How about, local circuit reference node? I hate the term "return current"
as it is not well-defined and subject to interpretation. Historically it
was used to represent near-DC current flowing through wires and traces.
Scott McMorrow
Consultant - R&D
Teraspeed Consulting - A Division of Samtec
16 Stormy Brook Rd
Falmouth, ME 04105
(401) 284-1827 Business
http://www.teraspeed.com
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Mike Steinberger <msteinb@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In case my answer to Arpad's clear question wasn't as clear, I do agree
that C_Comp should be connected to what Arpad calls "local ground" and I
would prefer to call the circuit element's return current terminal.
Thanks.
Mike S.
On 06/30/2015 10:42 PM, Muranyi, Arpad wrote:
This is a request that was made today in the IBIS-ATM meeting
to all IBIS member EDA vendors. We need your reply so we can
move forward with the cleanup process in the IBIS specification
regarding "ground".
As you may know, the specification is not very consistent and
not always correct when it comes to the usage of "ground" and
its synonyms. We need to clean this up in the specification
because this situation creates confusion with the already
existing power integrity capabilities in the spec, and the
situation will only get even worse with the upcoming new
Interconnect/Package modeling proposal.
The question for which we would like to get a reply from all
EDA vendors is whether we can all agree that C_comp should not
be connected to the ideal ground (or node0) of the simulator,
but that is should be connected to the [Model]s "local ground"
(or pulldown reference).
Please reply to this email with an answer to that question.
Thanks,
Arpad
=====================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
