Parkervision EuMC Paper, follow-up comments
I have now had the opportunity to view the presentation slides in more detail, in particular the last few slides which were lost in the fast-forward flurry at the end of Mr Rawlins's presentation. Slide 39 raises many additional questions to the ones I already raised in my previous report, and underlines some of the questions I posed. This slide appears to show 3 chips, not a single chip as has been widely claimed by PV. The images are described as "micrographs", a nice little euphemism which is intended to make us think that they are "photographs" of actual chips. They are not; they are CAD layout files; "real" silicon chips do not show such multi-coloured features. PV clearly do not yet have these chips back from fabrication, otherwise I am sure they would have shown real pictures.
There's more. The 3-chip set does not appear to included functions in the block diagram, and vice-versa. In my previous report I already questioned whether the power controller ("Digitally controlled power supply" had yet been integrated, or even designed. Sure enough, it is not indicated on any of the 3 chips. One of the 3 chips is described as an "interpolation filter", again not shown on the block diagram. Is this another "patch", perhaps addressing the very issue I raise in my previous report about generating fully compliant signal formats? By my reckoning, even if it is economically possible to integrate both SiGe and 65nm CMOS on a single die, the final chip size would appear to be a whopping 9mm by 3mm, and this still does not include all of the elements in the block diagram. (Regular GaAs RFPA chips measure about 1mm by 1mm).
As far as the "BS" comment in my previous report is concerned, I was merely quoting something I heard from a colleague, and in my report I clearly distanced myself from the comment. That said, I look at the "conclusions" slide (#40) and note that there is not a single quantitative measured result. What we see is a blustering and naïve attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of a specialist technical audience by spouting a load of essentially irrelevant thermodynamic mumbo-jumbo. This slide, along with several others in this presentation, would certainly fall within my own definition of what constitutes "BS"! It was not, and still is not, my intent however to apply this term to the whole presentation or indeed to Parkervision in general. I strive to remain technically objective in my commentaries, and distance myself from business and/or shareholder related issues.
Steve C Cripps (Prof.) Nov. 12 2008.