[SI-LIST] Logic Analyzer headers XAUI & PCI-E
- From: "raja" <s.raja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:02:37 +0530
Hi
I am looking for Logic Analyzer headers for XAUI and PCI-Express
Interface for debugging. Is there any standard connector less probes are
available.
Thanx in advance
Regards
Raja
----- Original Message -----
From: "steve weir" <weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ihsan Erdin" <erdinih@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 11:39 AM
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Can L12 ever exceed L1 or L2 ??
Ihsan, yes, I agree that there is not a transmission line structure that
makes any sense with unequal N, and that in all likelihood the issue Ray
has is a tool, or tool applications issue such as too coarse of a mesh.
However, for various other purposes, people do build spiral inductors, and
other forms of planar magnetics. I had not considered those cases when
answering Ray. Both Andy and another colleague both corrected me.
Regards,
Steve.
At 11:01 PM 10/31/2005 -0500, Ihsan Erdin wrote:
>Steve,
>
>It looks like we've reached to a common ground where the only possible
>case that would make the mutual inductance greater than the self involves
>unequal number of turns between the two coils. Now, let's dig deeper this
>"turn" issue. There's always a mutual interaction among the turns which is
>accounted for with capacitance and inductance parameters. In order to
>simplify the calculations the mutual interaction is usually neglected.
>That simplification leads to the approximation of all the turns lumped
>together. In a rigorous analysis, however, each turn has to be considered
>separately and the whole structure resembles a multiconductor transmission
>line system. In this case, it is physically impossible to say that the
>mutual impedance can exceed the self.
>Having said that, I can't think of a case where that multiple turn
>configuration of a transformer could be extended to a PCB structure. So, I
>wouldn't hesitate to contact the FAE of any CAD tool which would yield
>L12>L11...
>
>Regards.
>
>Ihsan
>
>On 10/31/05, steve weir <<mailto:weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx>weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx >
>wrote:
>>Ishan, I think the point that Andy brought up and a very esteemed
>>colleague
>>also pointed out off-line is that what we have been discussing holds for
>>the case where the number of turns in L1 and L2 are equal. For the case
>>where L2 has N times as many turns as L1:
>>
>>L22nominal = N^2*L11
>>
>>L12perfect = L22nominal = N^2*L11 and for N>1 L12 > L11
>>L21perfect = L11
>>
>>The point that the flux density will always be highest at the source of
>>the
>>MMF is not diminished. The implication that Fred, Eric, yourself and I
>>all
>>appear to strongly agree upon is that we cannot end up with a coupling
>>factor greater than 1.0. But it does point out that the mutual inductance
>>can exceed one but not all of the self inductances. So, the correct
>>expression appears to be all:
>>
>>L22 > L12,
>>L11 > L21, and
>>L11*L22 > L12*L21, and
>>
>>I believe that this satisfies Siddarth's issues as well.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Steve.
>>
>>At 10:51 PM 10/30/2005 -0500, Ihsan Erdin wrote:
>> >Edward,
>> >I must admit your example is challenging to the conventional reasoning.
>> >But
>> >before getting to it, let's discuss the validity of the realizability
>> >condition on the inductance matrix. By applying the positive definetness
>> >test to the L matrix only you're reducing the transmission line
>> equations to
>> >dV/dz+jwLI=0. Here, I assume a wave propagation along the z-direction on
>> >a
>> >lossless line. For (voltage and current) wave propagation on a line, we
>> need
>> >the second equation: dI/dz+jwCV=0. As such, the positive definetness
>> >test
>> >must be applied to [0 jwL;jwC 0] matrix, with L and C being the
>> submatrices
>> >of the multiconductor transmission line system. I have neither time or
>> >appetite to prove (or disprove) if L12>L11 is possible for this
>> >augmented
>> >matrix under the condition that it's positive definite in the whole
>> >frequency range. But I don't think that matters either because from your
>> >argument I understand you are trying to find a freaky case where the
>> >usual
>> >L12<L11 inequality could be broken.
>> >
>> >So let's get to your example with the coils. I agree that the mutual
>> >inductance will come out larger than the self inductance of the single
>> >turn
>> >coil. But there seems to be a very clever "cheating" in that case.
>> >Because,
>> >I can raise the counter-argument that the 2nd turn on the 2nd coil
>> could be
>> >very well taken as the 3rd conductor in the system. That reduces the
>> >case
>> >L12+L13>L11, which is fair.
>> >
>> >So, I'm still holding to the grounds that the mutual inductance could be
>> >equal to the self at its best where the two conductors should occupy the
>> >same place in space, which is a contradiction in itself. Thus, L12<L11
>> >should hold no matter what...
>> >
>> >Ihsan
>> >
>> >On 10/30/05, Chan, Edward K <<mailto:edward.k.chan@xxxxxxxxx>
>> edward.k.chan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I've been thinking about this problem for a while too, and here's
>> > > what I
>> > > think I figured out:
>> > >
>> > > The requirement for an inductance matrix to be physical is that it is
>> > > positive definite. Thus L11 * L22 - L12 * L12 > 0. This is similar to
>> > > other equations described by others previously.
