Top 5 Beginner PCB Design Mistakes (and how to fix them)
Learn the most common beginner PCB design mistakes that can negatively impact EMI and SI, as well as how to fix them. Check out tips and tricks on trace widths, clearances, decoupling, vias, and more! Created by Philip Salmony, Tech Consultant for Altium and the mind behind Phil's Lab.
00:00 Introduction
00:42 #1 Trace Spacing
03:40 #2 Trace Widths
06:01 #3 Via Sizing
08:21 #4 Decoupling
10:46 #5 Reference Planes
👉 For More Tech Consultant Philip Salmony from Phil's Lab Videos, click here: • Tech Consultant Philip...
👉 For More PCB Design for Beginners Videos, click here: • PCB Design for Beginners
👉 15 Days Free Altium Designer Access: www.altium.com/yt/philslab
👉 Check Out Phil's Channel Phil's Lab: / phils94
Don't forget to follow us on social to stay up-to-date on the latest Altium Academy content.
👉 Follow Altium on Twitter: / altium
👉 Follow Altium on Linkedin: / altium
👉 Follow Altium on Facebook: / altiumofficial
👉 Ready to try the industry's best-in-class design experience yourself? Download it today and get started! www.altium.com/downloads?utm_...
The Altium Academy is an online experience created to bring modern education to PCB Designers and Engineers all across the world. Here you can access a vast library of free training and educational content covering everything from basic design to advanced principles and step-by-step walkthroughs. Join industry legends as they share their career knowledge, review real-life design projects, or learn how to leverage one of Altium's leading design tools. No matter your level of experience, the Altium Academy can help you become a better Designer and Engineer!
About Altium LLC
Altium LLC (ASX:ALU), a global software company based in San Diego, California, is accelerating the pace of innovation through electronics. From individual inventors to multinational corporations, more PCB designers and engineers choose Altium software to design and realize electronics-based products.
#Altium #PCBdesign #AltiumDesigner
"Buildings have walls and halls, people walk in the halls. PCB's have traces and spaces, the energy travels in the spaces." Quote as I remember it from Ralph Morrison. Nice presentation!
We want more content with Phil ! Thank you for the advice!
Thanks, Alexandros!
Good to see Philip doing these. Definitely get him to do more.
What a great way to explain having reference planes directly underneath your signals. Great video and haven’t thought about why we wanted to stay away for voids due the the magnetic fields spreading out and needing a reference plane.
Really helpful general advice here, even when using a different tool. Thank you for sharing Phil.
I jumped into PCB design with no EE education. I learned a few of these tricks from my mistakes and realizing why things were not working as expected. Some of these things are also new to me, glad I watched 👍
Working on my first PCB. Love the content you produce.
Very clear, informative and straightforward, I like to see this guy more often.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Keep them coming..this is very very helpful....a big thank you
Wouldn't you want to place the decouppling capacitor closest to the IC and THEN place the VIAs (so your arrangement would look as following: VIA -> capacitor pad -> IC power pin)? Since with your arrangement, in the instant of the IC requirimg more current the direction of flow of current will be capacitor -> VIA -> IC and ... -> VIA -> IC pad and after that, when charge will be moved back to the capacitor the direction of flow of current will be ... -> VIA -> IC and ... -> VIA -> capacitor. This would result in a much bigger change of the electromagnetic field, compared to having a uniform direction of flow of current from the "VIA -> capacitor -> IC"-arrangement. Edit: please correct me if I'm wrong
You are not wrong.
I was about to mention that, the way you do is a preferred one for me, makes more sense having VIA -> CAP -> IC that give the real purpose of having decoupling capacitors, otherwise, the capacitor is just an expectator.
@@TheBENHEC Not just for you...
You are not wrong this is preferable but the importance can also be overstated in my opinion. In FPGA designs all the decoupling is mostly placed on the bottom side so the BGA pin sees a power plane first.
