|
EDA365欢迎您!
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?注册
x
故事是这样开始的:有人问树脂含量和损耗的关系。+ { a1 \7 s# V: j j
\8 ` b9 t2 a0 V8 B3 F0 I' E
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:52:23 +0800 (CST)
. f& N3 B3 b1 e- i m t4 [
( S; X& ]7 g$ ?. _2 j! s$ {6 JHello experts,
: M, t7 {& ]$ w+ H1 E( P- o>! E/ X, @+ y+ t- Y; m0 W$ I
> I'm from PCB house. Recently we have producted some insertion loss test 5 u$ }, c: V1 g
> boards(16L, SET2DIL coupon, IS415/IT150DA/I-Speed Mid/low loss material with
} h5 @6 N( U. \ L; g> RTF copper foil). We found that the multiply core and high resin PP will
3 w# M7 x6 V' l% c' h8 U# i7 _- K> result a lower loss result. It's a trouble to MI engineer. I would like to % b S, \" ?9 A3 n
> know how to predict the loss base on stackup. Please help to suggest (papers,
& ~" m! ^9 W3 J1 j> script, free software etc ). Thanks a lot!
6 J; R7 N% u/ G) i- i7 v8 X$ E% I>5 t; u- P' I# K o# \8 m+ r
>
' I, \0 _, z# o1 h( {>
0 g1 m3 P( n Z0 y7 b> Best regards, C. u" }8 k# U% [ z
>; e% R% j" t H8 w) x7 _; S! V
> Terry Ho7 p M2 k- M7 i' {' Q9 t
7 P) f+ D1 M" l& |4 p然后 Scott McMorrow ,steve weir,Loyer Jeff 这些活跃分子开始依次发表意见.4 M$ ]2 J% I! { m7 \0 l$ I& w2 `: ~
# N/ ^; J8 l; m, r. O; J
From: Scott McMorrow <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: A5 K5 {/ a" L7 b+ w) V# M( N* ^* G
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:02:36 -0400
0 p n4 L- u4 P0 P- q3 `+ ]' |0 f& N* C# O5 r4 V6 Z2 v2 O
Hmmm... I'm in the middle of the middle of Hurricane Sandy. Power is out.
8 s" V+ Q# K7 m KStorm surge is causing the river across the street to rise to unprecedented, w: b1 r- R* G0 o( X% L$ y8 T
levels.
: P0 t2 L: T/ e# P8 d... and this guy wants us to do his job and suggest free software.
8 o+ [$ z1 k' I; ~9 w! L
" o5 O' m- `! S$ O, }2 H7 x
; z$ r& C; o- d7 EFrom: steve weir <weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx>
5 d6 Z; K7 k# KDate: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:23:22 -0700
% D' w& w: R, j; U% \2 L3 N
8 E/ J1 J7 ~; @ FAs a PCB fabricator I think you need to develop in-house material . |" ~* ]" n/ }+ z8 u! Q3 v
properties expertise. Your competitors who understand the materials
. y) H o& R! i$ d7 i6 {they use and their process limits are positioned to get higher yield $ p+ J1 }' U( S; e" L
percentages at lower cost because of their knowledge.2 H- \# _" K1 i; A% l) @9 Y6 p
/ A" A% s3 x, D
I appreciate that you don't want to spend unnecessary money, but at
, Z' U$ J. z8 xleast spend the time to learn about what you are using. I am troubled
& g, o; R/ h V/ L* {that your engineer knows so little about the materials you use that he 6 W8 ~' {/ N6 Y9 ?4 `
is surprised by common results. Once your company understands materials 1 E1 W, F- A7 n' t" Q5 l% j
better you may well appreciate the value of commercial stack-up planning
+ l1 A! |4 n) s, H! a- H ~software.( A) }) a! c5 }! R$ D$ [3 E
- j' ~3 _; b) @- [. b9 KSteve.
