PCB Bypass Caps

Planes are shorted by their parallel-plate capacitance, as well as any additional vias and bypass caps. For, say, a 1 ns risetime edge, the amount of pcb plane that matters is in the ballpark of a square foot... tens of nanofarads. And within that square foot or so, there are going to be LOTS of bonus vias and bypasses. A couple of pF per inch of trace capacitance sees this structure as a dead short. Proper planes are equipotential as close as doesn't matter. The entire plane structure is the "return path."

If your planes *aren't* HF equipotential to 100 mV or less, you've screwed up a number of things. If they are, a signal can't distinguish between them as "reference planes."

Of course: there's always crosstalk between nearby signals.

Words, not theory. Theory needs numbers.

This gadget accepts an OC-3 optical payload, phase-locks to it, picks out triggers, and generates eight delays of up to two seconds each, with 1 ps resolution. Relative jitter between channels is around 3 ps RMS, and between two separate boards around 6. It has a uP, optical receiver, a PLL, two FPGAs, and all sorts of nasty stuff, including a bunch of Eclips Lite ecl, running mostly in PECL mode, where the ecl logic reference is +5V. It was laid out entirely with disregard for return current paths.

formatting link

John

Reply to
John Larkin
Loading thread data ...

John,

Very nice looking pcb.

SI is not quite all science (just yet). There is still some art. By that, I mean some designs work just fine, yet violate some "basic rule" that "everyone" feels must be observed.

A good example of this is a fiber optic transmission system I built that had a basic optical threshold at the photon detection limit (basically ~

100 photons = a '1). I made a "mistake" on the layout, and after we had qualified the board, and we were shipping, the boss insisted I modify the layout to remove the "mistake."

The modified layout worked terribly. Even though it was "correct" its performance was awful. The boss was livid.

I am sure that a complete E&M analysis using something like Ansoft would have revealed why my "mistake" was in fact a noise isolation clever trick (which probably broke up a plane resonance), but in the real world, sometimes you accept your success, and move on.

As Xilinx, we have a slightly different requirement: we have to recommend techniques that are 99.99975% likely to work perfectly, all the time. As such, we must error on the side of being overly cautious, and must support what we say with theory, simulation, and measurement.

You see this theme repeated in the Howard Johnson online presentations.

If the apps group can't get those three to agree, it is not suitable for publication.

This is why we have the ppc, mgt, network, and memory systems demo pcbs: they are each examples of our theories and practices made real.

Austin

Reply to
Austin Lesea

It has two 4000-series Xilinx chips clocking at 77 MHz, one running some really complex microengine stuff. All done with the old Foundation software, all schematic entry!

John

Reply to
John Larkin

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.