Takashi,
I would say go for the thin planes since they are lower in cost and
there is really not much benefits of having thick pwr/gnd planes for the
internal layers. If the planes are inserted for the purpose of
decoupling, its thicknesses do not affect the capacitance values,
negligible effect on the parasitics as well. The same goes for
reduction of crosstalk.
Chee-Yee
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [SI-LIST] : About multilayer Board
Author: [email protected] at SMTPGATE
Date: 12/4/97 6:53 PM
Does anyone help on the effect of EMI suppression owing to the difference
of copper thickness which is located on the inner layer of multi_layer
board ?
(This layer is used for GROUND or POWER plane.)
Which is better the thickness become thick or thin ?
And what is the reason why ?
Thanks in advance.
Best Regards.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Takashi Yanagimoto
Ricoh Company Ltd.
Tokyo Japan
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=ISO-2022-JP
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:53:02 +0900
Subject: [SI-LIST] : About multilayer Board
To: <[email protected]>
From: "Takashi Yanagimoto" <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Received: from yanasan2.den.rp.ricoh.co.jp ([133.139.199.219]) by isti7.den.rp.r
icoh.co.jp (4.1/1.3MsunMX)
id AA08786; Thu, 4 Dec 97 19:02:10 JST
Received: from isti7.den.rp.ricoh.co.jp ([133.139.199.198])
by ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (8.8.4+2.7Wbeta4/3.6Wbeta7) with SMTP id SAA13275
for <[email protected]>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:53:24 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp [202.32.12.1])
by saturn.sun.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA03045
for <[email protected]>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 01:53:36 -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 BAA26671
for <[email protected]>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 01:53:29 -0800
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM by silab.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id BAA12621; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 01:54:49 -0800
Errors-To: [email protected]
Received: by silab.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id BAA12625; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 01:54:53 -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 CAA09258;
Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:00:05 -0800
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.bya
ddr) with SMTP id CAA11047; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:00:25 -0800
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
by thalia.fm.intel.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA15403
for <[email protected]>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:45:17 -0800 (PST
)
Received: from thalia.fm.intel.com (thalia.fm.intel.com [132.233.247.11]) by fmm
ail.fm.intel.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA03763 for <[email protected]
n.intel.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: [email protected]