8 T4 |% U# l C# cHello experts, ( [+ ]9 B% i# L# s% M+ A+ I>( u8 \3 p8 H, _7 J. g: ~
> I'm from PCB house. Recently we have producted some insertion loss test b) _$ [! E7 o" ?
> boards(16L, SET2DIL coupon, IS415/IT150DA/I-Speed Mid/low loss material with ' L5 b1 f2 n3 ~' f% D" Y
> RTF copper foil). We found that the multiply core and high resin PP will $ N8 |# `: v3 q8 e9 @" y* D* z- d
> result a lower loss result. It's a trouble to MI engineer. I would like to : a* R) k6 t6 K> know how to predict the loss base on stackup. Please help to suggest (papers, % K$ B/ ]0 o; F) K' \5 P> script, free software etc ). Thanks a lot! 8 h w c y7 d>8 a) ^ [% m- g6 a
> / A) Y6 O3 \% P# c6 D> 8 Z# }" F7 P0 m8 O% i> Best regards, 7 U( Y3 ?, U0 ]> " B' ~5 i+ R l/ ?* y> Terry Ho + y5 _0 X, k: \2 Y4 S( V" E6 M4 T b# ~; y" f
然后 Scott McMorrow ,steve weir,Loyer Jeff 这些活跃分子开始依次发表意见.: R; R/ r" V6 N. r$ e' b
9 i5 j# E$ }+ f P/ d. V: \: o
From: Scott McMorrow <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> / j6 B% T( L/ X- f+ Z5 s: ~Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:02:36 -0400 9 I' T5 M4 \& P t+ n: P; j4 W4 n- d# s* ~5 c Q+ b* Y/ Y
Hmmm... I'm in the middle of the middle of Hurricane Sandy. Power is out.+ r7 E& q2 x. e) L' {6 H
Storm surge is causing the river across the street to rise to unprecedented 8 p" G0 M- l8 y1 clevels.' m, V# |" I1 b1 A) C
... and this guy wants us to do his job and suggest free software.4 e% _# u5 l% s
( v2 v% e1 q8 T/ i; J3 I5 T5 x; ~. u6 c2 C, ^5 h
From: steve weir <weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx>; e" a. g# Q) I9 ~
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:23:22 -0700 $ h* G6 E/ z8 T4 w8 s " W& `; a( k; z& WAs a PCB fabricator I think you need to develop in-house material . `9 f& V# y; k- s; J. F0 C
properties expertise. Your competitors who understand the materials % l; z$ G+ W' _* @5 t4 U8 |
they use and their process limits are positioned to get higher yield 4 g2 _7 c: s% i$ w' M& a, Xpercentages at lower cost because of their knowledge. 7 j0 T1 T* e" K! i. E% d 6 @1 h7 Q1 r/ _3 o CI appreciate that you don't want to spend unnecessary money, but at # R; _) L4 v5 v3 Z
least spend the time to learn about what you are using. I am troubled 0 m! ~3 P& [2 a3 }& F# s
that your engineer knows so little about the materials you use that he ! v% T" ]) M$ O# Z" r1 p
is surprised by common results. Once your company understands materials 3 h/ M2 e! |7 F1 Z& K% E
better you may well appreciate the value of commercial stack-up planning ! }0 R/ }' A# f- Q j* Nsoftware.+ o/ M; `& S+ v0 k- u
" W5 V( V: E( W1 eSteve. % u, M4 d2 ]6 g+ z2 p : F- i- ~) ?+ X, IFrom: "Loyer, Jeff" <jeff.loyer@xxxxxxxxx>- C- |; j0 L7 W O
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:33:48 +0000 $ W9 l: V$ U; C0 ] & T* F G! A, `/ D & F: \% S1 E2 t$ b$ q0 L
I'm surprised at the tone of the responses to this posting (but perhaps I 3 a# D8 [5 B, X. c* O0 z- @
shouldn't be, unfortunately); I don't see anything untoward in it. I would ' g4 w' L- B( n: q# R) J) h) M8 T; }
like to provide some context (with some assumptions on my part) for the message 8 i5 B8 S& Q5 g, r$ i* k; {0 h
lest other innocent postings meet with similar fates. I'll also (eventually) " j6 u% L2 _% n9 q7 P
provide my answer to the question, as I understand it. " t" i- Z0 C R* M: Z! C& d % f; E4 a( `/ D) _ 0 C% x5 c( \% h% u/ hThere is a significant portion (majority?) of the industry which is extremely + {1 F/ m3 j* `* G! Z$ r
cost constrained. For instance, to them rotating a design 10 degrees is 8 `, U* M- u( ^! E
impractical, much less 22 or 45 degrees. Thus, they find other cost-effective 8 U. B. j, [9 T+ x' d' J3 ]yet effective means of solving problems (such as zig-zag routing), even though " o( u7 J/ @. {1 r( C# s7 s" Z/ Sthose don't appear efficient to others to whom cost is not an issue.1 j9 G1 @/ j2 @' r0 R' d7 C; U& K/ @
1 }8 K7 T, |* t$ j( f" Q1 X
+ J7 t3 {8 B% a n
" X1 p" o! h% x2 q* kThere are new pressures being applied to this segment - designers are now not : D: o4 ?3 Z0 D2 E6 d1 qonly requiring impedance control, but are also insisting on insertion loss / }$ x( u% f7 b0 e
control. This is a HUGE paradigm shift, very similar to what we encountered ) D( G) F6 C5 s7 o
when traceable impedance control was first introduced. That was a very ( J) U1 T/ V% g6 @8 y. `+ J
challenging evolution, and this will be also. ) C0 R# t! w9 Y4 V% b! c6 P7 n5 @# [
" l; k3 F7 G7 G$ ~; A4 S, t' A1 o4 a) K
As an example, PCB vendors are now being advised to smooth their copper, after - t" f- E1 W: K2 cyears of purposely roughening it for best mechanical integrity. It should come : @7 X- D& v6 Q$ ]. M5 N! ]as no surprise that this is not a trivial change, considering the effort that / M: H% @% \# R# q o" O
has gone into ensuring mechanically robust designs.. k0 N7 H! M3 @9 Z
1 ^7 }# k7 q) n4 Z" }2 `7 U. h. O1 [) z2 |( L/ v P
4 {7 Z$ r! _! j
Likewise, many other basic assumptions that we've been able to apply for years " d, r: a5 U& q: m% U; kare now being drawn into question, and PCB vendors are looking for help to 9 W" ^/ M7 z# s, L
intelligently and cost-effectively explore options - "How much effect does 7 H( Z" e' o r/ D7 N' \8 ~- K
rougher copper have on insertion loss?". I believe Terry is highlighting the & h0 t# P1 F1 q- `+ ~" @fact that, while there are many tools available for impedance prediction, & A- }8 q4 f5 |! n2 |" b+ vinsertion loss modeling is much less accessible. I don't think it is 5 h: ^- v% x' z
inappropriate to ask if there are cost-effective, reliable tools available to & W2 i; o0 I! I+ f* K
predict insertion loss based on a proposed stackup.$ I6 n. o0 Z: I
0 A# @- J. Q- T. Q$ S* Y# ]" v
+ c& P2 Q }- q8 k( { 9 h- j: K/ x [8 U- JUnfortunately, I believe the answer to the question is that there are no $ f. c- }8 f" S) }3 D0 R
reliable, cheap (~free) modelers available to predict insertion loss. And, the 6 d$ r) ?6 z; O
ones that are available require a great deal more knowledge about the stackup 3 `$ Y! F l) Kthan impedance modeling does, and that information is not easily obtained. " M ~6 w7 U( p' I4 aThere are some of us working with a vendor to test their modeler against a + B& t4 ^$ |9 [
variety of stackups and we'll present results at DesignCon. My personal goal 4 {* Z+ Y% Q( \. s! t
is not so much to test a specific modeler but to judge how effective a modeler 5 Y6 ]8 b' T/ |$ O; Y8 ^* Ycan be given information that can reasonably be gleaned prior to building with , `1 {8 b8 ^: z2 X2 l9 k- Ovarious materials, copper types, etc.6 r5 p8 \; V6 B; W$ D7 g# }
+ }$ a! ~9 E: o1 y. }
7 h/ I3 k4 J) Y
: n6 i' Z& h- c' q/ D9 r# _In the absence of a modeling tool, or in addition to one, I believe empirical 0 X& n# m) k& k5 h8 A4 y# B" [data is the best predictor of insertion loss. To do this, however, you have to ! h( z0 W$ ?. |- ]" vbuild a stackup representing the final design, and it's not clear at this point ( R8 }: k% e8 l
