TECHNET Archives

1995

TechNet@IPC.ORG

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

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

Print Reply
Received:
by ipchq.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0svQfs-0000HsC; Wed, 20 Sep 95 10:03 CDT
Old-Return-Path:
<[log in to unmask]> <miso!post.AES.COM!gainesw>
Date:
Wed, 20 Sep 95 07:58:46 PDT
Precedence:
list
X-Loop:
Resent-Sender:
X-Status:
Status:
O
X-Mailing-List:
<[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/1196
TO:
Return-Path:
Resent-Message-ID:
<"rgRQH.0.yE9.8q2Om"@ipc>
Subject:
From:
Bill Gaines B160 x2199 <[log in to unmask]>
Resent-From:
From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 14:
51:51 1996
Message-Id:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)


A futher comment to Jerry Cupples comments on "use the smallest wire you can"
and James Moffitt's note amout checking for current capacity.

On one design that I was involved in finding a "fix" for, a board redesign
was determined not to be an option. (The driver ic didn't have enough
"horsepower" to drive the routed line accross the pwb!)

Analsys and test showed that a 27awg wire routed on the top of the pwb
had half the capacitance of a trace inside the board.  
(about 2pf/in for a wire)

I used the Pacific Numerics 2D "Parisitic Parameters" software & had good
correlation with measured data.

Bill Gaines
AeroJet (for $)         IHPVA   (for speed & fun)
IEPS    (for info)      SCCA    (for trophys)    
[log in to unmask]

===================================================
   /| _  _   _
  /_||_ |_  | 
 /  ||_  _| |_
===================================================



ATOM RSS1 RSS2