**From:** Heiko Dudek (*heikod@cadence.com*)

**Date:** Mon Aug 21 2000 - 22:13:35 PDT

**Next message:**Jan Vercammen: "Re: [SI-LIST] : x-talk saturation"**Previous message:**Tadashi ARAI: "Re: [SI-LIST] : IBIS models for RAMBUS devices"**In reply to:**Mike Jenkins: "Re: [SI-LIST] : x-talk saturation"**Next in thread:**opamps cybernetics: "Re: [SI-LIST] : x-talk saturation"

How about a much more simple approach ... I'm assuming a homogenous,

linear system of two conductors: aggressor and victim. Because that'll do

the job to explain saturation.

The actual cause for crosstalk is the electric and magnetic field lines of the

aggressor net striking the victim net. Since there's a change in both fields,

there will be a voltage and a current induced in the victim net. The usual way

to model this in a linear system is a number of 'mutual capacitances'

(capacitive coupling between aggressor and victim) and 'mutual inductances'

(inductive coupling between aggressor and victim). So with this, the amount

of capacitive crosstalk on the victim net is based on the amount of capacitive

coupling and on dV/dt - the changing speed of the voltage on the aggressor.

The amount of inductive crosstalk depends on the amount of inductive

coupling and on dI/dt - the changing speed of the current on the aggressor.

Since a signal is not travelling infinitely fast along the transmission line, but

with a propagation velocity which depends on the trace geometry, it will take

a certain time for the signal from the source to the load. Now imagine the

victim and the aggressor lines as a number of coupled inductors plus capacitors

between the two. Once the signal comes to the first capacitive/inductive

coupling, there's a certain amount of crosstalk introduced to the victim net. Now

this crosstalk will 'travel' in two directions: back to the direction where the signal

came from on the aggressor (backward crosstalk) and in the same direction as

the signal on the aggressor is travelling (forward crosstalk). As the signal comes

to the next capacitive/inductive coupling, there's the same thing happening again.

Just with the 'new' crosstalk added to the 'previous' one which was travelling

along the victim line with the same speed as the aggressor signal (supposed the

propagation velocity is the same - or, in other words, the trace geometries are the

same). It's easy to see that the crosstalk signal on the victim line would add up

more and more the longer the traces are running in parallel. Well, would, because

now there's the saturation effect. Once the lines are long compared to the rise

time of the signal, no more voltage (or current) changes are going on at the

beginning of the tline while the signal is still travelling down the line (actually, the

beginning of the tline already went through all states between low state and high

state and is now stable at either high or low). So, if there's no dI/dt or respectively

no more dV/dt, there's no more crosstalk added.

Saturation depends on both the propagation velocity (the trace geometry) and

the edge rate of the aggressor signal.

- Heiko

P.S.: If you have a chance to be at the Cadence User Group Meeting, you're

welcome to attend the 'Signal Integrity 101' (Sunday evening) which addresses

this and other SI issues in much greater detail.

At 12:29 PM 8/21/00 -0700, Mike Jenkins wrote:

*>A question about your inquiry....when you say "after some point",
*

*>are you referring to increasing the input amplitude or increasing
*

*>the parallel conductor length? It isn't clear to me.
*

*>
*

*>If you mean increasing the input amplitude, then the statement is
*

*>false. This is a LINEAR system, and increasing the input to a
*

*>linear system always results in the output increasing proportionally.
*

*>
*

*>If you mean increasing the conductor length, then I think the
*

*>reply from Mr. Verkammen is what you were looking for (assuming
*

*>you had in mind a multiconductor, nonhomogeneous system).
*

*>
*

*>If you had in mind something simpler (two conductors and a
*

*>homogeneous medium), then again the statement is false. Far end
*

*>noise increases as the conductor length increases. Near end noise,
*

*>on the other hand, does flatten as the conductor length increases
*

*>past the risetime of the aggressor signal. The noise pulse gets
*

*>wider as the length gets longer, but not higher. (Thought I'd
*

*>add this, just in case you were referring to this more simple case.)
*

*>
*

*>Regards,
*

*>Mike
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> > Hi,
*

*> >
*

*> > If you have two very long parallel conductors, the forward cross-talk does
*

*> > not increase in amplitude after some point (saturation). Can anybody
*

*> > enlighten me why this saturation happens?
*

*> >
*

*> > Opamps
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>--
*

*>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*

*> Mike Jenkins Phone: 408.433.7901 _____
*

*> LSI Logic Corp, ms/G715 Fax: 408.433.7461 LSI|LOGIC| (R)
*

*> 1525 McCarthy Blvd. mailto:Jenkins@LSIL.com | |
*

*> Milpitas, CA 95035 http://www.lsilogic.com |_____|
*

*>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*

*>
*

*>**** To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to
*

*>majordomo@silab.eng.sun.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
*

*>****
*

Heiko Dudek

Technical Marketing Manager | High Speed Systems Design & IC Packaging

Cadence Design Systems | 270 Billerica Road | Chelmsford, MA 01824

ph: (978) 262-6384

fx: (978) 446-6798

email: heikod@cadence.com

**** To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to

majordomo@silab.eng.sun.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

****

**Next message:**Jan Vercammen: "Re: [SI-LIST] : x-talk saturation"**Previous message:**Tadashi ARAI: "Re: [SI-LIST] : IBIS models for RAMBUS devices"**In reply to:**Mike Jenkins: "Re: [SI-LIST] : x-talk saturation"**Next in thread:**opamps cybernetics: "Re: [SI-LIST] : x-talk saturation"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Tue May 08 2001 - 14:29:19 PDT
*