how broadly you can extrapolate those results to other stackups. But, I know + M5 Y- C( l( L
many material vendors and PCB shops are engaged in similar efforts. 8 i6 e. Q; ~, Y6 C9 x* E5 P2 d. @- j0 s, e
! z0 r) W0 K% G' l* p2 C; i; _# n- w
I think this is very similar to what we went through with impedance control - $ \5 ?5 {7 k% [# Gthe shops which most quickly were able to predict and control that : K+ J- x4 W/ W4 x/ E$ ncharacteristic had an advantage. I think successful PCB vendors will need . @9 o. d9 E: d; n& t
reliable modeling software and empirical data on insertion loss for their , i1 l1 D: j% Z' M
particular choices of materials, etc. - they will be able to find the most cost 3 ^% V5 p$ q, f. c+ A3 C9 o6 Veffective solution.+ ~+ [% E, Y& }/ w; y" [
t; s; ?7 D8 `$ C' G7 w5 _/ ]' ^3 l9 }9 d7 f: u
% [% r: L+ w# b
Bottom line: I doubt a reliable modeling tool is going to be cheap, but is " n) ^* c" O# R; {0 m0 qgoing to be necessary, and you'll want to compare any tool you do purchase * o" P R x3 C( A
against empirical data before you trust it.& S9 N. f( i5 m' m
1 n& w S% u" b: c) K9 T, h' {+ w. d) D) w/ v N1 |
n& z! B3 ^& r) qI hope this helps, ' a& U: H4 s; r% {! x3 O / W: c0 V6 v) o }5 \4 i% e3 TJeff Loyer# d8 G" [" u2 c# h3 A+ L
$ ]+ j: K: [. b; t
) g3 u! B1 n- t3 @
From: steve weir <weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx> : \7 t1 ^# p7 D) IDate: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:14:41 -0700; }! v+ u, p1 M6 z. d6 n) N0 P0 u
1 Q3 W6 r w( L$ @. X; P + k7 W1 `2 c) I3 Q) }% P3 V
Jeff, given that the only two responses were Scott and mine, I am ) h, W! [( ]' w* U* Rsurprised that you are disappointed with both.' P% G9 h6 b8 `
: |) M5 C1 ], L% z5 n+ y4 QIn a fabrication market filled with intense competition it is up to - ]* c+ l/ i4 \* q1 b
individual players to keep up with the technology requirements of the 0 j: S( ]7 I2 e- Q: W3 x5 Z
market or get left behind. The task is not simple. Depending on how far + S% q c1 n" c& W `: [: C
up the frequency range one needs to go, dialing in cost effective 2 ^( l B3 \# P9 a
process requires substantial skills, time, effort and serious money. It . ]: s2 H7 y, H: z! R% N2 k& Trepresents competitive advantage to OEMs and their partner pcb fab & x- I) ?/ p9 x Q1 C' P
houses alike. Neither who have invested are likely to hand over that 8 v4 ]6 O- N2 ekind of advantage especially when it is so costly to obtain.6 y l/ ^5 D7 R4 N1 j# @, y$ N4 Y
2 P& T& ]2 Q- L j2 _3 b4 t
I don't mind that Terry is looking for a solution on the cheap or free. : E/ V/ @: o z/ `/ R
If one could obtain such a sweet deal, one would be foolish not to take 3 K/ r" _: {2 ] ]3 v! [% Z
it. I am troubled that in this day in age, his organization hopes to " j( Y: ?3 T. [& n% ]5 B4 p5 E
address a sophisticated issue before his technical staff has a grip on : {2 G( |9 b9 Y2 l
the basics. I fail to understand what you find inappropriate about ! h9 R1 j) {* o F* o
that concern. I would rather yell at someone headed for a cliff to stop + c3 T0 R! t# @0 c* ?4 tthan smile and wave.9 O/ c7 T1 M! h
, R( U6 ^/ B$ [# S
Best Regards, $ s/ ~1 M7 q Y7 @ C" h9 a5 O) M! }- U2 k% l3 D
w. p Y3 e% H/ ?) `$ z
Steve. $ z% T0 i) I9 q$ U0 L M9 r. A# B ' h$ u/ ~+ l* G3 P8 U4 WFrom: "Loyer, Jeff" <jeff.loyer@xxxxxxxxx> $ p0 F2 E/ p; u. ]+ `Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:37:46 +0000 2 a. F# }/ \: m4 ~2 i; v" m" B, ]( n! |% v' t
