TECHNET Archives

November 2003

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Chris Robertson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Chris Robertson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:38:07 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (121 lines)
What is the next layer? Signal? or is it a layer covered only by dielectric.
I would guess it is next to another signal layer that is of alternate direction.
Something like a coupled stripline?
If you don't plan on going that route then your working on something I wondered about.
Can you treat a trace as an embedded microstrip....? I wonder.
Sorry that is now out of my league, but I'm very interested in hearing what you find.

Chris Robertson
[log in to unmask]
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: John Parsons
  To: [log in to unmask]
  Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 2:07 PM
  Subject: Re: [TN] Co-planar Impedance Calculations


  Chris,

  I hear what you are saying, and yes, I used the word "ground" out of habit.
  My confusion though lies in the fact that there will be no reference plane
  below the signal trace (hence coplanar) and that the designer seems to think
  that they (end user) only want the reference line on one side of the signal
  line.

  When I try and use the Polar calculator with the parameters given below, and
  I deselect the "plane" radio buttons it tells me that I need a reference
  line width of at least 10x the dielectric thickness, which is 62mil) or 10x
  the coplanar separation.

  Again, to clarify, my confusion is in the fact that I do not have reference
  "plane" surrounding the signal trace.  I need to understand how the proposed
  design will work, and how to reconcile the calculations before
  manufacturing.

  Thanks
  John
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Chris Robertson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
    Sent: November 19, 2003 11:48 AM
    To: TechNet E-Mail Forum.; John Parsons
    Subject: Re: [TN] Co-planar Impedance Calculations


    It doesn't have to be ground. That is why they are always called reference
  planes.
    I personally use + and - voltages with no problems. I also have used split
  planes
    above and below, but I also recommend not to use split plane reference
  planes in
    the areas where controlled impedance traces are or on very high
  frequencies.
    This is just my personal findings.
    I like the polar calculator and actually compared my calculator on their
  findings.
    Go to www.pcbdr.com and get the spread sheet calculator. or directly to
    http://home.hiwaay.net/~robdne/files/Beta%20ResourceV4.xls to use the
    calculator online. (click on the "stack" tab at the bottom)
    The updated version is much better. These calculate the entire board and
    adds the thickness on the fly.

    Chris Robertson
    Author "PCB Designer's Reference"
    [log in to unmask]
    ISBN: 0130674818
    Search for it at www.Amazon.com

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: John Parsons
      To: [log in to unmask]
      Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:14 PM
      Subject: [TN] Co-planar Impedance Calculations


      Greetings all,

      I have a customer who is doing an impedance design for Intel and he has
  no
      previous impedance experience.  This is the information I have.

      - double sided board
      - target impedance 50ohm
      - signal line 5mil wide, spaced 5mil from "ground" trace and this pair
  of
      traces should be spaced a minimum of 20mil from adjacent traces.

      This is what he was given from Intel.  I am using an older Polar model
      (CITS25 calculator) which does have models for co-planar designs but
  from
      what I can tell they assume that the signal trace is sandwiched between
      ground (return lines) on both sides.  Is this a correct interpretation?
  Is
      it possible to model the design as described above?

      While we have some experience with controlled impedance I have no
  experience
      with the aforementioned design and could use some assistance.

      Best Regards
      John Parsons


  ---------------------------------------------------
  Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
  To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
  the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
  To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
  To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
  Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
  Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
  -----------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
-----------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2