@@melvinegberts2347 Yes, of course. It's just, if you can do it the better way why do it the less perfect way :) It's the same with decouppling as a whole. Many things would probably still work (maybe not as good) but if you can you should add decoupling
Thank you Altium team , for every time sharing such technical knowledge. 🙏
Our pleasure!
Omg Phil has a FACE!!!!! Love his content on his channel, and I now know why he's so knowledgable, and great at working in Altium designer (and has it to begin with)! Please Phil, keep making as much content across all channels as you can as it's always amazing
Need more, Phil's I like your vids. Do more videos please 😊😊
Very cool, thanks! And also thanks for the extra work I have to go back and undo all my mistakes :D
Awesome video, thank you Phil
Nice to see you here, Phil :)
Still working as of today, ty!
Thank you. Please keep making these
Thanks for watching!
Danke Phil!
Thank you Phil!
Awesome, especially last one advice!
Fantastic video!
It is nice to see phil here on Altium
Thanks, Ahmed :)
@@PhilsLab thank you i started using kicad after your stm32 pcb designs.
Excellent! I'm passing this to my students!
Thanks for sharing!
I learnt many things from your video. Thank you !
Thanks, Sanjay!
Glad it was helpful!
Hi Phil, Glad to see you here. I'd like to point out 09:55 where you placed vias between MCU and Capacitor. Robert Feranec discouraged this practice saying the capacitor will have not help much cuz it is out of the way. He recommended Power trace should pass through the pad of capacitor. See his video series where he created magic wand Board. Can you explain what's better to do? Thanks
In Phil's example, placing the vias between the cap and device is usually fine because of the frequencies generally associated with a MCU. In this case the main goal is to decouple the device from the PDN while it is switching by supplying the demand for energy quickly enough to limit voltage transients from forming on the plane. Bypass cap placement (as used in analog circuitry) is more about filtering noise that already exists on the planes from getting into the device, potentially being amplified. In that case you absolutely want to have the cap between the device and the vias. PDN capacitor placement decisions often come down to digital vs. analog concerns and the ability to route a low impedance path at the frequency of interest. General rule of thumb is the smaller the capacitor value, the less layout induced parasitic inductance can be tolerated in it's (both forward and return) path. This is why the smallest value caps are always placed closest to the load and load return pins. The discussion of placement and routing should include the value of the cap, and this one is most likely in the .1uF range, not 1pF.
Correct! The impedance to the capacitor should be small. Because the vias have cosiderable self-inductance, it is often better to put the caps first and then the vias to the plane.
Agree. Was literally pondering this, and decided on the same answer as you. The whole point of the capacitor is having a small energy source, but with an ultra-low impedance path to the pin. The routing to the MCU pin should be prioritized for the cap, not the power plane. After all, a slighty longer path to the the power plane might only add (say) +1% total source impedance in that case. However, doubling the distance to the cap (pin-via-cap vs pin-cap-via) might double the effective impedance to that capacitor, reducing it's effectiveness.
Hey, As is always the case with PCB design: it depends. Rick Hartley suggests various methods depending on the scenario. The cap connection method and via placement depends on the stack-up, arrangement of power planes, if there is routed power or not, and more. For routed power, decap connections straight into IC pins, however the rail vias going to the cap need to be spaced far apart to raise inductance of these connections (for 'true' decoupling). For widely spaced planes the method I showed in this video is the preferred one (I showed this, as a preferred 'beginner' 4-layer stack-up is SIG-GND-PWR-SIG with a thick core separating GND and PWR). And finally, for closely spaced power planes, the decoupling cap position and their attachment to the planes is largely irrelevant as long as they are 'close enough' (within radius defined by IC rise time). There is much more to this subject and I'll be mKing a video on this. Happy to share some of the Rick Hartley slides/information with you for further details. Also, check out Dr Howard Johnson's article "Bypass Capacitor Sequencing" which shows preference to the method shown in this video.
It is mostly ok as long as the capacitor is close enough, though I personally tend to make the through-pad routing whenever possible just because it feels better.
It's Phil!!! ❤❤🔥
Hi Minol :)
Thanks! Your video content is the safest and most useful
Glad you think so!