>> > >
>> > > Hence, it is possible that L12 is larger than the smaller of L11,
>> > > L22.
>> > >
>> > > So what physical system exhibits this --> essentially transformers:
>> > >
>> > > Imagine two concentric coils with identical loop area placed
>> > > infinitely
>> > > close to each other. Then L12 is very close to L11 (and L22).=20
>> > >
>> > > Now we double the windings of the second coil. If we integrate the
>> > > flux
>> > > over the area of the first coil (single winding), we find that the
>> > > flux
>> > > from the second coil (two windings) is larger than the flux from
>> > > itself
>> > > (first coil with one winding). Therefore, L12 is larger than L11.
>> > >
>> > > Now, what structures on typical PCBs exhibit this behavior?
>> > >
>> > > Imagine a microstrip line over a ground plane has a certain L11 and
>> L22.
>> > > Now put a ground plane over this microstrip to create a stripline.
>> > > With
>> > > the top and bottom planes tied together at the near and far ends, we
>> > > will get a 2x2 inductance matrix. When the signal trace is narrower
>> > > (~<0.5X) than the ground planes, the additional ground plane will
>> > > reduce
>> > > the effective inductance of the ground plane such that it is less
>> > > than
>> > > the mutual inductance between the signal and ground.=20
>> > >
>> > > I haven't investigated all the conditions under which these
>> > > observations
>> > > are true, but I believe L12 can exceed L11 or L22.
>> > >
>> > > I have simulated the coils and the stripline in Fasthenry, and can
>> > > provide the simple input decks to anyone interested.
>> > >
>> > > Edward Chan
>> > > Intel
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From:
>> <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> > > On Behalf Of Zhou, Xingling (Mick)
>> > > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 6:44 AM
>> > > To: <mailto:eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> <mailto:si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> <mailto:ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx>ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > > Cc: <mailto:susan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>susan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Can L12 ever exceed L1 or L2 ??
>> > >
>> > > Eric,
>> > >
>> > > Seems we have talked about signal lines a lot. Those lines are self-L
>> > > dominated as we know. I don't remember any physics law prohibits
>> > > L12>L1,or L2 other than K<=3D3D1 and some intuitive arguments. One =
>> > > special
>> > > case can break the statement if we do not have solid foundation. If a
>> > > law is pointed out or newly proven in general, the argument will be
>> > > much
>> > > easier. If not, it may be considered as a conjecture based on some
>> > > observations at most.=3D20
>> > >
>> > > How about when planes are involved? For example, for a package, L_vss
>> > > is
>> > > generally low referring to PCB GND. However, there are signals/planes
>> > > that couple with VSS strongly.=3D20
>> > >
>> > > Even for regular lines, is it possible to construct a case that
>> > > breaks
>> > > the statement? For example, when line loops cross each other in
>> > > complex
>> > > ways in 3D (not as simple as we have in regular designs).=3D20
>> > >
>> > > Of course, numerical problems are always questionable. This is why
>> > > the
>> > > question confuses many of us. Is it because of the numerical errors
>> > > or
>> > > physically possible in some cases? Or in any case, we should check
>> > > the
>> > > numerical problems and force the vendor to satisfy us.
>> > >
>> > > Finding out when the statement is true (if not always) is also very
>> > > helpful.
>> > >
>> > > Just some wild thoughts.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks.
>> > >
>> > > Mick
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From:
>> <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> > > On Behalf Of Eric Bogatin
>> > > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 8:58 AM
>> > > To: <mailto:si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> <mailto:ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx>ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > > Cc: <mailto:eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> <mailto:susan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>susan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > Subject: [SI-LIST] Can L12 ever exceed L1 or L2 ??
>> > >
>> > > Ray-
>> > > I completely agree with Steve Weir's comment that it is not
>> > > physically possible for L12 > L11, whether we use these
>> > > terms as loop inductance elements or partial inductance
>> > > elements.
>> > >
>> > > The self inductance is the number of loops of magnetic field
>> > > lines that surround one conductor per amp of its current.
>> > > The mutual inductance is the number of loops of magnetic
>> > > field lines that surrounds both conductor, per amp of
>> > > current in one. All the mutual field lines from one
>> > > conductor must also, by definition surround its own
>> > > conductor and be part of its self inductance. This is true
>> > > for loop inductance or partial inductance.
>> > >
>> > > The real question is why your vendor supplied you with
>> > > matrix elements where you got L21 =3D3D 3 x L11. I've gotten
>> > > similar comments from other end users. The answer is that
>> > > when the vendor ran their field solver, they did not use a
>> > > fine enough mesh. If you have radically different conductor
>> > > geometries, like a short, wide conductor and a long,
>> > > meandering trace, you will often see on the first pass
>> > > calculation of the field solver that the partial self
>> > > inductance of the short trace is less than the partial
>> > > mutual between them.=3D20
>> > >
>> > > Your vendor needs to refine their mesh. When the mesh is
>> > > refined so that the matrix elements do not change by more
>> > > than about 1% for a 10-20% increase in mesh elements in the
>> > > high field regions, the mesh is refined enough.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps if your vendor were to read chapter 6 in my book
>> > > Signal Integrity-Simplified, they would have a better chance
>> > > of providing you more accurate and meaningful models.
>> > >
>> > > Hope this helps.
>> > >
>> > > --eric
>> > >
>> > > ***************************************
>> > > Eric Bogatin
>> > > Bogatin Enterprises
>> > > OnLine Lectures on Signal Integrity
>> > > 26235 w 110th terr
>> > > Olathe, KS 66061
>> > > v:913-393-1305
>> > > cell: 913-424-4333
>> > > f:913-393-0929
>> > > <mailto:e:eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>e:eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > www.BeTheSignal.com
>> <<http://www.BeTheSignal.com>http://www.BeTheSignal.com >
>> > <http://www.BogEnt.com> >=3D20
>> > >
>> > > Signal Integrity- Simplified
>> > > published by Prentice Hall
>> > > *****************************************
>> > >
>> > > Msg: #7 in digest
>> > > Subject: [SI-LIST] Can L12 ever exceed L1 or L2 ??
>> > > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:21:06 -0700
>> > > From: "Ray Anderson" <<mailto:ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >
>> > > A question for the E&M gurus on the list:
>> > > =3D20
>> > >
>> > > Are there any conditions (pathological or not) that the
>> > > mutual inductance between two conductors can be greater than
>> > > the self inductance of either one?
>> > >
>> > > =3D20
>> > >
>> > > Since L12 =3D3D k * sqrt(L1*L2) and the coupling factor k must
>> > > be -1 < k < 1 then this would seem to imply that L12 must
>> > > be less than or equal to geometric mean of the self
>> > > inductances. However this leaves open the possibility the Lm
>> > > could be > than one or the other which flies in the face of
>> > > the commonly made assertion that Lm must be less than
>> > > either. It seems that there must be other qualifying
>> > > statements to made regarding the relationship to the self
>> > > and mutual inductances.
>> > >
>> > > =3D20
>> > >
>> > > Going back to some of the basic fundamental relationships
>> > > (such as Grover's formulas) I can convince myself that for
>> > > circular conductors
>> > > L12 must be less than or equal to either L1 or L2, but how
>> > > about the mutual coupling between some other structures say
>> > > a signal trace and large planar structure that isn't
>> > > intended to be be a signal return path but very well may be
>> > > ?
>> > >
>> > > =3D20
>> > >
>> > > I've got a field solver reporting Lm being 2 to 3 times
>> > > Lself on one particular problem. I'm trying to determine if
>> > > the solver is having a difficult time dealing with the
>> > > particular geometries involved or if it is indeed possible
>> > > despite the common wisdom to the contrary.
>> > >
>> > > =3D20
>> > >
>> > > Any comments one way or the other are appreciated.
>> > >
>> > > =3D20
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > =3D20
>> > >
>> > > -Ray
>> > >
>> > > =3D20
>> > >
>> > > =3D20
>> > >
>> > > Raymond Anderson
>> > >
>> > > Senior Signal Integrity Staff Engineer
>> > >
>> > > Product Technology Department
>> > >
>> > > Advanced Package R&D
>> > >
>> > > Xilinx Inc.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe from si-list:
>> > > <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>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>//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>
>> > >
>> > > For help:
>> > > <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>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>http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ
>> > >
>> > > List technical documents are available at:
>> > > <http://www.si-list.org>http://www.si-list.org
>> > >
>> > > List archives are viewable at:
>> > >
>> <//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list>//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>> > > or at our remote archives:
>> > >
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
>> > > Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>> > > <http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu>http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >To unsubscribe from si-list:
>> ><mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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:
>> ><mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>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>http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ
>> >
>> >List technical documents are available at:
>> > <http://www.si-list.org>http://www.si-list.org
>> >
>> >List archives are viewable at:
>> >
>> <//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list>//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>>
>> >or at our remote archives:
>> >
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
>> >Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>> > <http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu>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 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
--
This message contains information from GDA Technologies LTD and affiliates,
and is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is
addressed. It may contain information, including any attachments, that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you are not the intended addressee, nor authorized to receive for the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy,
disclose or distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in
the message. If you have received this electronic transmission in error,
please notify the sender immediately by a "reply to sender only" message and
destroy all electronic and hard copies of the communication, including
attachments.
This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender.
--
This message contains information from GDA Technologies LTD and affiliates,
and is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is
addressed. It may contain information, including any attachments, that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you are not the intended addressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended
addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose or
distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the message.
If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by a "reply to sender only" message and destroy all
electronic and hard copies of the communication, including attachments.
This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
