Crossover function in the standard.
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by glen herrmannsfeldt on July 1, 2008, 8:17 am
Please log in for more thread options (snip, I wrote) > To the extent that you mean "the transformer takes out any common mode
> (e.g., DC offset) in the signal", then you are correct. However, if the > signal has short-term imbalance (e.g., asymmetrical high/low times), the > transformer will not correct the problem. No common mode is what I meant. Some common mode signals will be due to differences in the two drivers. Do they also put electrostatic shielding on the transformer to remove capacitive coupling between the windings? -- glen | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Rich Seifert on July 1, 2008, 10:29 am
Please log in for more thread options > Rich Seifert wrote:
> (snip, I wrote) > > >>and to absolutely positively guarantee that the signal
> >>is balanced. Maybe you could do that with a ferrite ring, > >>but then that is somewhat related to a transformer. >
> > To the extent that you mean "the transformer takes out any common mode
> > (e.g., DC offset) in the signal", then you are correct. However, if the > > signal has short-term imbalance (e.g., asymmetrical high/low times), the > > transformer will not correct the problem. >
> No common mode is what I meant. Some common mode signals will > be due to differences in the two drivers. > > Do they also put electrostatic shielding on the transformer to > remove capacitive coupling between the windings? > Generally not in that type of transformer. The windings are close-coupled (typically wound as a pair, and sometimes even a twisted pair); capacitive coupling is not always a detriment in a signal transformer application. -- Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting 21885 Bear Creek Way (408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033 (408) 228-0803 FAX Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Crossover function in the standard. | June 23, 2008, 4:34 pm |
| standard for auto-negotiation | May 24, 2007, 12:57 pm |
| Can a standard NIC be triggered to send an electrical signal? | August 30, 2005, 8:28 am |
| More Than One Fiber Optic 100 Megabit Ethernet Standard? | June 30, 2007, 12:28 am |
| Has anyone ever seen a crossover AUI cable? | May 20, 2005, 6:39 am |
| Is there anybody here having IEEE's DSRC/WAVE 1609 standard documents? | February 20, 2008, 8:55 am |
| Problem with Crossover Cable | August 28, 2005, 2:18 pm |
| Crossover Vs. Patch Cables | March 9, 2006, 11:15 am |
| Is there such a thing as an "SC Crossover" coupler or cable | September 24, 2004, 9:07 pm |
| LF: Crossover Ethernet Cable 25 feet | August 25, 2006, 3:27 pm |
| 802.3ad Link Aggregation between two hosts using crossover cables | January 24, 2005, 11:23 am |
>>is balanced. Maybe you could do that with a ferrite ring,
>>but then that is somewhat related to a transformer.