Leadframe models, etc.

In particular to Eric, but in general to all ibis watchers -

I particularly like your wording that for leadframe mutuals a full matrix should
be permitted. In spite of the strong tone of my last note, I agree that it may
be too strong to mandate a full matrix, but I also think it disaster to do
anything that forbids it either. Thus I like the way you put it about permitting
it.

I am finding experimentally ( read empirically, it sounds more sophisticated )
that maybe a number of elements cascaded _are_ needed for leadframe elements in
the case of high speed, short rise time parts with a lot of drive capability.
These put a lot of energy into some pretty interesting frequency regimes. I am
not so sure that every possible mutual between such segments is of value, but
between parallel neighboring segments, probably. I agree the network can get
_very_ messy real quickly, and I am trying some experiments to see what Ma
Nature says how much gives good results. I am fortunate to have some parts at
my disposal that show just such problems. Hope to have some more to say Real
Soon Now (tm).

I would say go ahead with the BIRD on leadframe models. It should be a valuable step
in any case. I sure won't torpedoe it in any sense just because there _may_ be
some effects it cannot capture. Besides you make a very good point about
Ravender's concerns. I may be ahead of my time with my details, and I do not
want to hold up otherwise valuable progress. If it looks like more detail is
needed later we can write another BIRD or amend this one as appropriate. In
the meantime I say go for it!

______________________________________________ ____________________
| | Seeking to return to | / __________________O
| Bob Ward | the North Country, MN, | / /|________________
| bward@neosoft.com | WI, ND, SD, or MT. Also | / /_/________________O
| 713.568.4122 | considering Mtn. West. | /_____________________
|___________________|_________________________| |_____________________O
Received on Tue Mar 8 18:34:20 1994