: f6 j& D6 _- i+ m9 ?; r; Z. l5 |: S
I realized we hadn't answered the basic question - "why does a high resin 2 H/ `" B. J$ p% S1 u' i2 ^prepreg give lower loss?" The prediction of loss vs. resin content isn't 3 G6 E0 X! T2 @- ^
trivial; as Steve said, a tool which allows you to model loss for the various ; ~9 m# d+ B+ q x) Escenarios should be on your Christmas wish list. Here are the factors that I 7 _. r" r Y# V9 \- s# R1 W9 X. h7 s
know of (thanks to Richard Kunze for clarifying things for me, and I welcome : }- T0 c) \* ^+ _- `
others' data/opinions):1 t5 G, C H; m8 p3 I
* Resin has a lower Er than glass ) X5 Z4 f+ z1 P J( Y- |3 W% {1 C( K9 `- P3 W! G+ k
* loss is approximately proportional to Df * sqrt(Er), so lowering Er ( V0 V6 ?$ c7 i Tlowers loss1 ?7 f6 T) Q7 P" j P
8 D% h$ G% y6 H+ P' k1 k * lower Er allows wider traces for the same impedance - this may decrease 3 C0 w* Q* [% n$ G
loss also ' D. D9 Q- C- j& _2 X) e 8 X% P7 \8 s* y) l; r6 }* But, resin is more lossy than glass, so Df may increase ; ^: ~$ N0 X! K% i- n0 y* J, G 7 v1 e. d9 F! K8 z' P( t7 w * for standard FR4 constructions, this is especially true. The data sheet ) {2 L. h( I8 P% T z4 F
for IS370HR, for instance, shows Df varying from 0.0177 to 0.0247 (1GHz), $ }: e" ~" W5 O( A7 p
depending on the resin content & X) H6 v: G% g9 b# K" E" f4 m& B! x
* for low loss materials, this doesn't hold. The data sheet for Meg6 ! T! z2 e9 s0 V c! b% D' Lshows Df constant (0.002 @ 1GHz) for all its flavors of prepreg1 V, L' G& \2 V
0 o$ z5 p: E) M& A- a( U
* Where the factors dominate will depend on your relative conductor vs. - [1 r( j! P$ k0 l' S4 Fdielectric loss effects: for FR4, dielectric loss dominates at >~1GHz; for 7 J; U. D+ \. N, X8 @
low-loss materials, conductor loss dominates up to much higher frequencies (as ( y, Z, ?; h4 B4 Cmuch as 10GHz).% u2 M6 }' `) w( t
% k" K( D" `/ `8 g7 d 5 E- o" k) ~2 S& Q% E" H9 B, B# e: c) s
In your particular (low loss) case, the lower Er of the resin-rich case is G) j) j+ ]! F* h# Z9 O( _
trumping the Df change (or lack of) so you get lower loss. 6 l$ y! J: h* @, P- ^: ?/ b3 N1 E8 t. Y( a; Q5 E
" N2 b- d) C2 r
, |3 {* q% c! p4 |Only a tool which takes into account the properties of the specific material . C3 E8 c+ B# B- N3 y' \* tunder consideration can be expected to give an accurate prediction of insertion ; i; d! `% f) k& n% X" Nloss for various resin contents. + R% _. C4 N$ y7 ~( L - A4 V- W& U- g! G2 E- x) H8 H* J# s1 ^7 x+ g8 \2 Q
2 W( a! G# n$ P' rThere are also environmental effects (I haven't heard or seen these stressed at * p7 B2 \- @6 {2 W2 _! l- H
this point, though that may change soon): ' y' X0 b( \# x3 k9 H " M) z/ e6 N! s: b# y* Higher resin content will absorb more moisture, and thus your loss will be " @, ~# G U4 E/ l2 z
more susceptible to humidity effects 9 r- i# d; x* Z" p ) f( S, G# a/ \* G* There's a difference in how the various materials' Df changes w/ temperature + p4 w# d# s0 U+ |" Y- more at DesignCon2 A& C. Q! y4 ~% B7 y
( H7 ?5 }3 x( x; `; }
% T, ^. V! z6 a- o) Y/ x) t. g6 h( v" l1 f* S
I hope this helps,& J& b; @" {- Q4 R
& [5 D3 L* w3 Y7 @- e# g+ w NJeff& Y6 I' F2 R) ^( U3 o, q7 @' }' |
A few quick comments. Although the tanD of Meg 6 is stated to be flat, it 5 N, e. [0 E# B1 |" q# l- @is not if you measure it. The manufacturer reported characterization in' `. r g0 D F3 }; U x) |/ ?