; b1 |' t, ], A+ T$ k
9 e g1 c- |4 J9 Q9 K1 P2 s' IFrom: "Loyer, Jeff" <jeff.loyer@xxxxxxxxx>
* h6 E% @; W9 b2 XDate: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:33:48 +00002 B8 X! X1 B! K9 X3 B6 B1 p
- @* h" U0 ]3 v5 g. |+ S 0 C7 D5 O7 G$ W1 r* Z* s+ o
I'm surprised at the tone of the responses to this posting (but perhaps I & ~1 f6 V7 b: E0 Z& {
shouldn't be, unfortunately); I don't see anything untoward in it. I would
+ J# C8 _6 Y6 {like to provide some context (with some assumptions on my part) for the message
0 d/ V* \& }2 @lest other innocent postings meet with similar fates. I'll also (eventually) ; `5 a P# }( Z# X$ }: J
provide my answer to the question, as I understand it.- \7 `2 m3 ~' l6 Q7 C W
. g6 ~* h5 P* M& l. W! w' ~) i7 S7 `) _) L% i5 l+ g7 d8 U
There is a significant portion (majority?) of the industry which is extremely 4 `* q+ b! V( H- d7 l
cost constrained. For instance, to them rotating a design 10 degrees is : `( {- f" g& L7 |/ k4 |' I
impractical, much less 22 or 45 degrees. Thus, they find other cost-effective
/ q1 W: k, E$ ^3 t9 Eyet effective means of solving problems (such as zig-zag routing), even though
4 |* ~0 V: K% J0 U2 Fthose don't appear efficient to others to whom cost is not an issue.$ B) s! M& M$ l
$ f N1 W! X; d3 T+ ^$ K& M3 i) r
: R% T% Z4 U& J$ l' A6 b6 ^
There are new pressures being applied to this segment - designers are now not
, w3 }& g% U* t& uonly requiring impedance control, but are also insisting on insertion loss
" Y/ X$ M1 ]( w! ~( q' |' Fcontrol. This is a HUGE paradigm shift, very similar to what we encountered 6 z8 X' b5 h: n4 }. C" V1 S
when traceable impedance control was first introduced. That was a very 8 i7 V4 z1 D) o* s6 @
challenging evolution, and this will be also./ w3 z, \5 V- h$ _9 a( s
; P( f5 O( d* e& p( I, o3 t. n1 {: n( l# o7 W/ S0 A
( S0 q! h$ o- h2 z" E+ Y+ _# d
As an example, PCB vendors are now being advised to smooth their copper, after
* h+ j. ~* ?* s3 c2 j4 syears of purposely roughening it for best mechanical integrity. It should come 9 z: e4 U3 d4 _" X
as no surprise that this is not a trivial change, considering the effort that
5 H1 A. |/ z, l. L, S0 c; b( ghas gone into ensuring mechanically robust designs.
# a3 o4 U$ V4 v4 b" @; m9 [7 y) N* W, e$ m8 `8 ?
# E+ z' }2 l$ \4 b7 y- G# U
. R: _. b# R1 R' I5 w. \
Likewise, many other basic assumptions that we've been able to apply for years
. d, i2 ? t7 z' H) care now being drawn into question, and PCB vendors are looking for help to % \5 A9 R6 t6 h, i0 O4 d9 U. F8 ]
intelligently and cost-effectively explore options - "How much effect does 0 M8 N. n) {, H& Q$ T# i* n
rougher copper have on insertion loss?". I believe Terry is highlighting the - D0 R4 x7 L2 U
fact that, while there are many tools available for impedance prediction, 9 G! u7 c3 T* y- E4 h" m0 ?
insertion loss modeling is much less accessible. I don't think it is 7 e) ]& U) Y t. u7 X( \
inappropriate to ask if there are cost-effective, reliable tools available to
" s9 ^4 x. D( zpredict insertion loss based on a proposed stackup." {/ |8 i) }# v7 f4 V5 L) D: ^2 _' B
9 y7 J k6 s) }* j
# h7 [# S! I2 t& ~3 {6 p
* X* n# I( X+ s: h3 {8 Y0 f" gUnfortunately, I believe the answer to the question is that there are no 2 `: y7 e# ]2 V) L" T( S/ P
reliable, cheap (~free) modelers available to predict insertion loss. And, the
- a9 _: G, t0 B2 Y' [ones that are available require a great deal more knowledge about the stackup
* Q$ C7 m" s) \than impedance modeling does, and that information is not easily obtained. : ], O8 ]- R' f4 |# j1 q* r
There are some of us working with a vendor to test their modeler against a 4 G* N( H" K/ D) t# D) I
variety of stackups and we'll present results at DesignCon. My personal goal
+ b' U2 Y6 ?+ h% x Ois not so much to test a specific modeler but to judge how effective a modeler / O G3 Y1 |* }% K2 S) U b
can be given information that can reasonably be gleaned prior to building with
! _+ u" C' H+ }1 P, E" Evarious materials, copper types, etc." w5 u" q- N, ~9 ]* N3 q
: m- V8 u3 d: C8 W0 j5 K" G3 l9 N
0 j' I: v9 ]6 K" D9 z9 U7 b" ^- T7 ]' n
In the absence of a modeling tool, or in addition to one, I believe empirical
q. g" T4 j" R5 odata is the best predictor of insertion loss. To do this, however, you have to ! B% ?. [: ?( [5 W
build a stackup representing the final design, and it's not clear at this point . A* S; [8 w7 u
how broadly you can extrapolate those results to other stackups. But, I know 4 F% p8 x1 a% O/ N) h, [
many material vendors and PCB shops are engaged in similar efforts.
