Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uYIG4-0000D8C; Mon, 24 Jun 96 15:29 CDT |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
CC: |
|
References: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:37:01 -0400 |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Mon Jun 24 15: |
37:58 1996 |
Resent-Sender: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
<DesignerCouncil-request> |
X-Status: |
|
X-Loop: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"EXtUz2.0.roL.Rglpn"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Organization: |
Paragon Networks Inc. |
X-Mailer: |
Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> > I have just finished a Design for a client that demanded that all components be orientated in the same direction and also all
of them lined up, nice and neat. Great idea if I would have had
twice the board area to work with. I know the desireability of
this but I also like to think form follows function. Many of the
original reasons for doing this are obsolete. The board is
finished now but I just know placing the parts for optimal
routing would have resulted in much shorter runs, and a more
functional layout. What is your opinion? How are you doing it?
Jack,
I can only respond to this one question. From an EMI point of view,
this can lead to disaster. Lining everything up can destroy good to
excellent circuit partitioning by introducing cross talk within the
ground plane. Depending upon the family of circuitry, this can range
from bad to really bad.
Routing parts in a line can also force you to develop loops from
traces that in the near field spell disaster.
Both of these leave some scratching their heads. Others begin the
"adding more caps", "more gaskets", or "more ferrites" game to pass FCC.
Your point about shorter lead lengths is well taken. Again, depending
upon what family the circuit is from.
doug
|
|
|