the data sheet is not correct. Causality is violated when tanD is flat. + p8 ]% T7 z) e; O 0 p6 x, t7 e6 }" p- D! lLoss is generally due to molecular dipole losses in the material. It can 1 r! P& E+ q8 Y* [' ~* hbe low for high Er, as is the case with ceramic. 8 P. e) s% y# I) n4 }- e1 `8 C& w& N9 A5 a. l8 a3 V
Hygroscopic loss is due to molecular polarity. Polar molecules "glom" on to& p- M9 o1 b w/ ^) @* P
water molecules, which are also polar. Same property makes the material" C+ s' c+ O8 D8 r/ S5 E! p) ]) V/ G
extremely "sticky." 9 Z! a# S2 g2 G) s& c P1 A2 H; W' C, y; m1 C1 L: ~$ [) U
The paper that Jason Miller of Oracle and I wrote for DesignCon last year4 y9 p- ?7 g7 E% Z ^
covers some of the impact of temperature and humidity on measured losses. , C9 v% S% X3 S4 D4 u8 o: I I don't have access to my storage server right now, otherwise I'd give a # @2 y" v6 `: D0 P: Ypaper citation. 1 q1 O7 d9 n' H+ B 9 Q0 r4 u; t4 P2 w* S/ ]regards, 3 r+ o0 S' }/ }: m" W7 ^# s' h . o# u; ~- [. [" ZScott $ }" `) g. N# Y- |! r! ]2 Z) i& `# f 6 P6 G, A( U+ {4 v" a& KFrom: Kirby Goulet <kgoulet@xxxxxxxx> : W5 I3 u8 M" @: [7 b/ `3 u1 ^Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 11:08:49 -0800 (PST) / ?+ j9 i3 y; R ( @- c3 J) a. F7 N) Y2 P6 B/ V3 P6 A 2 ]$ E# J! \( b6 ~& d! M& B5 PIt's not production quality software but you could try the mdtlc calculator to 9 A+ m) a6 s' eexperiment. I tried Jeff's example and it seems to point to an explanation. " @, Y8 u$ Q- x$ \9 E The source code is available so you might extend it to do what you want if you 4 p. A% f" U5 ahave more time than money. ' ?$ M f3 E: x. P. O# IIt looks like a race between loss due to increasing loss due to resin and 6 {% G, o$ w% ^decreasing loss due to wider traces. There is a bigger increase in the resin $ u# L5 `* m* ccontent for the IS370 case over the IS415 case. Not only that, but the IS370 1 B" i8 v L: F0 `' W
resin is lossier: 0.0169 versus 0.02984 so the winner is increasing loss. % {' g9 X3 Z9 @# L- T! n ! A6 Q3 w# Y0 ^8 c6 O5 L) rFrom the field solver, 7 Y# ?8 Z" _3 Z( F4 v$ W0 x' ?' w4 P" P6 }- O' J
IS370: the effective dielectric loss went up 14.7%. The perimeter of the 9 m3 Q, S3 m5 @/ B
conductor went up 3.6%. , K. e5 R0 O; }
IS415: the effective dielectric loss went up 6.7%. The perimeter of the 4 r& f" f6 ~; [' Y
conductor went up 5.7%. 2 U4 [& H9 Q( [8 L( E7 _: k8 ?# Y: B. t# p+ K
