If a board is designed with controlled impedance it's very useful to have 
the impedance data in the specsheet even if it's not required to document 
the CI with test coupons.
To avoid the cost a sensible option is to specify the boards exactly as a 
CI board but not specify impedance tolerance and add something like 
"impedance measurements not necessary" in the spec. The buildup should 
state dielectric thickness not spesific prepreg styles.

Grunde


_________________________________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments to it are
intended solely for the person(s) and/or organization(s) named above and 
is
confidential. Unauthorized use, copying or disclosure of any of the 
information is
unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error please destroy it and 
contact
the sender on the numbers given above. We would be happy to accept a
reverse charge call (call collect).




Hernefjord Ingemar <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
05.05.2008 09:27
Please respond to
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>; Please respond to
Hernefjord Ingemar <[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
Re: [TN] FW: [TN] Cost of Controlled Impedance






If you follow a general and well established layout rule package, I can
understand that there are no or little extras, however, when you demand
some deviations from that known and daily run process, then comes the
additional cost. We have ordered some very large, complicated and
multilayered boards for MIL use, and the extra cost for controlled
impedance was sometimes shocking. It's like buying semi chip wafers.
There are MIL this-and-that controlled chips, and standard consumer
chips, both made in the same line with same processing parameters, but
as soon as you want them 'controlled', you come to price levels, that
are decided by the parameter limits you want. You get a negigible add or
a hair raising one.....

Inge 

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: den 2 maj 2008 20:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] FW: [TN] Cost of Controlled Impedance

Hi Charlie,

Thank you, I greatly appreciate your insights. Our process today is the
same as you state in your response. So far from what I'm gathering it
doesn't seem logical to change it.

I initiated my research based on some statements made by a colleague in
a lecture at Apex last month. He stated that he has not specified CI on
his drawings for many years to save costs of board fab. He went on to
say that he gets around it by working closely with the fabricator up
front and then specifying the stackup including material types on the
drawing. This is very similar to what I do with one exception, he does
not specify controlled impedance on the drawing where I go through great
pains to specify trace widths, spacings, reference planes, etc. He also
has the luxury of working with relatively few "approved" suppliers who
use the same materials so does not need to worry about Purchasing going
to other suppliers.

Anyways, a potential cost savings intrigued me but, I thought I should
do my own due diligence before changing our current process of
specifying CI on the drawing..

I created a stackup of a known good design and asked two fabricators to
model the impedance based on the data. This stackup specified a variety
of single-ended and differential impedance trace widths, the laminate
material and thickness, copper weight, core & prepreg, the usual stuff.
The impedance models that I received from both fabricators were
identical for 50% of the CI values. The other 50% of the CI values were
so close as to be negligible, ranging from less than 1% to 2%
difference.

My next step was to find out what the cost savings might be. I asked the
same fabricators what the cost difference between CI and non CI and the
answer from both was as stated in my original message to Technet. Being
a skeptic I felt it best to post to this forum to obtain a variety of
experiences.

So far I've learned that the performance of my test board should be the
same from both fabricators whether or not I specify CI on the drawing.
However, if there is no cost-savings advantage then it is better to be
safe-guarded by keeping the CI information on the drawing.

Again, thank you very much for your response!

Best Regards,
Rick



________________________________
From: Charlie McMahon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 2:44 PM
To: Smith, Rick
Subject: RE: [TN] Cost of Controlled Impedance


Hello Rick:

As your below comment states, yes; it is suprising....

As a supplier in New England of PCB's for 25 years for both rigid and
flex, when impedence is called out there is an additional cost adder. To
say otherwise or try to manipulate the process for so-called cost
savings is a strategy for pain.
CI is directly related to the tolerance % of the design. In addition, a
cost influence is in the dielectric constant of the material that is
required based on this design call out.

If you require a controlled impedence result that specifies a line width
and dielectric spacing to achieve, you need to address it with the
fabricator and detail same on the print. This PROTECTS you from the
fabricator saying later (when convenient) upon a board rejection that
the manufacturing tolerance was met and therefore they are not
responsible for the defect/reject.

Fianlly, to imply there is no added cost is mis-representing the facts
and is a dis-service to you. I could say more but I will close with
this....please specify on the print when a part is a CI board if it is a
design critical issue. And, as far as saving money, I believe (as I do
now) that DFM of the design should be done BEFORE release to manufacture
by the vendor working with the Client and that's you...together. This
should ensure a winning relationship for both parties with a cost
effective and profitable result. It is how I do business and frankly so
should you for the integrity and professionalism our business must
demand.

Best Regards,
Charlie McMahon
McMahon Sales Company
P.O. Box 1024
Windham, New Hampshire  03087
Tel:  603-432-3111
Fax: 603-432-6854
Cell: 603-401-4646
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>


-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 2:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] Cost of Controlled Impedance

Hi All,

In an effort to save my company some $$$ on PWB's I began investigating
the cost of purchasing boards with and without specifying controlled
impedance (on the PWB drawing). Almost all of our boards specify
impedance control even if there are only a handful of transmission
lines.

I was surprised to learn from the two fabricators I spoke with that
there is no additional cost for impedance control other than a small
cost adder of about 2-5% if all panels require testing. I found this
very surprising.

Has anyone else had the same experience? Thanks much!

Regards,
Rick

Rick Smith
Manager, Engineering Systems & Services

 [cid:[log in to unmask]]
Access Transport & Supplies

15 Sterling Drive
Wallingford, CT 06492

Phone 203.639.7670
E-mail [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Web http://www.arrisi.com




---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0 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
847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1409 - Release Date:
05/01/2008 8:39 AM


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1409 - Release Date:
05/01/2008 8:39 AM

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0 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
847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
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 
847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
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 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------