I think transmitting high-speed signals is very easy when you have a
360-degree ground reference, round conductors, and no other nearby signals like in coaxial cables. My aim is to design PCB tracks as much like a coaxial cable as possible. Anyone tried this before? Is it possible with regular FR4, anyway? Thanks for your help.
Had trouble with crosstalk on a mass of video signals. Cured with a multilayer board where each signal was 'boxed in' by ground plane to the sides, above and below. Sort of square coax.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Boxed ! the wavelength is far greater than your dimensions , thus higher modes can not exist , thus you do NOT need sides . When you reach 10 Ghz , then maybe you need sides in ur boxed "coax" .
But the big joke , is in the real world , they use cheap PCB to xmit 2.5 Ghz . No strip line , no microstrip , nada .. It works well , so quit arguing reality .
BTW , i saw some novice , trying to use juice cans to launch WiFi . He figured the more cans , the more gain . He had 3 cans , T'd . to divide the power . Gain is not in cans , its in size of the dish .
Another book worm said all i needed was $26 for 100 meters of blah blah coax at 2.5 Ghz ..
10 times that price ! and 1.8" dia hard line !
At these wavelengths , its lower loss to send it TEM and thru the air , not thru a coax .
This is goin to FPGA ? Do those relics still exist ?! Oh well , i supose ya gotta try to "protect" your firmware by reinventing the CPU !
Seems video distribution is not one of your areas of expertise ?
Note that John was talking about crosstalk, in the analog domain, and yes, what he did certainly will have a measurable improvement, and is somewhat 'industry practise' when minimising crosstalk. Note he says 'cured', that means he is on both sides of the problem, and it is a brave (or something else?) person that counters such direct experience
I imagine in extreme digital cases, such as where you are worried not only about sending the clock, but also about the ps/fs of jitter, then this design approach would also help : it's not hard to do.
I do stuff down to a few ps RMS jitter on a regular 6 or 8-layer board, microstrip traces, with switching supplies and uPs and display drivers on the same board. Picoseconds aren't tough these days.
transmitting high-speed signals is very easy when you have a
____________________________________
You are hoping that we believe switchers cause lots of noise ....
Zero ripple is what switchers do ! The sudden pulse of current is only around a very short loop , it does not cause noise . They dont even have "ground loops"
All it takes is an infinite capacity capacitor. The turn-on time and inrush current may be high. However it avoids the need for a UPS. Once they get the breakdown voltage up and get them into production we can have all the electric cars we want, and dispense with all batteries.
Zero ripple is a real thing. Imagine the two identical bucks operating 50/50 duty with 180 degree phase shift on the common load. Ideally, there will be no ripple at the load at all. There are numerous patents on the variations of this idea, allowing to adjust the duty, different topologies and such.
Read up on the Cuk converter. Slobodan Cuk's topology.
Without the proper balance, you may get ripple. I've also seen one opinion that the Cuk topology *can't* regulate with a stable feedback but I haven't seen reason for this myself. Simulations with "ideal transformers" back in '89 had input and output currents both going dead-flat solid after the startup.
(posting to the newsgroup I know John Larkin visits, cross-posts removed to the newsgroup I visit)
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.