In the second case, overall dielectric loss is a smaller fraction than the ; A* e. o+ D Afirst case. The missing bit of information you need to add is the conductor & [/ ~4 S' C4 m& h" M I3 v
loss.4 d: |, g6 s/ Q' D3 b# r
; m8 j: {8 q% g' i+ W
INPUT PARAMETERS:6 F/ Q9 h. r$ A: M. j- }; f* Y; Q
7 a9 `6 X0 A8 H4 O: U/ i Layer Thick Specifications 7 H& ^& D1 r' {; a6 |+ H4 o Copper Plane Top 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0- a, O i# R9 E( S2 F) d
Laminate Layer 1 3.90 Resin Content 57.0% 3.4-4.9 6 k4 I" P! R6 C. P6 u Signal Layer 1 1.20 4.3-7.2-4.3 Etchback=0.00 # H% U- T" u1 \* s Laminate Layer 2 3.90 Resin Content 57.0% 3.4-4.9 & d7 C0 R! L6 }$ Y1 a4 T
Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0 & @9 j2 K: y2 S $ C8 _: q5 I6 S8 _" F L Layer Thick Er Loss Tangent! r* J2 }; |* n0 g5 \; T/ P* `
Copper Plane Top 1.30 3.20 ( B) v. k9 P9 A( W" N6 F Laminate Layer 1 3.90 4.02 0.02100 9 E/ B6 d$ P* H4 b
Signal Layer 1 1.20 3.38 0.02984 ' t7 [2 e9 I: t+ c Laminate Layer 2 3.90 4.02 0.02100* u9 y6 r9 B$ ~2 o/ g- Y9 _
Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 3.20 * h+ D9 n* P9 W6 U0 ]6 B$ T ; x- u# v3 s. m# p$ z4 ^2 N$ s
DC resistance by dimensions:6 n+ P) V) D& J; p' ?0 E" L0 w
Rdc_trace_1= 131.53 Rdc_trace_2 = 131.53 milliohms/in 20C ' P/ b" I9 C4 {1 K# U% e5 k) k 4 X$ u9 _) D: ^ DC resistance by pixel count: U9 F' g! _5 V- [# O& z4 ~
Rdc_trace_1= 131.531 Rdc_trace_2 = 131.531 milliohm/in' _3 }# B; q; _: U. M. E
C_odd = 4.221 pF/in C_even = 3.968 pF/in : G* d9 y3 a: ^; Q7 ? Er_odd = 3.923 Er_even = 3.947 8 i9 Y Q: `1 e1 g! e1 \ Loss_tan_o = 0.02212 Loss_tan_e = 0.02184 5 b$ \/ u2 e5 I2 S, z
Delay_odd = 167.801 Delay_even = 168.314 ps/in.2 ]7 Y2 K5 Z! \8 C! ]
Z_diff = 79.501 ohms Z_comm = 21.209 ohms - e1 ^" J' c2 l" s) u$ @6 b) z- J1 ~ 8 m) x( Z% a8 Z5 s8 BSimulation pix map 122 pixels high by 800 pixels wide. 3 D! s2 @% H+ }293824 bytes allocated for bmp. % \0 `4 m1 @7 y ! T: R2 x: H3 f/ r
INPUT PARAMETERS:& R" q: `% ~# u' x8 O$ C& T% k
9 d1 ~2 @$ Q5 O0 ?8 c3 c
Layer Thick Specifications # j3 e; A1 ^3 C3 j' v, U5 n Copper Plane Top 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0 : g5 s3 z! q- l9 y! `( s, j Laminate Layer 1 4.20 Resin Content 75.0% 3.4-4.9 - L) ]0 B# M% Y
Signal Layer 1 1.20 4.5-7.0-4.5 Etchback=0.00! V2 l) D# y% z- ]6 x; \
Laminate Layer 2 4.20 Resin Content 75.0% 3.4-4.9 9 f3 _0 A. Y5 D& m Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0% U3 A' O8 f- X' i; A! R9 d
