Subject: Re[2]: Connector spec swathing

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:30:09 -0500

The swath... allows automatic building of a "banded" matrix from a smaller
matrix.  

The goal of the keywords around the swath are present such that the person that
creates the model can give enough information to a simulator to build the banded
matrix from the smaller matrix.

How does the swath help...???

*  Let's say I manufacture a connector line that has 50, 100, 500, 750, 1000
pins in a "5 by X" PHYSICAL configuration.  I now need to have 5 models to
support this connector line.  Instead... with a SWATH, I can create a 50 pin
model... then all the other variations can be derived from that model.  This is
done by using the smallest (50 pin, 5 x 10) matrix to generate a bigger matrix. 

In this example....  The benefits are as follows
***  1 file instead of five
***  The single file only needs about 10 extra lines to cover the 5 combinations
***  The single file could just as easily cover 100 combinations (or 100 models)

~~~AN example to show the benefits..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Considering there is somewhere between 10 to 50 connector sizes per connector
family and there are at least 100 Connector families per connector company, You
might also see how the model database may be easier to manage and update.

Original case:
10 to 50 models per family  x  100 Connector families

yields  1000 to 5000 model files   x  Lets just say 5 connector companies (we
know that there are at least 500 Connector companies out there)

yields 5000 to 25000 separate models

OK...  NOW.. Same example... but SWATHED..

10 to 50 models per family  x  100 Connector families

yields  10 to 50 model files   x  Lets just say 5 connector companies (we know
that there are at least 500 Connector companies out there)

yields 50 to 250 separate models.

Assuming that a banded matrix is correct, I know which option I would rather
work with....  
** as a SIMULATOR company (SI Simulation, SPICE or non-SPICE) 
** or as a MODEL MAKER (Connector Company)
** or as a MODEL USER (the person who uses the SI Tool and the Connector company
models)....

The Drawbacks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The draw back to simulators... they need to bang out some code that creates a
matrix from a small matrix as limited by the keywords.  From what I have been
told,  this is not very difficult

The draw back to Connector companies. 
We need to make sure we appropriately use the supplied swath keywords

The drawback to Connector Company Customers and Simulator Company Customers...
?????

_gus: 630-527-4617

____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject:    Re: Connector spec swathing
Author: fred <[email-masked]>
Date:       6/16/00 3:58 AM

You are confusing modeling and simulation. I'm not suggesting that you model the
full connector if its large. Rather, if you model only a portion then I prefer
that
you
tell me that and give me that answer rather than bogus something. If you feel
that
the
connector is repetative then put together the model such that I get a full
matrix
type
or sparse matrix. This means I should have representative coupling between any
two or three pins as you may feel necessary. But I need the full model.
Verification
of the model is entirely a different animal and  I cannot see how the swat helps
with
that process at all.

IF you give me the full model I may not attempt to simulate the whole thing. You
are

only giving me information. Its up to me to use that wisely. For example if I
choose

to simulate through connector pin number 5, I as a user may wish to consider
only
coupling to pin 7 and pin 3.  I can make that decision during simulation
coupling
setup. The important thing is that I can get decent accurate data for the pins I
wish
to consider during simulation. If you give me the full model I will then PICK
the
data I wish to simulate from the full data you gave me.  However giving me a
swat
ensures that for some pins I will lose some coupling.  It also ensures confusion
and

abiguity.

Please note that the swat does not help your modeling. It's only a way to
present
the
data. So the issue of modeling the full connector versus giving me a full matrix
is
a
seperate one. We're talking about how to present the data not field solver
algorithms.

Best Regards,
<SNIP>

---

From: "Chris Rokusek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:58:27 -0700

Gus,

(Hoping we are one step towards closure!!)

You wrote...

> told,  this is not very difficult

This is the procedure I (and Fred?) are concerned about.  It may not be
difficult but it sure seems ambiguous for cases not covered by Bob's
posting.  If this mapping is described in detail or implemented within the
parser then I believe we will all be happy.  The data files contain swaths
but we can query against a full matrix--which doesn't mean we're going to
SIMULATE the full matrix it just means we can reduce it to the pins we're
interested in.  Fred is right--there is confusion between on this thread
between data presentation and simulation.  Just because we want a full
matrix doesn't mean we're going to SIMULATE a full matrix.

Fred is also NOT saying "don't use the swath."

Perhaps the confusion is that you think we're saying that the Full Matrix
should be explicitly described in the file.  No, we're saying USE the swath,
but define the expansion rigorously or build it into the parser.  When we
say we want the Full Matrix, we're NOT saying it should be spelled out
explicitly in the file--we're saying we must be able to perform the swath
mapping correctly for all possible cases.

Chris Rokusek
Innoveda

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 5:30 AM
> To: fred
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re[2]: Connector spec swathing
>
>
>
>
<snip>