metrics changing? (PIEL, PIED, fixed length
equalisers)
 300m question 7.
OMA Measurement
methodology
 Piers is exploring a histogram vs a slow pattern approach.
I'm not
expecting we work through all the items ... however I want to keep them on
the agenda so we understand our work list and where it makes sense we can
shift around the order.
Talk to you all later.
Best
Regards
MIke