6 X+ i/ d% t& J [, f5 ~ Layer Thick Er Loss Tangent2 x8 M/ O9 ]" Y* ` I+ |
Copper Plane Top 1.30 3.20 ' i4 |, D R7 A, t! v3 ^* ] Laminate Layer 1 4.20 3.75 0.02470 2 ~+ {! X; ?4 {: C
Signal Layer 1 1.20 3.38 0.029847 I B# M5 w c2 d+ r# b# U( o8 J) f
Laminate Layer 2 4.20 3.75 0.024708 Q) H& c9 j, m- F* B% a
Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 3.20( m9 a W' v% F, ]* X
g/ a/ d% j- o0 Q
DC resistance by dimensions:' }$ o1 [+ b0 j8 c6 e7 N
Rdc_trace_1= 125.69 Rdc_trace_2 = 125.69 milliohms/in 20C& W3 M- h. U1 u1 \
$ N b2 _8 v. k7 W# m. B1 h( e* n DC resistance by pixel count:* _* ^" g6 l1 k! P3 v5 F' A
Rdc_trace_1= 125.685 Rdc_trace_2 = 125.685 milliohm/in 7 @) R+ T5 F/ D/ s/ R C_odd = 3.929 pF/in C_even = 3.624 pF/in1 u) r: @2 w# u; X9 e& Q
Er_odd = 3.694 Er_even = 3.710 2 u3 |! g2 l. c) d( T( K: A Loss_tan_o = 0.02537 Loss_tan_e = 0.02518 9 [* v: W3 m& ~" }! o Delay_odd = 162.844 Delay_even = 163.195 ps/in. H, `7 T" p$ r$ H+ L& `
Z_diff = 82.900 ohms Z_comm = 22.519 ohms 9 O v- D3 q4 S0 q$ W - A0 `9 h! k! B
Log file save name:8 j# R9 v* I1 t2 B+ v' X6 p9 l
mdtlc_12100946383.txt 9 `3 r8 X+ N, e6 U0 Y! X ! m7 e" |& U3 _! X1 |8 S8 J* \Simulation pix map 118 pixels high by 780 pixels wide.( ^8 f& p1 {# \( G4 S/ T
277144 bytes allocated for bmp. T: M. R3 a, ^# ~# r1 @5 {
2 Z) {" h$ A$ [0 ~0 I# Y
INPUT PARAMETERS:) D8 k1 f( H5 o2 k3 {' l0 h# t. `0 F
2 \# s* R& s8 l S$ M6 b1 e3 z Layer Thick Specifications ! s# W$ u9 `. {. J/ N6 m2 X, @5 f Copper Plane Top 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.01 K" [! f/ h1 j2 P; p: M
Laminate Layer 1 4.00 Resin Content 45.0% 2.6-5.1 : x7 i6 j. l% Y! l" D Signal Layer 1 1.20 4.1-7.4-4.1 Etchback=0.005 h5 d0 e6 d( n
Laminate Layer 2 4.00 Resin Content 45.0% 2.6-5.1 2 i; K4 D# u8 k/ M Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0 9 S0 b: e, k3 f$ X, C0 M 9 @$ P) Y! I7 V8 } Layer Thick Er Loss Tangent * d% \$ A; ]$ ^9 J3 L Copper Plane Top 1.30 3.20 ! B: h* }2 I2 G0 B
Laminate Layer 1 4.00 3.98 0.01140 ; X, R; x i9 W5 `+ v t7 A
Signal Layer 1 1.20 2.64 0.01690- B8 D I8 m- u
Laminate Layer 2 4.00 3.98 0.01140# T. p' N3 J; E0 R1 z, o* O
Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 3.20 6 c7 Q, j3 l, d 4 ?# o: m# }+ z" ~+ C. ^
DC resistance by dimensions: ! s+ r) E) b* U- R5 p Rdc_trace_1= 137.95 Rdc_trace_2 = 137.95 milliohms/in 20C0 O, s% P% q# @2 i5 t2 e9 \* |
. @7 \* L$ e+ c$ Z& B9 h
DC resistance by pixel count: # g j4 [4 {& ]) K Rdc_trace_1= 137.947 Rdc_trace_2 = 137.947 milliohm/in, \- O3 ], R2 t: k4 s