Great stuff!! 😀
Good stuff. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on when and how to do via stitching down to ground planes for fast or noise sensitive outer signals, copper pour etc.
Thanks, Rob - that's a good idea for a video!
I agree. I've managed to create a dozen or so very almost trivial PCBs that work, but as I look at more ambitious projects I'd like to be able to tell where I need to study new factors.
Hey it's Phil from Phils Lab KZhead channel. He's got a lot of good videos on PCB design; mostly based around DSP projects. Good videos here as well.
Worked, thx
ITS REALLY WORKED LOL THANK YOU DUDE
You really good at explaining thank you
Glad it was helpful!
Great content.
Tysm, did everything as described
Glad it helped!
Yep, useful or me as a beginner, thanks man.
Thanks, Kees!
Question for power traces when there is a lot space: should those traces be as big as space permits?
Its working man!!
Golden advices!
Thanks!
Despite being an Aussie and using metric my entire life I've used imperial 0.1" scale literally since the first days of Protel. My brain just can't work back to using mm for pcb stuff :(
The future is metric 😅
It worked! Tank you sir.
Glad it helped
yo bro, really thankya. Big respect
Glad it helped
Great advice!
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you again @Philip Salmony for sharing your experience! I'm a complete novice with electronics, but I'd like to get something clarified. You have mentioned inductance, capacitance, electronic fields, trace widths, trace length, vias, de-coupling, etc ... (all as a rule of thumb of course - all of which are very valuable!).... A very simple question regarding all of this, if I may? If all signals flowing through the tracks are < 1MHz, power is < 5V and < 1A with 2A peaks, how much should I be worried about your PCB layout concerns? (IC-local capacitors considered)?
For power decoupling capacitors, it's not about the signals on the wires, it's about how quickly the signals change. There's another valuable rule of thumb: gif the rise time of your signal is t, then your system must be designed for frequency f = 0.35/t. For 1 ns rise time, that's 350 MHz. You can have a 1 Hz square wave, but if that square wave has a rise time from 0 to hero in 1 ns, then the equivalent current it takes to charge the capacitance of that wire from 0 to 5V in 1 ns is quite large. If there's no decoupling capacitors, then that current must come from the capacitors of the power supply (may be 1m away through a cable), and that sure as shit ain't happening. Now the question is: how sensitive is the switching component (or a neighbouring one) to the supply voltage dipping, or to the signal NOT rising in 1 ps because there wasn't enough electrons available in local storage? If the chip doesn't care, and the thing receiving said signal doesn't care? Then all is right in the world. If they do? Now you have a device that resets 5% of the times that signal changes. Modern chips usually limit the rise times, when driving external IO. That's also the reason you may have seen drive strength options for IO-s in modern MCU-s. The other thing is the processor or logic in the chip itself. The clock signal running a modern MCU is almost certainly in the tens of MHz, and with every clock cycle, potentially millions of transistors change state. During that state change is essentially the only time CMOS logic draws any current: both to charge the signal capacitances inside the chip, and maybe also as shoot-through current. These are the real reason decoupling caps are needed: those transitions are quick, and if the supply can't keep up, your logic may end up not logic-ing correctly because a certain logic gate didn't get enough juice to update it's output in time for the next one to react in time...
@@laurjoost9317 Thanks for the explanation.
Great explanation.
Thanks!
