At 04:19 PM 11/21/01 -0600, Jon Elson wrote:
>It seems Protel only supports round pads on inner layers.  Forcing a
>rectangular pad onto the inner layers results in this problem.  I know
>of no way to get a rectangular clearance on a power plane layer.  Protel
>can pour copper around rectangular pads correctly on signal layers, if
>you must have them.  Why do you need a rectangular pad on an
>inner layer.  Mostly, they are used to visually mark pad 1 on the
>outer layers.

I'm afraid Mr. Elson's expression here could be a bit confusing.

Protel multilayer pads maintain their shape on all positive layers. 
Negative inner planes are calculated, and they are calculated off of the 
hole size, and the hole is round, so the clearance is round.

If one, for some reason, wanted a rectangular clearance on an inner plane, 
perhaps for a slot, placing a fill on the inner plane would accomplish the 
matter. Warning: it could disconnect a net with no DRC warning.

I thought of suggesting that such a primitive might be placed as part of 
the footprint. But it seemed to me that the PCB library did not allow 
primitives on inner planes. I am not sure that is true, there seems to be, 
possibly, some kind of interaction between layers enabled on an open PCB 
and what can be done with the library. This deserves some research which I 
cannot undertake at this time.

However, there is another way to skin the proverbial cat. (Gruesome image, 
what? but such is the common speech.) I used Tools/Convert/Add Selected 
Primitives to Component to add an inner plane primitive to a footprint. It 
took and it stayed. And when I made a library from the PCB on which this 
modified component lived, suddenly the inner plane was enabled in the 
Library Layer dialog.

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