3 P4 Y% s2 x# U3 X" |9 E" O" f. d
4 }% e: E6 {1 q4 F7 I8 F
- m8 n. k( s; `; s# X+ x: f* {/ j/ i
I think this is very similar to what we went through with impedance control - Q% b2 r: t" b6 N2 D; V
the shops which most quickly were able to predict and control that + n: @. b7 D: f4 I
characteristic had an advantage. I think successful PCB vendors will need 7 j; P+ ]( I U* K' Y% R6 c2 x
reliable modeling software and empirical data on insertion loss for their
6 x! E' s' _: kparticular choices of materials, etc. - they will be able to find the most cost w/ p R$ ?! s' T# l/ S% B
effective solution.
4 z! G. r$ z4 \2 y7 Y* P! U
2 N* r; ]0 A$ _% Q9 R0 v- M% ~ O4 ]0 a Q) R& S M, }+ l9 C
+ x; j$ r! `3 g0 I( y1 {. D% K( q0 wBottom line: I doubt a reliable modeling tool is going to be cheap, but is
% Q$ q/ m) R7 Z fgoing to be necessary, and you'll want to compare any tool you do purchase - b& z, j. i5 e& \% @
against empirical data before you trust it.2 y4 i$ B: W R( z1 s
! c# @2 {% k# ?4 n* ]! L, O: L: ]( F; F& f- |/ [
2 T$ q# M5 X0 c$ u6 V
I hope this helps,6 o5 a8 W2 s5 P1 \ e
+ q1 {7 A% @* [( l: _
Jeff Loyer: W+ ~* x8 ?( W' u4 d4 [
1 z7 o+ D. H" \$ S4 f: I
4 F- m* {9 H" G: {* oFrom: steve weir <weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx>
& E0 m% _5 e8 o$ ]Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:14:41 -07008 L$ G8 X# O2 c, _9 ?5 H6 e0 j2 n: C% e
& K; |5 e t) q
+ e. S t% M. d8 GJeff, given that the only two responses were Scott and mine, I am
2 v6 k" a+ Y; B7 ~surprised that you are disappointed with both.
3 {) ^2 \# E G
# J, t/ A( A/ w, x' F: }In a fabrication market filled with intense competition it is up to
% g+ X6 a( V( Kindividual players to keep up with the technology requirements of the . v- e+ \! }4 ?
market or get left behind. The task is not simple. Depending on how far
. v% V9 t L$ T% o' Yup the frequency range one needs to go, dialing in cost effective 6 r2 T* W. ~3 T {
process requires substantial skills, time, effort and serious money. It + u# {9 Q8 ^" m
represents competitive advantage to OEMs and their partner pcb fab
3 r; m/ F3 S7 W9 Ihouses alike. Neither who have invested are likely to hand over that 6 ^# t9 p3 y3 q: D
kind of advantage especially when it is so costly to obtain.
5 O- [. U$ t b" y% G" ^0 B9 {7 g# ?7 v+ F- i0 O
I don't mind that Terry is looking for a solution on the cheap or free. ; o( N" z- w ?
If one could obtain such a sweet deal, one would be foolish not to take
; T. o. l @3 z/ J7 wit. I am troubled that in this day in age, his organization hopes to 2 V8 _ k/ i8 z) x" d
address a sophisticated issue before his technical staff has a grip on
5 g, Z* @1 m! w+ G$ ?2 xthe basics. I fail to understand what you find inappropriate about : O7 ^; S) \' ^% S8 O1 E- `' F
that concern. I would rather yell at someone headed for a cliff to stop
, P) _0 N. y* D T* X- X/ T- hthan smile and wave.$ ^9 K! |- l" Q$ m$ d# ~" A6 ?4 U
2 [5 a1 W: E" k( h aBest Regards,
* _7 V/ v: ?4 y, l Z" f2 u' {* F4 R! D# F; P8 z- l8 r" K% K
8 p' Y" I+ r% U% z9 n- I
Steve., e! H0 B: S$ L0 u0 D! T# w
2 p* o0 x0 j* ?) f; uFrom: "Loyer, Jeff" <jeff.loyer@xxxxxxxxx>( L* K3 B7 L' ]; i( u: B
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:37:46 +0000
0 s4 U/ v5 z8 |- K
( y$ w% L3 d9 @/ G
, A( i: z2 h# h+ HI realized we hadn't answered the basic question - "why does a high resin
9 m! c* O$ D' T) u' K. Nprepreg give lower loss?" The prediction of loss vs. resin content isn't
e' L# o2 l3 g: e7 n7 btrivial; as Steve said, a tool which allows you to model loss for the various 9 a1 e- q' i/ f4 [" P
scenarios should be on your Christmas wish list. Here are the factors that I 8 q4 c: J- W; `+ v1 I+ j
know of (thanks to Richard Kunze for clarifying things for me, and I welcome
2 j5 p% Y6 d. ^2 Fothers' data/opinions):
2 j# b) L; I/ b' R/ x/ O4 K: m1 ?* Resin has a lower Er than glass
4 }8 F" f" D: P1 G3 _0 ^6 d
( ?1 S/ H& R9 C+ T: }, ] * loss is approximately proportional to Df * sqrt(Er), so lowering Er 0 ~$ T* _/ T( g) f( n# D3 H
lowers loss
) d0 ~9 G* f" M! l7 z: N) n" U! q$ P' h7 O% P) Y9 O
* lower Er allows wider traces for the same impedance - this may decrease
: j5 @: ]" M6 _/ ?loss also
+ S4 l k3 R7 \
; S8 Q9 {6 N/ u' e- L* I$ E9 E* But, resin is more lossy than glass, so Df may increase7 }2 P/ N/ Y; F8 r3 `0 S( N9 ?3 x, ^
1 h3 h: M* Q _) r6 Y- X& s }3 Y
* for standard FR4 constructions, this is especially true. The data sheet ) w; F' r- W4 P/ A% w, Q& E
for IS370HR, for instance, shows Df varying from 0.0177 to 0.0247 (1GHz), 3 y7 K9 s3 t8 c; [( F8 u
depending on the resin content
`% I- z' d9 W3 D6 u8 t) J c1 f; h
- \9 S; u( X. k- y * for low loss materials, this doesn't hold. The data sheet for Meg6 # n n: v; {" s$ T
shows Df constant (0.002 @ 1GHz) for all its flavors of prepreg) {: J( z. s4 B8 N7 x
$ L( L3 a3 j& T2 i% Q; S* Where the factors dominate will depend on your relative conductor vs. , z7 y5 R$ a7 i k( u: |7 L
dielectric loss effects: for FR4, dielectric loss dominates at >~1GHz; for
1 F. q! p: D9 T/ _" c$ ilow-loss materials, conductor loss dominates up to much higher frequencies (as
+ H R- Y4 N4 J) f% nmuch as 10GHz).
/ @" Z8 _" W: O. ]5 j2 }
4 U* d4 f! U* Y1 p8 A+ |% R" T$ L
$ H, @; P; ^1 N5 b) N/ R
In your particular (low loss) case, the lower Er of the resin-rich case is ! A5 W3 _- M9 T+ L8 ]1 b
trumping the Df change (or lack of) so you get lower loss.
7 h, E! A5 d4 e0 a
3 k N9 Q! Z% n( p: j, U& U: k3 L3 o% c% b
- q7 }; @0 Y: `9 h* I8 Z. e# W" Z
Only a tool which takes into account the properties of the specific material
4 Q, s9 _ f; I0 l& d( q& t% P; kunder consideration can be expected to give an accurate prediction of insertion * h: q& r3 G5 ~9 }; A! _8 \* |
loss for various resin contents.
! M2 [) H6 [1 Y' c$ }
& A8 h* `% O+ d# K$ \( C, E- x
6 V7 B) |) Z0 W6 t2 v. O" f: {) }: ?/ o3 l; ]5 P) w
There are also environmental effects (I haven't heard or seen these stressed at
1 D- v9 h% L# ^$ O4 J& C% B. A% i7 Gthis point, though that may change soon):
) d; D( _! x5 U6 q6 `7 g. r5 o: w" o0 _# R& B! E
* Higher resin content will absorb more moisture, and thus your loss will be 8 d, {( z, P- {
more susceptible to humidity effects* g, y( S* @5 E% @" \ Q- m
& W2 B$ |3 {* f! H1 s Z! B& \& I r
* There's a difference in how the various materials' Df changes w/ temperature
- V( H7 i* g4 ~0 \- more at DesignCon
: k. d; k( O: T; b" p$ ~& ^$ r6 y( z+ W0 \7 t
4 a6 J0 c- M. @) j5 S4 a
9 W8 S( d* k; r' o O5 zI hope this helps,
: l" s2 o* i+ w: ]. u8 u" i- E2 k% V# U2 T) |" x6 }
Jeff Loyer
& r: u! i: m' p# v# y0 q5 i. N; c% ?2 l: n% k& {+ a
From: Scott McMorrow <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
4 n; b' T0 I, [: j x9 M" CDate: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:12:46 -0500
$ u9 \6 I K! x9 ^! j1 X0 U
$ t2 G: _( v& o 1 Q7 h/ z2 g+ w2 u3 X3 J6 _1 f
Jeff
3 V( x4 F+ u0 N9 yA few quick comments. Although the tanD of Meg 6 is stated to be flat, it& ?- j/ ~. q' m6 j7 f9 i# T, P v0 {
is not if you measure it. The manufacturer reported characterization in5 j! f; {; r% M( P
the data sheet is not correct. Causality is violated when tanD is flat.* c4 j/ Z4 W7 y R/ L7 h) R
: u5 R1 ~3 t( ?6 z0 o
Loss is generally due to molecular dipole losses in the material. It can
- u* I( `3 ?! `1 J5 Nbe low for high Er, as is the case with ceramic.; {% {$ W6 c" B+ ^3 t
& M# w3 W" l7 F9 D
Hygroscopic loss is due to molecular polarity. Polar molecules "glom" on to
" B- o$ ^* R/ Rwater molecules, which are also polar. Same property makes the material( ^/ f9 H) @' ^( E3 w8 q
extremely "sticky."0 ?, w2 \7 z6 D9 H/ L" |. Q! E
1 j' u5 r- L2 W9 O' X" y# J' P
The paper that Jason Miller of Oracle and I wrote for DesignCon last year7 L8 k2 Q4 A$ k1 R
covers some of the impact of temperature and humidity on measured losses.
7 r' H& X) I- v; k0 r7 s3 Y I don't have access to my storage server right now, otherwise I'd give a0 s' ]# i1 j# h! n) J. T" X9 }- K; ?
paper citation.
1 V$ e- E$ Z7 C- b, P) Y$ F5 h" M6 `9 _; `2 F, o5 s
regards,
$ s% o3 s/ p$ ]7 q) ]& `' O% A9 M" C, n" s# b
Scott
# ] r2 x8 F& f4 \/ S* {
: z" F5 r. \! w' s$ kFrom: Kirby Goulet <kgoulet@xxxxxxxx>) Z9 T- i+ v( P# r( q
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 11:08:49 -0800 (PST)5 V$ X. ^7 V+ N* e# }( t" }; ]
S. K- ` a3 b! S/ b! }
0 d: _# n' [) i3 O
It's not production quality software but you could try the mdtlc calculator to ( S! V/ F; M- ~% S. ~/ d6 }2 u
experiment. I tried Jeff's example and it seems to point to an explanation. 6 r9 h0 V* }$ }
The source code is available so you might extend it to do what you want if you
) E- y4 }% _4 N1 ahave more time than money.