Hey Phil, Great video. Just a couple of comments you might consider reading: 1. Please note that annular ring - by definition - is calculated from the DRILL SIZE, and NOT the finished hole size that you specify as the VIA hole size in Altium. Your calculation in the video is therefore... wrong. A 0.5mm dia finished hole size VIA is drilled with 0.55 - 0.6 mm dia drillbit. That is what you have to subtract from 0.9 and then divide the result by 2 to get the real annular ring size. Similarly, VIA aspect ratio that you talk about is NOT calculated from the finished hole size, but the drill size, what you cannot actually see in Altium, unfortunately! Also note that over 0.45-0.5mm of finished hole size, vertical interconnects are often considered through-hole pads rather than vias by the fabricator. Different plating tolerance figures apply. 2. The purpose of decoupling caps - besides acting as local energy storage, as you said - is what their name suggests, decoupling high frequency noise by providing a low impedance path for disturbances, and close the circuit as close as possible to the switching noise source, that is, the power pins of the IC. For this reason, the most widely accepted placement of the plane VIAs is not between the cap and the chip, but on the other side of the cap. Other than these, all your words are gold, and the presentation is excellent. Thank you for sharing. 😊
Since the donationware software from Saturn is used throughout a lot of this video, it would have been nice to have a link to them or mentioned that some sort of commercial license was paid since this is a commercial company using it. Beyond that point, this is a great video.
Altium. More of this guy. He did great.
For the first rule of thumb, what happens when the board is a 2 layer board and the dielectric thickness is much greater?
It depends. 2 layer boards often do not carry critical signals. In that case you don't have to care. But if you have got sensitive signals on your 2 layer PCB, I highly recommend to obey this rule. When you don't have enough space, maybe it is time to consider a 4 layer board.
Nice video, it works!
Good to hear!
Great stuff!
Thanks, Christopher!
I think you must clarify how to properly calculate THT holes and VIA's. For a PCB manufacturer, the annular ring size is not equal to( PAD size - drill size) / 2. Instead, manufacturers use a larger drill and the the final hole (the specified hole size in your drill data) size is achieved after plating. because of this, you must always design VIA's and THT PAD's with an annular ring larger than the minimum requirement. The rule I apply: (PAD size - drill size +0.1mm) / 2 must be larger or equal than the manufacturers minimum annular ring requirement. If in doubt, your PCB manufacturer can specify the requirements.
How much does it cost on average to look over a board and give feedback/advice on it.
Is there a DRC rule to check if trace runs over GND?
Hi, thanks for the nice video. At 9:50 you place the vias to the power & ground plane between your de-coupling capacitor and the chip. Wouldn't it be better to place the capacitor between the chip and the vias to filter out the most amount of transients before drawing from the plane capacitance? Thanks
Phil, thanks for pointing out the need to avoid thin annular rings... I presume problems can arise due to drill tolerances?
Thanks! For small annular rings we need better tolerances/alignments for the drill hole. The drill hole will never be perfectly central to the via, so a smaller annular rings requires a more precise drill.
Also watch out for too large of an annular ring. Larger vias aren't always better, In the QFP design Phil was showing too large vias will most likely unnecessarily swiss-cheese the planes by the time routing is complete. General rule of thumb is to use a 5 mil annular ring unless ruggedized/class III then use 6 or 7.
Lack of copper balance on inner layers is also one of them. You cant expect to have the same prepreg thickness on a layer with 10% copper as on a layer with 80% on the same PCB. Designers need to learn that good copper balance of at least 80% is king.
Some DDR4 routing guidelines say that if half of the trace is over GND reference for via voids, it's should be okay. Not the thing to aim for, but keep in back po ket for when designs get super dense
Yes, in dense designs routing over partial voids will be very difficult - especially for a through-via board.
thx and subscribed
Welcome!
PHIL!!!! I'll always recognize his voice...
Hi Egor! :)
Decoupling caps should be as close as possible to the IC but the vias to the power/ground planes should not be placed between the cap and IC. To minimize noise you want the majority of the required energy coming from the cap and not the power rails. So have a thick trace from the cap to the IC to allow for short bursts of energy. But then "charge" the caps using a smaller trace to a via adjacent to the cap but opposite from the IC. This results is lower surge currents to/from the power rails and helps reduce overall noise. In general, keep the trace between the cap and IC twice the width as the trace between the via and cap.
I was about to say now try to route the traces after decoupling capacitors are placed, then i watched the rest of the video. But if you are using cases bigger than 0402, it is impossible to fit as close as in this video.
Can we convert smd component to through hole in pcb layout
Why does Altium not use fluid curved tracks which are calculated on the "repellent" formulae that I learned in 1976?
