On Wed, 25 May 2011 13:11:50 -0400 DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> wrote:
> > > - 0603 > > This is RESC1608N It's designed for the same component package, but the footprints in pcb are not identical. > > - RESC0603L / RESC0603N / RESC0603M > > These are metric :-) As I said before, not at all confusing. Surely it wouldn't cause a million-dollar space probe to crash if imperial/metric is confused... :-) Anyway, I have a few more questions then: (1) Is the SMD package "metric name" commonly used or standardized? (e.g., 1608 for what is commonly called an 0603 size package). In all my googling and reading I have only seen the metric names used once, an that in the Wikipedia article listing package sizes. All other guidelines and specifications I've seen call the package "0603", using the imperial name. (2) Do you have any experience using the RESC1608M/N/L footprints for SMD resistors and ceramic chip capacitors? Have you found that any of these, or the "0603" footprint work best for general use? I suppose the "Most" version would be the most forgiving in assembly and soldering, and it appears most similar to the "0603" footprint that I've been using thus far. (3) What is the correct way to refer to the "imperial" 0603 or the "metric" 1608? For polarized capacitors I have seen mention of packages like "EIA 6032-28" which is a metric specification (package is 6.0 mm x 3.2 mm). However, I there are references to "EIA 0603" that refer to the "imperial 0603" package (i.e., 1.6 x 0.8 mm; "metric 1608"). So even prefixing a size with "EIA" is less than helpful. Must I always say "imperial 0603", "English 0603", or something? Or, since as I said before, the vast majority of references to "0603" are "imperial 0603", that is the de facto standard (except the pcb footprint RESC1608M series). Craziness. Regards, Colin _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
