*From*: Duane Takahashi <duanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*To*: damonjbowser@xxxxxxxxx, si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx*Date*: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:25:00 -0700

Hi Damon: I don't think you can look at the L and C matrices, and determine if the xtalk will be capacitive or inductive. As Scott points out, they move together. IMHO, you need to take into account the driver's impedance and the load's impedance. To me, packages look inductive: bond wires with traces over perforated reference planes. Flip chip helps a lot, but you still have the perforated planes. When the driver fires, the inductance forces the voltage wave to lead the current wave. This phase relationship travels down the line. To the load, the line's impedance is no longer purely real, and has an imaginary component to it. In this case, the capacitive and inductive forward xtalk components do not cancel, and the inductance xtalk dominates. Duane > For TEM and quasi-TEM transmission line systems, the Inductance and the > Capacitance matrices are related. For lossless and low loss systems, > the inductance matrix is: > L = mu * epsilon * (C inverse) > > They are linked as long as the magnetic and electric fields remain > orthogonal. Thus, whenever you change the capacitance of a system of > traces, you also change their inductance. > > A good quasi-static field solver will compute the correct L and C > matrices for any given trace configuration. In fact, many of the > currently available field solvers assume that the conductors are perfect > and therefore only solve for the capacitance matrix. The inductance > matrix is computed using the expression above. Clayton Paul has a good > discussion of this in his book, "Analysis of Multiconductor Transmission > Lines." > > As you change capacitive coupling, you also change inductinve coupling. > > regards, > > scott > > Hi Duane, > > So how does one determine if it is magnetic or > capacitive crosstalk that is dominating in a > particular configuration? > > Let's say I get two matrices from a field solver that > look like this: > > C11 C12 > C21 C22 > > and > > L11 L12 > L21 L22 > > Do I just look at how C12/C11 compares to L12/L11 and > how C21/C22 compares to L21/L22 ? > > Thanks > Damon > > >>X-Original-To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>Delivered-To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>From: Duane Takahashi >><duanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; >>en-US; rv:1.4) >>Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) >>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Guard traces for differential >>pairs >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>X-archive-position: 8392 >>X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 >>X-original-sender: duanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>X-list: si-list >> >>It also depends on the type of crosstalk: electric >>or magnetic ( >>capacitive or inductive ). If it's magnetic, guard >>traces won't help. >>If it's capacitive, guards will help but will leave >>you with the >>'magnetic remainder' of the xtalk. >> >>I've seen high impedance lines, more than 60 ohms, >>exhibit inductive >>xtalk. My guess is guard traces would not have >>helped in this case. >> >>Regards, >>Duane >> >> >>>Sogo, >>> >>>It is true that guard traces can INCREASE >> >>crosstalk, but >> >>>this can be avoided (and crosstalk in fact can be >> >>REDUCED) >> >>>if the via stitching is frequent enough. Between >> >>each >> >>>stitching, there is a half-wavelength resonator, >> >>with a >> >>>lowest resonance frequency of fres=1/(2*tpd), >> >>where >> >>>tpd is the propagation delay between two stitching >> >>vias. >> >>>As long as the bandwidth of the signal on the >> >>structure >> >>>is safely below this resonance frequency, there >> >>should be no >> >>>problem with signal integrity. >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Istvan Novak >>>SUN Microsystems > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search > http://shopping.yahoo.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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: > http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list > > For help: > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field > > List archives are viewable at: > http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list > or at our remote archives: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages > 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: http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list For help: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field List archives are viewable at: http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list or at our remote archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu

**References**:**[SI-LIST] Re: Guard traces for differential pairs***From:*Damon Bowser

- » [SI-LIST] Re: Guard traces for differential pairs
- » [SI-LIST] Re: Guard traces for differential pairs
- » [SI-LIST] Re: Guard traces for differential pairs
- » [SI-LIST] Re: Guard traces for differential pairs
- » [SI-LIST] Re: Guard traces for differential pairs
- » [SI-LIST] Re: Guard traces for differential pairs
- » [SI-LIST] Re: Guard traces for differential pairs
- » [SI-LIST] Re: Guard traces for differential pairs
- » [SI-LIST] Re: Guard traces for differential pairs
- » [SI-LIST] Re: Guard traces for differential pairs