[SI-LIST] Re: EMI simulation tools at PCB level
- From: sdb@xxxxxxxxxx (Stuart Brorson)
- To: scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:50:07 -0500 (EST)
Thanks for your reply! Please indulge my ignorance a little bit since
I think this is an important issue for anybody interested in
board-level simulation.
> Stuart Brorson wrote:
>
> >I don't think Gerber is used as an input format for SI tools, is it?
> >
> Actually, believe it or not, Gerber is a format that can be used with=20
> some 3D fullwave solvers. CST Microwave can use it. And I seem to=20
> remember a path from Gerber to the HFSS format. But ... it can get=20
> ugly.
Indeed. Gerber doesn't have info about the layer separation, so it's
incomplete for doing things like simulating transmisison lines. This
needs to be defined externally, right?
> The other format that is prevalent in the RF/ Microwave tool=20
> universe is DXF.
Hmmmm. This is interesting. DXF is fine for conveying mechanical
information, but can it distinguish between metal and dielectric in a
stack-up? And is there ever any need to also incorporate circuit
information into a mechanical file? I'm thinking specifically of
simulations in which one might want to incorporate lumped R, L, and C
values into a distributed transmission line simulation. Or perhaps
even try to incorporate non-linear elements like Ibis allows you to
do.
Finally, what about ODB++? I thought ODB++ was supposed to provide
all the info held in Gerber *plus* real mechanical info. (I have no
personal experience with it, so I am just parroting what I have read.)
Why isn't ODB++ used as an import format for SI tools?
> As for non-proprietary formats for PCB, flex, MCM, and package design=20
> information exchanges, wouldn't that be nice? Ff we had a robust=20
> universal design information exchange format, we would be able to pick=20
> and choose the best software for any particular job that we are doing. =20
> Unfortunately, this would run against the financial interests of most=20
> EDA vendors, which is exactly why we'll never see such a think in our=20
> lifetime.
This is indeed the case. EDA vendors want customer lock-in. However,
their customers want interoperability so they can control their own
designs. Isn't defining technical interoperability standards
like this what the IEEE is supposed to do? I know there are a lot of
IEEE heavyweights reading this board. Is there any interest in one of
the IEEE working groups in pursuing such a standard?
Stuart
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 FAQ wiki page is located at:
http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ
List technical documents are available at:
http://www.si-list.org
List archives are viewable at:
//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
Other related posts:
