At 11:54 AM 1/1/2011, you wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 10:33 -0500, Rick Collins wrote:
>
> Why is no-net copper useful?
>
> Rick
>
-- use copper like silk, i.e for text, marks...
-- some like to have copper below screws, for mechanical reasons
-- use copper where it does not hurt, i.e if milling your boards or to
save chemicals
If you are milling a board, do you layout the material not
removed??? I expect that would just be a by product of the milling
and not a part of the layout. In this case, I would consider any net
connection to the unmilled copper to be an error that should be
flagged. If you want to use it for ground plane, then this is part of a net.
For copper under screws, I always spec that in the schematic by
adding a component for the hole and pads. I guess if you are happy
spec'ing things outside of the schematic you don't need a net for
that, but I don't see a need to support a separate class of copper for it.
As to text, etc, I suppose that is not typically considered part of a
net unless it is done as openings in a copper layer. But when do you
connect a trace to text? If anything, I would want that flagged as
an error even if it only connects to one net, or at least a warning.
I can see where no-net copper might be ok in a design, but I don't
see a need for it. Does this add any complexity to the tools beyond
not being handled correctly in connectivity test/DRC (according to
some no matter how you do it). Does using no-net copper simplify anything?
Rick
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
