Re: [SI-LIST] : Copper balance

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Chris Padilla ([email protected])
Date: Wed Jan 10 2001 - 13:31:42 PST

So they want a bunch of little squares (or some geometrical shape) of
floating copper--that's fine and normal to do to prevent warpage of the
fab. I still don't see much of a problem with this--it is floating and as
long as it is far away from any component, spacing of the little squares
shouldn't be too big of a deal but I have to honest in saying that I've
never paid attention to the spacing of the little squares on my boards so I
can't give you much advice on that subject.


>Thanks Chris. The main problem is the PCB vendor wanted to have 40% copper
>convereage on the layer and this implies small spacing between the
>floating copper
>geometries. Having squares 5x5 mm with the spacing 10 mm will give < 25%
>coverage; therefore less spacing is required. But what is the smallest
>spacing and
>what is the copper geometry to get 40% ?
>Chris Padilla wrote:
> > It is called thieving and I've found so signifcant EMI results positive or
> > negative as a result. Just set a spacing criteria from any components like
> > "no closer than 500 mils to any componenet or trace or via or whatever."
> >
> > If the board has lots of blank space to fill, the EMI team may wish to
> > consider making embedded caps with the free space and copper flood
> > depending on the reference plane nearby. I have found these caps to be of
> > significant importance in controlling emissions and they are basically
> "free!"
> >
> > Good Luck----->Chris

**** 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

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 08 2001 - 14:30:36 PDT