From: [email protected]
Date: Tue Jun 20 2000 - 09:15:59 PDT
Hi Tadashi,
Did you run a simulation with only an airgap between the traces (same
distance you have with the guard traces on the board) to show you what
your crosstalk would be with only the added separations? Try that, and
report back what you find. (Pssst, guard traces aren't necessary) :)
-M-
---------Included Message----------
> From: "Tadashi ARAI" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : Guard traces
>
> I'm standing in opposite.
>
> My calculation using XTK showed that there are benefit to reduce
> crosstalk with additional guard trace. Wider the guard trace,
smaller
> noise we can get. Also vias intervals are very effective.
>
> Radiation from clock traces are reduced by guard traces according
to
> MOM simulations (but not by me), too.
>
========================================================
> Mail from [email protected] described as below:
>
> > Personally?
> > They're unnecessary.
> > If done incorrectly, can lead to all sorts of problems.
> > If done correctly, have to be stitched every inch or so
> > with vias driving up the cost. Adding guard traces leads
> > to separating the traces you wish to separate anyway.
> > Distance is the best cure for crosstalk. Therefore, IMO,
> > it's sort of redundant to use them.
> >
_____________________________________________________________
Tired of limited space on Yahoo and Hotmail?
Free 100 Meg email account available at http://www.dacafe.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
****
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 22 2000 - 10:50:40 PST