Commit 8e297a36 authored by Maciej Lipinski's avatar Maciej Lipinski

[ISPCCS2016] final version to be submitted

parent 62998fa6
figures/p1588/1588-ha-L1vsPTP.jpg

246 KB | W: | H:

figures/p1588/1588-ha-L1vsPTP.jpg

266 KB | W: | H:

figures/p1588/1588-ha-L1vsPTP.jpg
figures/p1588/1588-ha-L1vsPTP.jpg
figures/p1588/1588-ha-L1vsPTP.jpg
figures/p1588/1588-ha-L1vsPTP.jpg
  • 2-up
  • Swipe
  • Onion skin
figures/p1588/1588-ha-dmtd.jpg

93.7 KB | W: | H:

figures/p1588/1588-ha-dmtd.jpg

102 KB | W: | H:

figures/p1588/1588-ha-dmtd.jpg
figures/p1588/1588-ha-dmtd.jpg
figures/p1588/1588-ha-dmtd.jpg
figures/p1588/1588-ha-dmtd.jpg
  • 2-up
  • Swipe
  • Onion skin
......@@ -633,7 +633,7 @@ Fig.~\ref{fig:SyncEcombo}-1.
\vspace{-0.15cm}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{measurements/WRclockChar/SyncECompliantCcombo.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{measurements/WRclockChar/SyncECompliantCcombo.jpg}
\caption{Characteristics of WR switch with SyncE-compliant SoftPLL.}
\label{fig:SyncEcombo}
\end{figure}%\vspace{-0.3cm}
......@@ -657,10 +657,10 @@ in \ref{GMmodifications}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:SyncE-compare} shows \vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{measurements/WRclockChar/SyncE-compare.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.34\textwidth]{measurements/WRclockChar/SyncE-compare.jpg}
\caption{Phase noise plot.}
\label{fig:SyncE-compare}
\end{figure}%\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}\vspace{-0.1cm}
that the unmodified SoftPLL (black) has a very low integrated jitter of 5ps RMS (from 1Hz to 100kHz).
The SyncE-compliant SoftPLL (blue) has a much higher jitter in the 1-10Hz bandwidth that results
in a total integrated jitter of 100ps RMS. This is attributed to the the VCO (VM53S3)
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment