There was a detailed discussion of this subject some months ago. Look in
the archives.
Vadim Heyfitch
Intel Corp.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [SI-LIST] : The Flight-Time/SI Effects of Trace 'Tromboning'
Author: [email protected] at SMTPGATE
Date: 1/8/98 7:26 PM
Has anyone investigated the effects of trace 'tromboning' (i.e.,
folding the trace to add length) on flight-time and signal integrity
in general. I'm interested in some rough rules-of-thumb on flight-time
increases/decreases given a fold with a length of 'x' and a distance
between the traces of 'y'. (The environment is current
state-of-the-art 100Mhz+ multi-layer boards). How much separation is
needed to eliminate any problems (assuming the problem is
significant).
Also, is this handled correctly in current simulators (such as Quad).
Thanks
Orville Orr
Compaq Computer Corp.
ECG - Enterprise Computing Group
Phone: (281) 518-8546
Fax: (281) 518-7445
Pager: (713) 765-9892
Email: [email protected]
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Precedence: bulk
Sender: [email protected]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 19:26:11 -0600
Subject: [SI-LIST] : The Flight-Time/SI Effects of Trace 'Tromboning'
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
From: "Orr, Orville" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=COMPAQ%l=EXCHOU-PROD0-980109012611Z-11146@exchou-conn02.
im.hou.compaq.com>
Received: by exchou-conn02.im.hou.compaq.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Serve
r Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52)
id <[email protected]>; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 19:
26:12 -0600
Received: from exchou-conn02.im.hou.compaq.com(really [172.18.22.250]) by mail.c
ompaq.com
via sendmail with smtp
id <[email protected]>
for <[email protected]>; Thu, 8 Jan 98 19:26:13 -0600 (CST)
(/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.2 built 25-may-96)
Received: from mail.compaq.com(really [207.18.199.36]) by mailext02.compaq.com
via sendmail with smtp
id <[email protected]>
for <[email protected]>; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 19:21:34 -0600 (CST)
(Smail-3.2.0.92 1997-Feb-9 #2 built 1997-Sep-10)
Received: from mailext02.compaq.com (mailext02.compaq.com [207.18.199.33])
by saturn.sun.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA27838
for <[email protected]>; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:27:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from saturn.sun.com (saturn.EBay.Sun.COM [129.150.69.2])
by Eng.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3) with SMTP id RAA02987
for <[email protected]>; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:26:28 -0800
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM by silab.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id RAA22173; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:27:53 -0800
Errors-To: [email protected]
Received: by silab.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id RAA22177; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:27:57 -0800
Received: from silab.eng.sun.com (silab.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.121.121])
by Eng.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3) with SMTP id SAA10795;
Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:06:40 -0800
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.13]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.bya
ddr) with SMTP id SAA20531; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:06:51 -0800
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
by ganymede.or.intel.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA02660;
Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:40:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ganymede.or.intel.com (ganymede.or.intel.com [134.134.248.3]) by
fmmail.fm.intel.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA10991; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:30:
59 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: [email protected]