Nice Tips
Thanks, Simon!
So nice
Saturn setting had a 10mm power conductor length, unusually short for routing a power trace, should at least typed in 30mm.
3 times did not start, but then it worked
Hi as you said we have to good spacing between traces it's a question for me if i have good space between my traces but i fill this space with ground plane can make crosstalk or noise?????
Crosstalk will always occur between two traces, it’s just a matter of whether or not you notice the crosstalk or whether it’s actually measurable. Take a look at this other video (kzhead.info/sun/fpWokphqh6htZ5E/bejne.html), it shows different situations where adding copper between two traces can increase noise in some cases, depending on whether the copper is floating or terminated to the trace’s impedance. That video looks at guard traces, but filling with copper between two traces is very similar to a guard trace, it is usually just much wider. The increase or decrease in crosstalk also depends on whether you are looking at striplines or microstrips.
@@Zachariah-Peterson thanks ... iknow what I have to do now i alway doubted it to put ground between some traces in sensitive areas or not.
good good😀😀
using this and never lagging
Heyyyyyyy It's Phil !
a real design flaw is to put a 48 volt backlight power trace next to the data trace on the ribbon cable to the display where it could arc over and blow the cpu. on certain macbooks there was a flaw where the 48 volt backlight trace was next to the data trace that goes to the cpu so if the backlight circuit was to arc over it would fry the cpu. having the decoupling caps close to the power rails makes better security sense if you intend to pot the chip you can include the decoupling caps in the blob of plastic so it would not be so easy for a hacker to glitch the device and dump the firmware. the apple air tag was hacked because apple placed the decoupling caps far enough away from the chips that someone was able to solder onto the the caps and glitch the device and bypass the built in anti dumping of the firmware.
I imagine even if you do that, people can xray the package and then drill into it with a stop until the potted in capacitor pops, and do the glitching attack then. I don't think it's a product security strategy to rely on; you really need good brownout.
@@SianaGearz the drilling into the die and destroying something on the die is exactly how the security on a video game console (i think playstation) was done. the maker integrated some chip into another chip to make it impossible to get homebrew or linux on the console.
@@ejonesss it was CD drive controller in xbox360. there was a bonding wire going into internal memory die which set the memory as read-only. it was a different approach to the problem, but solving it would mean going back to previous solution vulnerable to glitching. as @Siana Gearz said, a proper brownout and hardware watchdog would have prevented the whole hack from happening
Very inspiring and thoughtful video, congrats. However, there's something I just don't get it: in 4:10 you've claimed that for high impedance signals one must reduce traces width. I believe you, but there is any chance that you point me out to the theory behind such statement? My first thoughts are on impedance matching fact, however I want to be sure, and if I'm wrong, to understand your claim Thank you in advanced! 😀
A thinner trace has a higher resistance, and resistance maps directly to impedance at all frequencies. It's not a "high impedance signal", it's a high impedance input. A signal doesn't have an impedance, impedance is an attribute of a circuit component. For the sake of intuition it is quite useful to think of electrons as compressed air in a rigid system of pipes. Voltage is directly analogous to pressure in such a system, current is analogous to the mass flow rate of air, power is still power. Imagine you're designing an air compressor. If you use a big tank, you need a big motor and pump if you want to be able to fill it up to working pressure as quickly as a smaller tank with an equally smaller motor. To fill a larger tank to the same pressure as a smaller tank in the same amount of time, you need a higher mass flow rate out of your pump. The motor and pump are analogous to the source of your signal. If your signal source is very small, and only delivers a small amount of current, you want to use a smaller tank (i.e. a thinner trace) to store that current and build up a voltage you can measure. Alternatively, think of every wire as being connected with a capacitor to ground. This is actually how we model wires in sensitive applications, using a "transmission line" model. A thinner trace has a smaller capacitance to ground simply because it has a smaller area. The impedance of a capacitor is inversely proportional to the frequency of the signal, so a thinner trace can carry higher-frequency signals with less power loss than a thicker one.
