At 08:21 AM 5/10/01 -0600, Jim Muehlberg wrote:
>Thanks for all the responses. More clarification... (I use the
>synchronizer) The pins in question were not wired to anything. Being a
>relative novice, I hadn't deciphered the rule matrix, so whenever I had
>an unused pin, I would just place a no erc directive. Turns out that's
>not necessary, of course, if the pin is passive. I understand that if a
>wire is connected, it will netlist regardless of the no erc. Also, I
>had no wires colored as background. I wish I had time to mail the
>schematic to all that requested (We're National Science Foundation, no
>secrets here!) but I just got rid of the no erc's and re-netlisted.
If that fixed the problem, then we *really* want to see that schematic! I
hope you kept a copy that shows the behavior, maybe it's in your backups?
We really want to see it because No-ERCs should have absolutely no effect
on the net list. They are only used when ERC is run, and ERC is not run
when generating a netlist or running the synchronizer.
When one is having or suspects one is having connectivity problems, I
recommend generating a net list. That way you can see exactly what
connections are being made.
>I've experienced some strange behavior when synchronizing. Especially
>confusing is that a wire connecting directly to the end of a resistor
>(RES1) at a 90 degree angle won't netlist. The wire must connect at 0
>(or 180, dependig on your perspective) degrees.
This is also bizarre behavior. Possible explanation would be a bad symbol
or a grid problem, such as the part being placed ten mils off and then the
wire being placed on 100mil grid. Was snap turned on? When you *do* connect
to the resistor at 180 degrees, and autojunction is turned on, is a tie dot
created? This would indicate a grid problem. No dot should be generated
with a single pin and a wire connecting to it *unless* the end of the wire
crosses the hot spot of the pin.
> I've also found that
>unconnected hidden (passive, unnamed, un-associated with a net) pins are
>netlisting in some cases. Could it be that if a wire passes by the
>position where the pin is hidden makes a connection?
It shouldn't, but with all the bizarre behavior reported here, all bets are
off.
Now, we *know* from this post at least one problem which exists here, and
it might be the whole show. There are hidden unnamed pins, and these *will*
connect together. The name of the net is the null string, which is treated
the same, I think, as all unnamed nets (made by wires or direct contact);
it will be assigned a numbered net name.
>I know that without distributing the schematic, you can only guess at my
>problems, if indeed they are problems, not features!
It takes less time to distribute a schematic than it does to write a post.
If our suggestions have still left the problem(s) unidentified, by all
means, please send one of us the schematic. Don't attach it to mail to the
list, it won't go anywhere, or if it does, there will be many unhappy
subscribers.
And please don't send it to more than one. If it is sent to me and I cannot
find the problems, I'll let everyone know and will send it to another
volunteer.
BTW, I've done work, some of it volunteer, for the SETI project, Dan
Wortheimer, etc. Any connection there?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
