At 12:14 PM 9/4/01 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm new to protel, trying to figure out how to create and implement IC 
>sockets decals/footprints on a PCB layout.
>Is it as simple as placing an IC and its socket on top of each other -or 
>will that create a design rule violation?

It may create a component clearance violation if you have that rule enabled 
and you have two co-extensive parts. There are some problems with the 
component clearance DRC, so I don't use it. But assuming that you want to 
have a component clearance rule, you may be able to set up a component 
clearance rule scope that allows ICs and sockets to co-exist.

>In pads, we created a dummy part (without a footprint)that acted as a 
>placekeeper to get the socket part number on the BOM, I was hoping Protel 
>might have a more elegant solution.

Don't you hate it when you ask "How do I ..." and someone answers "You 
shouldn't!" You are trying to control the BOM from the PCB, but the BOM 
report from PCB is primitive compared to what can be done from the 
schematic. The BOM -- or the data from which a BOM is prepared, if one uses 
Excel or some other spreadsheet to make the actual BOM -- should be 
generated from the schematic. It is simple to place non-PCB parts on the 

I recommend considering the socket as the primary part. The IC, if you want 
it to be on the PCB, would have a padless footprint. It might have no 
primitives at all. Such a dummy footprint can be a tad odd in its behavior. 
I just created one, put a corresponding part on the schematic, and allowed 
Update to put this empty footprint on the PCB. It ended up outside the 
workspace. To get it into the workspace, I used the panel to edit it to a 
location in the workspace. The only things that displayed from this part 
were the reference designator and comment strings. Those could be hidden. 
The need to move this part around could have been avoided if I had manually 
placed it before running Update.

But, frankly, leaving everything that is not permanently fixed onto the 
board to a BOM process that does not create any extra footprints on the PCB 
seems better to me. A good BOM will have Mfr and cost data, etc.; do you 
really want to edit the schematic whenever any of that information changes?

Isolated design engineers might well want to do this in an initial design 
phase, so they can work with a single document. But it does not need to be 
on the PCB, just as supplier and cost information don't belong on the PCB.

Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to