It's directly related to the previous section about track spacing. Greater spacing reduces coupling between traces. A narrow trace will allow greater spacing while using the same route.
Hello, great video. I'm new to Altium and I have a question: When designing my pcb, I imported my components and I try to connect my pins or rather the pads of a component between them. When I try to connect 2 pads together, I manage to make my trace start from the center of my 1st pad, but I cannot connect this trace to a 2nd pad. The trace avoids the pad. Do you know where the problem comes from and how to solve it? Thank you in advance for your precious support 😊 Cordial greetings. 1: Do you know where the problem comes from? 2: Do you know how to solve it? Thank you in advance for your precious support 😊. Cordially.
Sounds like the second pin isn't on the same net as the first, try double checking your schematic to make sure the pins are all connected correctly
I have a big doubt, that it's a good idea to place vias between decoupling capacitor and IC. I think it's better to swap the capacitor and vias placing.
Yo phil's here! Highly recommend checking out his channel ( Phil's Lab ) for more advanced stuff. I learned alot from his videos.
Thank you very much!
Good video. I just have a doubt about putting vias on decoupling capacitors between the IC pin and the capacitor pad. Usually I put the via before the capacitor pad.
It depends on whether you have closely spaced power and ground planes. In case you have a multilayer board with ground and power layers directly under the IC with few mils separation then it is as you stated, IC pad => via => cap pad. In cases such as 4-layer or 2-layer boards, it has to be via/trace => cap pad => IC pad. The goal is to have a local energy reserve with minimal inductance for the power pads.
@@kmacademy6742 One of the software engineers I work with found this video and linked it to me asking the exact same question. I kind of struggled to answer. Is this video saying that placing the vias between the cap and the IC reduces inductance when compared to placing the cap between the via and IC? Or is it saying that it reduces the inductance to have via, cap and IC pins as close as possible? The interpretation of my software engineer friend was the former example. I’ve always put a preference on IC > cap > via, or having via in pad (other requirements allow me to do this), and only if needed I’ll do IC > via > cap, but only on low speed signals and large capacitor values. How does IC > cap > via compare to via in pad (via in the capacitors pads)?
In Phil's example, placing the vias between the cap and device is usually fine because of the frequencies generally associated with a MCU. In this case the main goal is to decouple the device from the PDN while it is switching by supplying the demand for energy quickly enough to limit voltage transients from forming on the plane. Bypass cap placement (as used in analog circuitry) is more about filtering noise that already exists on the planes from getting into the device, potentially being amplified. In that case you absolutely want to have the cap between the device and the vias. PDN capacitor placement decisions often come down to digital vs. analog concerns and the ability to route a low impedance path at the frequency of interest. General rule of thumb is the smaller the capacitor value, the less layout induced parasitic inductance can be tolerated in it's (both forward and return) path. This is why the smallest value caps are always placed closest to the load and load return pins. The discussion of placement and routing should include the value of the cap, and this one is most likely in the .1uF range, not 1pF.
You need a really big board to use 0.9 Meter vias. 6:18
Hello, where download saturn pcb design toolkit?
You forgot to mention, that people should stop using signal, gnd or power plane, gnd or power plane, signal stackup. It leads to all sorts of signal integrity and EMI problems. Signal and routed power, gnd plane, gnd plane, signal and routed power should used instead.
For some reason unable to download Saturbpcb tool kit. Anyone facing this?
5:20 Length of the conductor is only 10mm(!) so of course those amps looked crazy high... Remember also to take consider the length of the conductor when calculating the proper width for your traces.
Kindly put an video for fabrication process like in topic Gerber generation fab details and drill generation
At kzhead.info/sun/d5SRZ5qDmZhumYk/bejne.html are you really saying that a narrower trace is inherently less subject to crosstalk, or only that narrower is OK, so it is better to use that extra space to increase separation from the nearest neighbor?
Apperently KZhead wants me to watch this video. Can I ask wjat a PCB is?
