I would like to thank Max Henzi for his inputs and his professional
expertise. I have used Lavenir software and recommend it to all of my
customers. I just want to add one last twist to this thread. From all of
the board houses, I am dealing with, IPC-D-356 with gerbers is preferred
second to the ODB+ format which is now pushed by Valor. Some of all the
majors (ahem, Mentor) currently support the format. I am hoping the next
release of Protel will skip IPC 356 and support ODB+
Any Comments?
Mike Reagan
EDSI
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Henzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 10:48 AM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Export an IPC-D-356 format Netlist for PWB
> MFGcircuittesting
>
>
> Hi Terry,
>
> You raise a lot of good questions. I don't think any of them can be
> answered just "yes" or "no". My opinion, as the CEO of Lavenir is not so
> relevant. However, I think it would be worthwhile to give PCB
> manufacturers
> an opportunity to weigh in on this topic, since it is so very
> important. I
> suggest that we compose a short questionnaire regarding these issues;
> pitched directly at the PCB manufacturer. I would be happy to forward the
> questionnaire to every customer of Lavenir that is a PCB
> manufacturer (over
> 1,000 customers worldwide). Replies would be anonymous, so our customers
> would be free to tell it how it really is, as opposed to what might be
> "politically" correct. Let's see what kind of response we get.
>
> Terry, perhaps you would like to take the initiative and compose a few
> questions that could be answered in either a "yes" or "no" format or in a
> multiple choice format. I think there should be no more than five or six
> questions. Anyone else interested in participating? Is this worthwhile?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Max P. Henzi, CEO
> Lavenir Technology
> 2440 Estand Way
> Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
> voice: (925) 680-7400 fax: (925) 686-5131
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Web: www.lavenir.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 6:48 PM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Export an IPC-D-356 format Netlist for PWB
> MFGcircuitt esting
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 16:23:18 -0700, Max P. Henzi wrote:
>
> Hi Henzi,
>
> Glad I managed to prompt some response.
>
> <Huge snip>
>
> >The IPC is hard at work on generating a revision to this
> specification. I
> >applaud the efforts that Protel is making to provide an integrated tool
> that
> >addresses not only design issues, but also manufacturing issues.
> It is not
> >a small task.
>
> But what in your opinion is the bottom line?
>
> If designers do supply PCB manufacturers with D-356 netlists what do you
> expect manufacturers to actually do with them?
>
> Use as is for PCB test?
>
> Tweak (like they tweak gerbers) and use for PCB test?
>
> Use them to verify netlists scanned from tweaked gerbers (and use one or
> the other for test)?
>
> Use them to help scan tweaked gerbers (save a lot of awkward pad
> recognition problems and manual guidance).
>
>
> and depending of which of the above they do what 'level' of D-356 netlist
> is required?
>
>
> Seems to me a basic D-356 netlist would be adequate to assist in gerber
> scanning and crosschecking. A full blown D-356A would need
> tweaking to suit
> the board house processes and testers, would they use it or use one they
> are ready got from gerber scanning?
>
> If you (can) and do supply a full blown D-356A netlist then do Gerbers
> actually contain any additional information? If not why supply them?
>
> Where does D-350 come into it?
>
> Sorry to have so many questions - don't bother if you don't have the time
> :)
>
> Cheers, Terry.
>
>
>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To join or 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]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
