As chiplet usage increases, chip-level concerns shift into the area of system-in-package implementation. Therefore, the system-in-package (SiP) must now accommodate electrical performance and cost considerations. A rapid prototyping tool flow that allows the engineering team to make quick assessments of these goals is essential.
We’ve come a long way since the first 3D-printed item came to us by way of an eye wash cup, to now being able to rapidly fabricate things like car parts, musical instruments, and even biological tissues and organoids.
Consider these alternatives for advanced PCB design and analysis.
These days, I try to keep up with interesting signal integrity discussions on forums, SI listservs, and LinkedIn. After reading a recent question about PDN models and parasitic extraction on SI-lists, I made the comment (paraphrased) that “S-parameters are overgeneralized.” Someone might rightly ask for clarification, and PCD&F seems the right forum to address this.
The point of the comment is this: S-parameters are not always the most conceptually satisfying mathematical tool – nor the only tool – for analyzing in every situation. Other designers might disagree with this and that’s fine; if you can garner important design insights from S-parameters, rather than some other parameter set, then so be it. My goal isn’t to knock S-parameters, but alternatives have more useful mathematical properties, or a more satisfying conceptual meaning, in certain situations.
To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.