From: Vinu Arumugham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 18 2000 - 14:35:48 PDT
Barry Ma wrote:
> I am glad to hear of different opinion to my second question:
> "Do we really have to limit the distance letting the charge have enough time to move from the cap to the chip during the rise time interval?"
> You said: "The decap should be much closer than 0.5 Tr to be of use."
> If Tr = 1 ns, the corresponding distance is approximately equal to 14 cm in FR4. There's no problem to locate decaps much closer than 7 cm, following your opinion. If Tr = 0.2 ns (likely happens in 5 - 10 years), it might be difficult to implement it - much closer than 1.4 cm. Then further Tr = 0.1 ns, ... much closer than 0.7 cm, and so on ... That's why I raised the question.
This is already a problem for some devices and package capacitance is used to supply the charge. Even in such cases, the decap should be placed as close as possible in order to provide enough charge if the device is driving long transmission line loads.
> Can you detail your opinion? Thanks.
> Barry Ma
> Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now!
> **** To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to
> email@example.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE
> si-list or UNSUBSCRIBE si-list-digest, for more help, put HELP.
> si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
**** To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to
firstname.lastname@example.org. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE
si-list or UNSUBSCRIBE si-list-digest, for more help, put HELP.
si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 22 2000 - 10:50:22 PST