RE: HARI Systems Design
Joe:
I appreciate many issues you brought up to draw attentions in debating the
HARI feasibility and cost-effectiveness. I did not say that PCB technology
can not be improved. What I said is the PCB technology has been here for
over half a century; as a result, most of the major technical breakthroughs
have been done before. Mature technology still makes improvement, but in
slower pace. Lately, Most of the new improvement for PCB equipments are
focusing on cost-effectiveness; for example, speed, automation, auto test,
yield..etc.
There are many special PCB manufacturing techniques in industry; for
example, 25-layer lamination (Unisys used time to time), 10% impedance
control, optical PC runs using polymer type material, sub-5-mil pitch and
width, special dielectric material for high frequency path to minimize
loss,......etc, which I have been involved time to time, and are expensive.
Here, we are trying to use the commonly available manufacturing techniques
in US and oversee for cost-effectiveness to meet 3xGbE pricing target.
Regards,
Ed Chang
NetWorth Technologies, Inc.
EChang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Goergen [mailto:goergen@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 7:13 AM
To: NetWorthTK@xxxxxxx
Cc: edward.chang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: HARI Systems Design
Ed and others that agree with Ed's statement below .....
I have and always will disagree with the statement below. You assume the
car can
not be improved every year, but it is. You assume network equipment will
have no
more features next year, but they will. I believe it is called progress.
I work very closely with the pcb industry and it has always facinated me
that
designers and qualifiers hurt themselves by over-looking 'innovative
progress'.
Your world of board design hasn't changed in years because you have chosen
not to
change it. I bet some thought fiber would never change, yet don't we now
have a
newer grade of mm?
It is absolutely untrue that pcb geometry is a mature technology. The real
technology, well, that is yet to come.
So, I assume we agree to disagree.
Joel
NetWorthTK@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Joel:
>
> Thanks for comment. I believe the circuit issue is equally important to
the
> other issues. Therefore, I think I should clear some disagreements we
have.
>
> The PC board layout technology is a mature technology, and the people
> involved in the PCB business are all familiar with all the pros and cons
of
> issues. The issue here is more of the cost-effective issue than the
> technical feasibility issue.
>