Re: [SI-LIST] : Differential TDR "Measurements"

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Vinu Arumugham ([email protected])
Date: Tue Apr 25 2000 - 13:14:28 PDT

Fred Balistreri wrote:

> NO, this is the wrong approach. For one thing the planes are left
> floating
> under this scenerio.

When a single-ended TDR measurement is performed on a differential pair,
the instantaneous voltage on the plane between the lines will always be
half way between the true and complement voltages due to the voltage
divider formed by the two transmission lines (each trace to the plane).
This is also the case when a differential TDR is performed on the same
traces. In other words, if the instantaneous voltage on the plane is the
same for both measurements, it seems to me that leaving the plane
unconnected should make no difference to the measurement.

> This would work for twisted pair cable with no shield and
> gnd far away such as in inches at least.
>
> A PCB gnd plane plays an important part in determining Zo diff. If
> not
> properly accounted for the resulting error is large.
>

Since this is not some calculation where we are ignoring the plane but a
physical measurement where the fields are affected by the presence of
the plane, it seems to me that the plane is being accounted for.

>
> Best Regards,
>
> Vinu Arumugham wrote:
>
>> Is it not possible to perform a single-ended TDR measurement, with
>> the probe
>> ground connected to say the true trace and the signal being launched
>> into the
>> complement trace, to measure the differential impedance of the pair?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vinu
>>
>> Dima Smolyansky wrote:
>>
>> > Pat and All:
>> >
>> > We have both instruments and use both approaches on interconnects,
>> and they
>> > both work. If your system is linear, either approach will work.
>> > Interconnects are linear, except maybe for some exotic cases where
>> we deal
>> > with ferromagnetic or something like that. If your system is
>> non-linear
>> > (e.g., an active device), the crosstalk approach (approach #2)
>> breaks down.
>> > Again, both approaches should work fine for PCB interconnects.
>> >
>> > In my experience, errors in differential impedance measurement (as
>> any other
>> > impedance measurement) more often have to do with the fact that
>> the TDR
>> > users sometimes don't have a good interface from the TDR scope to
>> the DUT
>> > (cables and probes) and sometimes do not know how to best utilize
>> > calibration capabilities in the instrument. Also, picking a
>> specific point
>> > on the TDR trace where the measurement is taken can cause
>> discrepancies.
>> > Averaging over a short region of TDR trace may help reduce these
>> > discrepancies; we participated in the industry round robin on
>> impedance
>> > measurements where averaging over a region removed practically all
>>
>> > discrepancies between the instruments and methods.
>> >
>> > Hope that helps,
>> >
>> > -Dima
>> > ===================
>> > TDA Systems, Inc.
>> > 11140 SW Barbur Blvd., Suite 100
>> > Portland, OR 97219
>> > (503) 246-2272
>> > (503) 246-2282 (fax)
>> > (503) 804-7171 (mobile)
>> > http://www.tdasystems.com
>> > The Interconnect Modeling Company(TM)
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Brent DeWitt <[email protected]>
>> > To: <[email protected]>
>> > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 8:16 PM
>> > Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] : Differential TDR "Measurements"
>> >
>> > > Pat,
>> > >
>> > > I'm not an SI guru (and I don't play one on TV) but;
>> > >
>> > > My first impression is that your method is the more confident
>> one. Your
>> > > method appears to "wrap up" more of the variables than the fab
>> house. How
>> > > is the fab house estimating the line to line coupling in the
>> differential
>> > > pair? It's possible to do accurately with a good model, but I
>> would
>> > > question if their model is rigorous.
>> > >
>> > > Best of luck Sir!
>> > >
>> > > Brent DeWitt
>> > > Datex-Ohmeda
>> > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: [email protected]
>> > > > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Zabinski,
>> Patrick
>> > > > J.
>> > > > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 6:45 PM
>> > > > To: [email protected]
>> > > > Subject: [SI-LIST] : Differential TDR "Measurements"
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > We're working more and more with differential signals,
>> > > > and subsequently dealing with more differential printed
>> > > > circuit boards (PCBs). Over the past few years, we've
>> > > > had difficulty with several PCB vendors
>> > > > trying to obtain a controlled impedance 100 ohm
>> > > > differential pair.
>> > > >
>> > > > The problem generally boils down to "who's measurement
>> > > > do we believe"? We measure one impedance, while the
>> > > > PCB vendor measures another.
>> > > >
>> > > > We've done some digging, and there appears to be two
>> > > > approaches to measuring differential impedance, and I'd
>> > > > like to hear what folks have to say about them.
>> > > >
>> > > > Approach 1: inject two signals of opposite polarity,
>> > > > one into the true and one into the complement. The
>> > > > complement signal is substracted from the true, and
>> > > > you read the impedance just like a single-ended
>> > > > measurement.
>> > > >
>> > > > Approach 2: Inject one signal into the true trace and
>> > > > record its signal. Then, inject a signal into the complement
>> > > > trace and record its signal. Then, with the magic of
>> > > > mathematics, compile these two different captured signals
>> > > > into an effective differential measurement.
>> > > >
>> > > > The equipment we have in-house uses Approach 1, while
>> > > > nearly every board vendor we work with uses Approach 2.
>> > > > Can anyone shed some light into the accuracies, sensitivities,
>>
>> > > > etc. of these two approaches? Are there cases where one
>> > > > approach is better/worse than the other?
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Pat
>> > > >
>> > > > -----
>> > > > Pat Zabinski ph:
>> 507-284-5936
>> > > > Mayo Foundation fx:
>> 507-284-9171
>> > > > 200 First Street SW
>> [email protected]
>> > > > Rochester, MN 55905
>> www.mayo.edu/sppdg/sppdg_home_page.html
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > **** To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send
>> e-mail to
>> > > > [email protected]. 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
>> > > [email protected]. 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
>>
>> > [email protected]. 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
>> [email protected]. 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
>> ****
>
> --
> Fred Balistreri
> [email protected]
>
> http://www.apsimtech.com
>
>

**** To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to
[email protected]. 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
****

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 22 2000 - 10:50:06 PST