[SI-LIST] Re: Ground vias and the land of ID ("It Depends")

  • From: emceed <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "jeff.loyer@xxxxxxxxx" <jeff.loyer@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:07:16 -0700

One problem to remember, the amount of energy extracted from a signal to cause 
an EMC emissions problem is often so low that the effect on SI is 
insignificant. So EMC simulations and measurements are in order. I present live 
experiments in my seminars to illustrate this effect, very easy to set up an 
experiment to show this right on a table top, no chamber needed!

Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
iPhone: 408-858-4528
Office:   702-570-6108
Email:    doug@xxxxxxxxxx
Website: http://dsmith.org


> On Oct 22, 2014, at 05:44, Loyer, Jeff <jeff.loyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> At the risk of finding myself embroiled in a furball, I thought I'd see if I 
> could clear up (in my own mind anyway) some of the effects of ground vias.  I 
> ran 3-D simulations on a pair of single-ended signal vias with various 
> configurations of ground vias around them and compared impedance, NEXT, and 
> FEXT.  The results strongly suggest that nearby ground vias are a good 
> investment to reduce via crosstalk.  Of course, if you can absorb the extra 
> crosstalk, it's a moot point.  And ground vias are often hard to put where we 
> want them, since they impede routing on every layer, so we seldom have the 
> luxury of all the vias we might like (the "no xtalk" configuration in the 
> study).
> Here's a link to the study.
> https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v‹6e658761616dab72a2
> 
> Note: I'm leaving the presentation a bit vague (leaving out any conclusions, 
> many exact dimensions, and not stipulating simulation assumptions) on purpose 
> - this should not be regarded as any formal "report-out".  It's only a 
> "quick-and-dirty" peek at the issue.  Others may duplicate the simulation 
> with different results, though that seems improbable - I don't see anything 
> leading me to believe they are fundamentally flawed.  They are not overly 
> complex topologies, so I invite others to replicate the simulations if the 
> results seem questionable.
> 
> And, of course, exact results will depend on design specifics (stackups, via 
> dimensions, etc.).  Your mileage may vary...
> 
> Cheers,
> Jeff Loyer
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from si-list:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
> 
> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
> 
> For help:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
> 
> 
> List forum  is accessible at:
>               http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
> 
> List archives are viewable at:     
>        //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
> 
> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>        http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
> 
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field

or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list

For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field


List forum  is accessible at:
               http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list

List archives are viewable at:     
                //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
 
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
                http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
  

Other related posts: