Re[2]: Connector spec swathing

For what it is worth...

I have been specifically trying to NOT do empirical confirmations for the ICM
specification. Why?

* Accuracy will very based on simulation algorithm. Different algorithms may
produce different results. All simulators may not use the same algorithm. As
such, confirmation to an empirical test will effectively qualify a simulator...
not necessarily the model.

We have well over 10,000 hours spent on methodologies and procedures for
analytical to empirical transmission line model confirmations in SPICE to VNA to
TDR to LCR to crosstalk to ...etc... I can not afford to do the same
confirmation with each simulator on the market.

* Empirical test need fixturing. "Golden fixturing" for correlation level work
requires large amounts of design time... and extreme control over the
manufacturing. This relates to large amounts of time and dollars required for
PCB design and build.

* Empirical test needs a test procedure for BOTH the simulation and the
empirical test. Developing crosstalk, impedance, TDR, inductance, capacitance,
ground bounce, jitter, etc... takes some time. And just try to get more than
one person to agree on methodologies.

As such, what I am proposing instead....

** Generate "Golden Matrices" from a couple of different geometries.

** Berkeley SPICE models can be generated from a "Golden matrix" (or matrices).
Let's call these golden models.

** These models can be run in Berkeley SPICE using Berkeley source and
termination components. The Berkeley algorithms are well known/understood.

** Specific circuit configurations can be setup. Let's call these "Golden Test
Simulations".

** From the "Golden Tests"... "Golden Waveforms" can be generated.

In this scenario.... we are building "baseline information".

Now... the same "Golden Matrices" used to generate the SPICE models can be
DIRECTLY installed into an ICM.

Now each individual simulator company, end user, other... can use the "Golden
Matrx" and setup the same "Golden Test Simulations" and get results for a given
simulator.

These results can be compared to the "Golden Waveforms" as a GENERAL
confirmation.

In the proposed scenario, fixturing and test methodology is not part of the
picture.... This, in my mind, will create an adequate confirmation that is
straight forward and timely in it's implementation.

_gus: 630-527-4617

____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject: Re: Connector spec swathing
Author: Ian Dodd <idodd@cadence.com>
Date: 6/14/00 5:20 PM

All,
        If there is no recommendation of how to create a
simulation model from the connector "data sheet" how does
the connector company do basic validation after they have
created a model.

        Doing speed/accuracy tradeoffs is good, but I think
we need some way to create a golden simulation so the
results can be compared back to measurement.

Ian

Kellee Crisafulli wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
> <SNIP>
Received on Thu Jun 15 10:06:52 2000