The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: John Popelish
Organization: This space not available for advertising.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
Subject: Re: Bypass capacitor position
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:27:06 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:27:06 EDT
Richard Haendel wrote:
> Generally, I run a ground trace along (usually) three sides on the bottom of
> the board and a supply trace along 3 sides (or less, as required) on the
> top. (I deal exclusively with 2 sided boards.) Usually, the gournd trace is
> wider (mostly so it's easier to see).
Are you saying that you layout the supply traces like a big letter U?
I don't understand how this gets the supply to all the chips on the
board. Please clarify what you mean by "three sides".
What you want to avoid is having long, dangling traces to different
parts of the board that can ring in different directions at different
chips while those chips are trying to use those voltages as references
while they communicate with each other.
> I try to give each signal it's own path to the +/- line, unless it's a bunch
> of inputs that are all tied to positive supply or ground.
Are you talking about tying inputs to a supply to provide a fixed
logic state? These signals draw very little current, so are not very
demanding on the supply and are much cleaner logic signals than what
is provided by a chip that is physically much further from the chip.
I have no problem with just making these pins part of the supply path
to the chip.
> Does this seem generally okay?
> Thanks very much,
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup