3 ms·
But that's strange, isn't it? Higher currents basically just require wider traces, higher frequencies require very specific trace lengths. That's nothing that
by fho 5y ago
But that's strange, isn't it? Higher currents basically just require wider traces, higher frequencies require very specific trace lengths.
That's nothing that can't be incorporated into an auto router.
- hellohntoday 5y agoYea - I wish I had the time to write one which understands differential impedence, matched lengths etc. Perhaps one exists, I don't know as I try to only use open source.
- fho 5y agoI am pretty sure that I saw some ads for a commercial PCB cad program that showed functionality for exactly that. But yes ... probably not open source.
- leoedin 5y agoI think I should have added the caveat "with the typical information we give it". I suspect that if we made enough effort at the schematic stage to properly annotate all the nets and define the types of signals flowing around the board, an autorouter could do a superior job to a human (from an RF emissions and trace current sense). I've never seen a schematic with that level of annotation though. So as long as the person doing the layout has to use external knowledge of what they're laying out, autorouters will struggle. In theory you could make EDA software which incorporated a full circuit simulation which was then fed into the autorouter to provide a layout optimised for low-EMI and high efficiency. That would be nice!