# G {6 A2 F9 Z I4 b8 S) uIt looks like a race between loss due to increasing loss due to resin and
4 ^# e8 d* X, i9 y' k$ w* `7 v, qdecreasing loss due to wider traces. There is a bigger increase in the resin ( b9 P$ V: H9 l9 b
content for the IS370 case over the IS415 case. Not only that, but the IS370
2 n3 W: ]) Y% Uresin is lossier: 0.0169 versus 0.02984 so the winner is increasing loss.
6 V" M, `( c7 S# q! h
( B* C! o7 g- y. k7 HFrom the field solver, + z: Y0 H( B7 |, |
) H! w' Q. }% HIS370: the effective dielectric loss went up 14.7%. The perimeter of the 4 n# r1 r/ Z) S! a
conductor went up 3.6%.
0 q; x& R9 v* `# {' k0 C5 pIS415: the effective dielectric loss went up 6.7%. The perimeter of the
) T2 X5 z a6 a8 z6 t; ]/ j7 oconductor went up 5.7%.' `5 x- B4 J4 [! B. B) ~2 s
+ V* J" E, G, Z3 a4 l* k; g
In the second case, overall dielectric loss is a smaller fraction than the 4 a# E! s4 c0 W$ Y( A( `' N
first case. The missing bit of information you need to add is the conductor : P: e/ D! `8 N' Q2 J
loss.0 u# _) s* K9 e0 J7 \6 F. `
9 I. n" L9 M9 d D: C3 Z" Y+ `
INPUT PARAMETERS:7 t" ~" a5 ?8 `* O) }
2 j, X/ Q" i& V' K7 @0 [. D! x Layer Thick Specifications Y8 _$ H }/ o
Copper Plane Top 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0
% A! @- x0 F! }, s2 H9 W/ @5 T; W Laminate Layer 1 3.90 Resin Content 57.0% 3.4-4.9 % |% G0 { t! G3 c! W! S
Signal Layer 1 1.20 4.3-7.2-4.3 Etchback=0.00
! k* j6 ]: H4 }* x; O Laminate Layer 2 3.90 Resin Content 57.0% 3.4-4.9
- j; n% C I" t+ c Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0" E/ K$ M) V* O$ ]1 l/ R' c
6 \/ d* v0 l' }4 P. w Layer Thick Er Loss Tangent
* ?- J j1 f5 J0 J Copper Plane Top 1.30 3.20 # y. a" I" l4 h& {1 m& z
Laminate Layer 1 3.90 4.02 0.02100
, i* G$ B4 ~5 [ h) Z* z; H( g" z Signal Layer 1 1.20 3.38 0.029844 e) _0 b# I5 X9 v
Laminate Layer 2 3.90 4.02 0.02100
7 a K+ T1 v2 J Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 3.20% C, b( f- e! R. E( @0 H
+ {, @( i* D, E2 Z0 X/ \
DC resistance by dimensions:
! P9 J; E0 y9 I- O. R3 s Rdc_trace_1= 131.53 Rdc_trace_2 = 131.53 milliohms/in 20C4 `0 |7 L7 m, X, i* m) S% ~, C8 S
9 {& Q- A' ~3 g) s! c- U! P DC resistance by pixel count:
9 j- L' ? a6 N Rdc_trace_1= 131.531 Rdc_trace_2 = 131.531 milliohm/in4 P% e% A% d2 D6 t1 H' p3 o- u
C_odd = 4.221 pF/in C_even = 3.968 pF/in
4 m$ i i1 R5 ]6 {0 a3 R Q/ x Er_odd = 3.923 Er_even = 3.9470 B6 ]$ }4 {" _7 ~
Loss_tan_o = 0.02212 Loss_tan_e = 0.02184
* u+ }! ^3 x5 U Delay_odd = 167.801 Delay_even = 168.314 ps/in.3 v' M. }3 Y8 |5 E" U
Z_diff = 79.501 ohms Z_comm = 21.209 ohms( A7 |# _9 K' i9 ?
$ r9 T) b8 E6 S9 A0 jSimulation pix map 122 pixels high by 800 pixels wide.
* ?2 V' s& K% ^* X9 n" u293824 bytes allocated for bmp.
/ I: [9 y) H0 k1 r
0 i" P. V) W2 a4 b( SINPUT PARAMETERS:, j! h# o1 H# T- @# p
8 \: c) s5 ]1 J9 x, u
Layer Thick Specifications
; \6 D! S7 N3 o5 @- o) W Copper Plane Top 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.05 N$ z% C: w# J% X
Laminate Layer 1 4.20 Resin Content 75.0% 3.4-4.9 6 A6 J% P$ V5 U o- q
Signal Layer 1 1.20 4.5-7.0-4.5 Etchback=0.00! w4 g! C: {) B2 I: C. O' v
Laminate Layer 2 4.20 Resin Content 75.0% 3.4-4.9 2 Z7 D9 a% |* j# ~2 R% \8 l( b& z4 G( J
Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0
5 m! p0 y4 E2 j# |/ ? 4 m7 F' m6 o; W! M" b& B# O
Layer Thick Er Loss Tangent
9 P8 [# d5 q6 N' |: h Copper Plane Top 1.30 3.20
9 g) {5 `& u8 H Laminate Layer 1 4.20 3.75 0.02470 1 J! _( z S q+ l8 O2 S# n
Signal Layer 1 1.20 3.38 0.02984& R2 A# R0 z- V3 p' H: f$ Q
Laminate Layer 2 4.20 3.75 0.024705 q% q5 i1 I# q/ r% W X1 k& |5 @
Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 3.20
6 B3 K* a$ T# C6 ~2 P0 {0 L
* N- s; P. r; n& T2 r DC resistance by dimensions:$ K1 ^* g, `" k5 @5 f
Rdc_trace_1= 125.69 Rdc_trace_2 = 125.69 milliohms/in 20C# {4 U( D8 b5 ~, ?; F6 p
, _$ l# `' r* T1 a/ F0 G
DC resistance by pixel count:
+ g: b& {( e0 X& C( O K Rdc_trace_1= 125.685 Rdc_trace_2 = 125.685 milliohm/in8 g( t1 V7 R+ s, a v& o8 j
C_odd = 3.929 pF/in C_even = 3.624 pF/in3 N. ]; n- o- K# M6 C1 I
Er_odd = 3.694 Er_even = 3.710
- d% J, h+ M2 E d; K Loss_tan_o = 0.02537 Loss_tan_e = 0.02518 4 h3 \ Y' d0 U- F) ?- w, ]
Delay_odd = 162.844 Delay_even = 163.195 ps/in.9 ?, w! [9 k' S% |* Q2 H
Z_diff = 82.900 ohms Z_comm = 22.519 ohms0 `* C2 g1 ]5 j1 K9 g$ S8 K1 |/ h
" K: B: W0 _# r3 M+ J& r, tLog file save name:
+ I' d- ?- M+ A( o" t a: X* mmdtlc_12100946383.txt
4 Z+ c! i2 q. [& Q
( M8 W7 l+ [; K* z6 {Simulation pix map 118 pixels high by 780 pixels wide.
0 Q# d9 m6 ^* G+ r$ B277144 bytes allocated for bmp.
4 N4 a& B& l: H3 {- E * \: {, Q& v2 ~! ?2 s& l
INPUT PARAMETERS:' j% X7 ^- v: f$ Q
+ O$ Z) J1 g: D$ Q7 H Layer Thick Specifications . V5 p4 |, y- z2 d$ O7 Q
Copper Plane Top 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.02 o( I+ [( \( G6 o: i) ` N
Laminate Layer 1 4.00 Resin Content 45.0% 2.6-5.1
0 t; n3 O8 }' a0 H) A8 v Signal Layer 1 1.20 4.1-7.4-4.1 Etchback=0.00
! e W6 ~( V5 K2 {0 F Laminate Layer 2 4.00 Resin Content 45.0% 2.6-5.1 - K, Q4 x' D& L* }" e
Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0
# f, Y& c+ a# d0 b# I5 L( c ( F7 f+ S# y$ I- E' i: M
Layer Thick Er Loss Tangent
& [' h* u7 l: k2 x# ?% ~ Copper Plane Top 1.30 3.20 ! G6 A9 ^4 u1 ^
Laminate Layer 1 4.00 3.98 0.01140
/ d* b" Q& t3 E; m3 b) v i; S) { Signal Layer 1 1.20 2.64 0.016903 H" b, z( q1 C3 K# g4 [/ h# Y
Laminate Layer 2 4.00 3.98 0.01140
5 o2 K& a% Y" C% Y9 t8 f( W1 r5 ? Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 3.20% r! X! O3 G+ Z& f
+ D3 x9 p% v, L T6 W* m# C1 Z) ] DC resistance by dimensions:
% Z" y" D$ |2 h% ] Rdc_trace_1= 137.95 Rdc_trace_2 = 137.95 milliohms/in 20C: M2 V1 w) M( ]2 q; D- W
' B2 {4 u& |& |, Z% r8 C DC resistance by pixel count:& a2 ~0 {# S) v B9 R* _/ j, t
Rdc_trace_1= 137.947 Rdc_trace_2 = 137.947 milliohm/in4 i8 w0 Y+ p; q
C_odd = 3.910 pF/in C_even = 3.695 pF/in* H8 z) ~1 H+ ]4 C3 n/ L9 j
Er_odd = 3.769 Er_even = 3.817/ {9 [3 _5 X7 y: u! m
Loss_tan_o = 0.01202 Loss_tan_e = 0.01189 3 @) F& R* T2 N! d$ J4 ^5 e# S
Delay_odd = 164.490 Delay_even = 165.524 ps/in.