C_odd = 3.910 pF/in C_even = 3.695 pF/in 0 f6 W/ j2 S' J Er_odd = 3.769 Er_even = 3.8177 ]7 f+ r" o& e
Loss_tan_o = 0.01202 Loss_tan_e = 0.01189 + m9 T! r4 ~: u& f- B n
Delay_odd = 164.490 Delay_even = 165.524 ps/in. + o$ U) _, w U# T2 l Z_diff = 84.134 ohms Z_comm = 22.396 ohms ! g8 b/ w! C% w$ }2 ]) }6 x 9 {- l, ~8 _- k% l' J; ~2 Q% B
Simulation pix map 118 pixels high by 795 pixels wide. ) e- ?& l9 _& C2 ]5 W282454 bytes allocated for bmp. + m( Z& C" ~$ g) x ( A! {- o9 C# j' g- JINPUT PARAMETERS:9 e, O/ p) u& P2 s$ f
5 `9 \* O1 R4 p& Q
Layer Thick Specifications # K( j( g8 u6 C2 h& Z: P* q
Copper Plane Top 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0 7 C" F& U) o7 K* t0 [+ l3 ^ Laminate Layer 1 4.00 Resin Content 54.0% 2.6-5.1 : g" O: T' Q* `# n3 L" t; x Signal Layer 1 1.20 4.4-7.1-4.4 Etchback=0.00 % H% S, G. k, L Laminate Layer 2 4.00 Resin Content 54.0% 2.6-5.1 5 u/ _) ]/ p) h+ g S/ I8 J
Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0 2 D k' `. ]. ?* H/ {$ l/ u. A 7 A' u9 f2 v0 l- V6 p( u1 L Layer Thick Er Loss Tangent- Z& p5 ^8 X/ ?, `; p/ {
Copper Plane Top 1.30 3.20 % j( F) M H0 W: `2 ], b
Laminate Layer 1 4.00 3.76 0.01230 ' i. i( N+ u! d/ A( l
Signal Layer 1 1.20 2.64 0.016900 \. P( ^% H- |) _+ N ]6 c
Laminate Layer 2 4.00 3.76 0.01230 g+ `' S0 u8 ~/ j" Z* g7 i+ T Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 3.20 : R% J9 r$ b) c+ d / T% M3 F) O, y3 b0 w q DC resistance by dimensions:& [& T7 u. D3 M( e" i! T; l( z9 R$ j2 e
Rdc_trace_1= 128.54 Rdc_trace_2 = 128.54 milliohms/in 20C; E2 m" |* }) H/ @& B
' F. a+ e9 ~: _( y; @5 z
DC resistance by pixel count:! S3 |& d/ A, }) Z) |& Q; ?; Q
Rdc_trace_1= 128.542 Rdc_trace_2 = 128.542 milliohm/in* C( [& D( N* ~0 x, g! D
C_odd = 3.865 pF/in C_even = 3.623 pF/in! b- v" H: _* C
Er_odd = 3.588 Er_even = 3.631 . c+ H4 E1 x) v9 R- u! K. Y Loss_tan_o = 0.01283 Loss_tan_e = 0.01270 2 _0 m) M. N3 P5 q7 o3 m; J Delay_odd = 160.480 Delay_even = 161.455 ps/in.1 Q# T3 n- m% C: M( b; i! q
Z_diff = 83.041 ohms Z_comm = 22.280 ohms , c: c+ `! E( ~! b& {5 `( ~4 }, M2 }! c/ K
看完之后，我有一事不明，我总是分不清奇偶，不知道这两者到底如何区分，亲，你能告诉我吗？作者: Nelson 时间: 2012-12-1 14:21
我以前也分不清奇偶，后来强行记住了even是偶，搞的后来一看到odd，就要先想even是“偶”，odd只好是“奇”了，很是麻烦！ . R8 U4 Z" H3 ~+ e. F. n |你这一提醒，我以后可以换个记法了：odd是3个字母，“奇”数个字母；even是4个字母，“偶”数个字母。哈哈作者: hrb011011 时间: 2012-12-23 21:19
晕， 版主居然转贴到这里来了！ + Z: o( z: A4 D, ~ R4 ]2 j! j汗！！！{:soso_e110:}