On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <[email protected]> wrote: > ok so just to check, are you recommending a multi-staggered approach, > according to that table: > 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 1 -1 1 2 3 4 [...] > 8 -1 1 2 3 4 > > so that would be *eight* separate bring-ins?
Yes, 8 separate, small steps bringing the pairs closer. > or are you just recommending the *one* bring-in, where the table > specifies how *much* each particular trace should be offset by? You are missing the heading that specified: <step #> <north keepout> <TX1> <TX0> <TXC> <south keepout> > (bear in mind, like i mentioned, i am thinking of keeping TX1 where it > is instead of TX2, because of the diff-pair VIA positions, i can > adjust the offsets accordingly) That would be fine to hold TX1 stationary instead of TX2, it even makes for a more symmetric taper thus the maximum offset will be smaller. <step#> <north keepout> <TX2> <TX0> <TXC> <south keepout> 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -2 -1 1 2 3 2 -2 -1 1 2 3 3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 -4 -2 2 4 6 5 -4 -2 2 4 6 6 -2 -1 1 2 3 7 -2 -1 1 2 3 8 -2 -1 1 2 3 P.S. See other post where I climbed out of the rabbit hole and recommend against doing the taper after all. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to [email protected]