👍
How DO YOU OPEN A setup ALL OF THE TUTORIALS START WITH A setup
You have no idea how many mistakes somebody van make. 🛠
cool, can you make a tutorial on how to do that on KiCad?
says premiers sept 8th @ 8:30am
Hi Phil Amazing content as usual! Thank you for this. I have the same comment as last video at 9:54 regarding the positioning of your de-coupling vias in relation to the IC pads and the de-coupling cap. I realize you probably had this video made and edited and ready to go but I wanted to re-iterate that the ordering is incorrect.
Hi again, Sorry for not having gotten back to your comment on the last video. I attended a Rick Hartley seminar and he stated that this is the preferred placement for vias to minimise both inductance to (widely spaced) planes and decoupling cap (happy to share the relevant slide with you). Now, for routed power this is slightly different and it is preferentially to do GND via -> cap pad -> IC, as you state. In an ideal world, one would have GND(/PWR) vias directly next to the both sides of the MCU pads and the cap.
@@PhilsLab Can you share that slide? I was discussing with my team - and everyone agreed they had been taught vias outside the decoupling cap. Interested to see the details on this recommendation.
@@jerrybeckmann1323 Jerry, I don't have that referenced slide, but check out Howard Johnson's article "Bypass Capacitor Sequencing." He favors the approach with vias between the IC and the decoupling capacitor to create a lower impedance path.
Interesting. I had learned that the via was a larger inductance than the trace, so the capacitor was creating a mini power plane to handle the local ups and downs from the larger power plane. Much more of keeping the noise of the power supply reaching the pin. I’ll have to do some simulations to see the impact here. Good read :)
i'm pretty sure that the last one, at least as demonstrated, should not be even considered to be a mistake, not one little bit. Just the solder joint on the chip the trace goes from is probably an order of magnitude more of a disruption, than the tiny bit of opening of the round plane below a tiny fraction of the length of the track.
it's wrong your distance between chip and your via and cap 3.3v is very closet and while a person that want solder a chip have a problem or in repairing or testing
Shouldn't the vias be on the other side of the capacitor?
It should. I was right. The point of decoupling is to remove noise. Such purpose is defeated if the via supplies power to the ic directly.
Nope, this is fine. This is not analog nor PAM4, just an MCU. Some of the highest speed devices come in BGA packages where the vias are almost always between the cap and the device. Granted the high-frequency caps are moving to being on chip now, but the .1uF mid-range decoupling is perfectly fine connected as Phil shows, and if 10uF or above does not need to be near the device vias at all.
@@ekenedilichukwuekeh4647 The point of decoupling is to limit transients from forming on the plane, the point of bypassing is to remove noise. Priority of one vs the other, and the value of the cap, helps us make the decision on how to connect.
This is something I learned from experience. It is best to have the vias on the other side of the cap. I once had a design that used the Intel 486 micro and it was not coming up on power but only worked after a warm reset of the chip. On the board layout we had vias between the micro and the capacitor. I spend some time talking to intel and they suggested putting the power vias on the other side of the cap. In this way the power goes from the part through the cap and then to the power via. On the next board spin everything worked great. I have been doing it every since at least where this is space and have not seen this problem again.
I designed a pcb with all the components but I don't think I will ever get an actual PCB because I can't route the traces. It's much harder than I thought when it gets complex. I put 2x 40pin connections and a transistor per pin but I can't get it all routed properly. Oh well, it was fun to make the circuit, it will just never be a product unfortunately.
Doesn't sound that bad, but anyway you could use more than two layers if you just can't fit it on two
Make the PCB bigger? There are auto routers you can use, if only for some inspiration, then do it yourself for the satisfaction 😊
@@Kefford666 the auto router fails every time. Even tried 4 and 6 layers it still can't solve it.
If you cannot route that it is not because of complexity, it is because of design rules or poor placement. What is the pitch of the 40 pin connector, what is the trace and space used, and did a professional pcb designer do the placement?
Rooting? I think you mean routing.
TNice tutorials is exactly about everytNice tutorialng that you'll ever need to do to make soft on soft soft
Glad you like them!
Music is not necessary.
hahsdhahah good