On 04/08/2012 02:28 PM, Edwin van den Oetelaar wrote: > On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Dick Hollenbeck <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 04/08/2012 07:14 AM, Edwin van den Oetelaar wrote: >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Edwin van den Oetelaar <[email protected]> >>> Date: Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM >>> Subject: remarks about the internal nanometer resolution >>> To: KiCad Developers <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> First of, I have not followed the discussion about the NanoMeter. >>> I do have some remarks. >>> >From an engineering standpoint the NanoMeter makes little sense to me. >>> If the smallest item represented is a nano-meter, in a 32 bit integer >>> this means the largest board can be only 2.14 meters in size. (-/+ of >>> the origin) >>> >From my viewpoint this is not enough. (I know of CNC machines much >>> larger than 2 meters) >>> I have seen boards (radar systems and backplanes of 60 layers) which >>> do not fit in there either. >> >> a) This is a single BOARD of this size > 2 meters, or replication array of a >> smaller board? > Although it has been only once that I seen one, the board was a single > board of a radar system > similar to > http://www.atc-network.com/News/34754/Thales-wins-contracts-to-supply-air-traffic-management-and-radar-systems-for-Croatias-Zagreb-Airport
My time is too valuable to even continue this conversation. I think nano-meters will meet my needs and the needs of many. The business needing a board larger than 2 meters can hire somebody to create a patch at that time. Thanks, Dick _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
