Spread fiber only mitigates skew for traces training in the fill
direction. Traces in the grain direction will still have skew.
https://blog.samtec.com/post/vehicle-for-insitu-glass-fabric-characterization-edi-con-2017/
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 11:21 PM Binayak Shrestha <binayaks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Scott and Chuck for the information.
As of now, I normally use mechanically spread glass to go around the skew
issue. In addition, to make the skew occurrence less likely, I normally
tend to go with 2 ply construction.
Thanks,
Binayak
----
Binayak Shrestha
Senior Research Engineer,
C-DOT Centre for Development of Telematics
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 10:15 PM Scott McMorrow <scottmcmorrow@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Isola went through a reorganization that included limiting the number of
laminates that they would support. GigaSync was cut at that time.
GigaSync worked, but as stated, the loss was higher than we'd like as was
the Dk. Materials like this try to match the Dk of the polymer to that of
the glass, with some boundary modification also being performed where the
polymer and fibers contact. Unfortunately, glass is still fairly high Dk
when compared to the newer polymers that come in the 2.5-2.8 range. The
better bet will be to either use hybrid stackups with mixed woven and
non-woven materials, or twin-ax cable flyover technology. Ours is
guaranteed to 3.5 ps skew absolute at 6-sigma confidence. Nominal skew is
about 1 ps.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 9:58 AM Chuck Corley <corley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So far we've been able to deal with fiber weave skew using a variety of
physical layout and laminate construction techniques while using the
more common existing PCB materials. It probably reduces the demand for
creating a special low skew material while we can manage to keep
continuing to do this fiber weave skew battle by using these
layout/construction techniques with existing materials.
However on the flip side, as the signal speeds continue to increase the
fiber weave skew problem becomes more difficult to handle with the
existing PCB laminates. So special materials like GigaSync may yet be
needed in the future. Perhaps the lack of low loss might be a reason
GigaSync didn't take off. Typically people with high speed signals
which are fast enough to need low fiber weave skew also need low loss.
I agree with you that some type of low loss version of GigaSync would
have been very nice to have. If such a product could also be
cost-efficient and have good manufacturability, it probably would be
hugely successful.
Chuck
---
Chuck Corley
On 2021-06-19 20:58, Binayak Shrestha wrote:
Hi Lee, Corley, and all:existed.
Few years back, Isola had come up with a dielectric in material called
GigaSync with literally no skew (though not a low loss material).
Is there any specific reason why they stopped producing it and stopped
improving it?
Life would have been so easy if a low loss version GigaSync had
drop
Thanks,
Binayak
On Tue, 8 Jun, 2021, 1:29 am Lee Ritchey, <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
Ralph,
You would be smart to do this analysis with Isola I-SPEED. It is a
in replacement for 23SI at a much lower cost and much better lossfigures.
In my opinion, 4000-13SI is about obsolete. I sure would not designBasie
anything new with it.
Lee RitcheySpeeding Edge
P.O. Box 817Bodega Bay, CA94923408-781-0253lritchey49@xxxxxxx
Worry is like a rocking chairIt keeps you busy, but it doesn't get you
anywhere.
I just took the energy it takes to get madand wrote some blues.Count
material
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Wilson <rawilson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, Jun 7, 2021 12:56 pm
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: A new old topic - fiber weave and low loss
channel
Chuck,
We're in the architecture stage right now on this project. To define
channel
routing requirements, I've already done a "what-if" simulation using
Nelco-13-SI as a baseline.
With its loss tangent and my system constraints, I have come up with
routing guidelines that allow the channel to meet the PCIe-Gen 4
specifications - just barely. I am right at the limits of allowed lossfor
the channel. I did a sensitivity analysis to maximize theapplication.
routing length I can allow - which is tight right now in this
Hence, my position is any material "as good as or better" than thedonâEUR(tm)t want
Nelco should work (where "as good as" generally means a loss tangent
less than or equal to). Clearly, once we have a final material
selection, have
the stackup defined and the routing is complete we will need to
resimulate to
confirm proper channel operation.
Thanks!
Ralph
On 6/7/2021 12:36 PM, Chuck Corley wrote: Hi Ralph,
There are quite a few good materials now, I would write you a list of
some of the good ones but IâEUR(tm)m not at my desk right now And I
to slight any of the great manufacturers who make these good materials.loss
But I can say there are now less expensive materials that are lower
than the one you mentioned.I've worked with any PCB fab house on
Before you start shopping for materials though, as a first step you
should probably calculate the actual loss that you are willing to
tolerate for your communication links. Once you know what amount of
loss you can tolerate over the actual worst-case trace lengths your
design will have then that will enable you to choose the right material
at the best cost. For example, If your longest traces were actually
fairly short lengths, then you might be able to use a more lossy and
less expensive PCB material for your design and still meet your signal
loss targets. Many designs have short trace runs and may not need more
expensive low loss materials.
Chuck
---
Chuck Corley
On 2021-06-07 08:48, Ralph Wilson wrote: It's been a few years since
stackups and materials for------------------------------------------------------------------
high speed SERDES routing, so I've lost track of what is in vogue and
at
the knee of the curve
in terms of cost/performance. For the current product I'm looking at
we're "only" dealing with
PCIe-Gen 4 (16Gbps). In "the old days" Nelco-13-SI on a 1080/2116 glass
was a reasonably
priced, low loss, reasonably temperature stable, reasonably flat weave
product applicable
to the 2, 4 and 10G channels of the day. What has the industry moved to
these days?
I fully expect some of yesterdays exotic materials may have become
mainstream and affordable.
What materials and glass weaves are at the knee of the cost/performance
curve today that
provide a good environment for 16-25Gbps channels?
Thanks!
Ralph Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
