RE: Signal vs. Idle debate (A picture is worth a thousand words)
Ralph
At 04:21 PM 5/5/2000 -0700, Ralph.Andersson@tsc.tdk.com
wrote:
>Phantom power via the signal pair requires the addition of an
additional
>transformer in the signal path; the effect on the return loss is
unknown and is
>may be detrimental.
So, in your expert opinion.... and in your words BTW, the phrase
"... the effect on the return loss is unknown and is may be
detrimental." means we shouldn't even try, huh....
Is that considered scientific.... or logical.... or even deductive
decision making?
Well how many thousands of years, in how many cultures, did the idea
of flying not get pursued because it *may* fail.
Where's the innovative engineering effort here?
I don't know if you're an engineer -- but how about trying... and
failing before you shout at the top of your lungs something won't work.
That is the scientific and logical way.
I know our products work with power applied to the signaling pairs
-- and we have end station devices that take that power without
hesitation at 100BASE-Tx communications speeds (which seems to be in
question from some -- I even think we demonstrated that with 2 other
companies at the January meeting. I don't know if we're the only company
with such a solution -- but I'd be surprised if no one else couldn't
engineer what we have.
So... IMO, if there is NO MARKET for powering down the signaling
pairs, I guess we should just stop trying.... it just isn't worth the
effort, it can't happen, can it?
Is my sarcasm constructive? No.
I know it isn't.
I'm just surprised most of this list won't even try this option.
Every one of the emails I've read on this topic keep saying *may* and
*unknown effect*.... therefore chose the *other (admittedly easier)
way*.....
*************************************
"At the end of the day... the most committed win!"
James M. Polk
Sr. Product Manager, Multiservice Architecture and Standards
Enterprise Voice Business Unit
Cisco Systems
Dallas, Texas
w) 972.813.5208
f) 972.813.5280
www.cisco.com