$ E4 U4 V+ A' S- f- i. a Z_diff = 84.134 ohms Z_comm = 22.396 ohms
; Q6 O: ]# S1 X _& o4 S+ k
3 b5 ?- }2 M! {4 P( @- G! R7 fSimulation pix map 118 pixels high by 795 pixels wide.# u2 y- @ J' C8 y- w
282454 bytes allocated for bmp.3 M2 n( w2 i/ H. ?8 U: i
/ `) D' }& H. ^) ^$ o" X
INPUT PARAMETERS:
4 r9 X6 K, d6 T+ B+ c* n/ B 4 [+ W3 T. t+ E2 `3 B' W* Y8 {
Layer Thick Specifications 4 Z( @. C3 \7 O$ a4 a7 q
Copper Plane Top 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0* b1 T* d+ R" }7 Y
Laminate Layer 1 4.00 Resin Content 54.0% 2.6-5.1
$ ~9 Y# f9 h+ [9 G- {4 p Signal Layer 1 1.20 4.4-7.1-4.4 Etchback=0.00
% h) ]7 L; ?% n; f* @: j6 W Laminate Layer 2 4.00 Resin Content 54.0% 2.6-5.1
4 s' W; W# _6 O, ?+ _ Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 Opening w=0.0 offset=0.0
3 }. ]. J) x4 x) K6 E, V
* \: e, n" M8 r Layer Thick Er Loss Tangent$ Y8 c/ g5 P1 Z r6 ?
Copper Plane Top 1.30 3.20
# P7 R. c( F) h: J; T: ^ p Laminate Layer 1 4.00 3.76 0.01230
; p& v; J/ o/ F6 f5 T' r% x; G Signal Layer 1 1.20 2.64 0.01690' s4 X8 u3 I8 b, G: v3 C
Laminate Layer 2 4.00 3.76 0.01230% }' Z' [1 @$ W. a" p
Copper Plane Bottom 1.30 3.20
( B( @' z7 L Q8 Y0 t
5 ]& a( h, i1 J T3 ` DC resistance by dimensions:
4 e: K p2 ]9 |, X' [6 ?! b! R Rdc_trace_1= 128.54 Rdc_trace_2 = 128.54 milliohms/in 20C
, `+ a" A8 W6 E
K% t( l* D. U/ P; ]- s) W DC resistance by pixel count:9 V/ s9 R- e% w+ @ x/ b
Rdc_trace_1= 128.542 Rdc_trace_2 = 128.542 milliohm/in
! _% ^' p8 y7 W) L/ _ C_odd = 3.865 pF/in C_even = 3.623 pF/in7 v! ] C' }+ v
Er_odd = 3.588 Er_even = 3.631
. G4 J1 W/ s# g0 x& ], T7 j Loss_tan_o = 0.01283 Loss_tan_e = 0.01270
& d% \5 @3 M/ ~' C# i Delay_odd = 160.480 Delay_even = 161.455 ps/in.
8 R$ t! c! Q8 I8 j) }) w. S9 \ Z_diff = 83.041 ohms Z_comm = 22.280 ohms
$ A& ~( U3 b$ b ]' n, b0 D$ ]) }" u1 W% a, p0 H; H6 k7 z
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? |
|