At 03:11 PM 11/23/01 +0200, Juha Pajunen wrote:
>Is it possible to create a design without
>short circuit error (sch + pcb) where two
>different nets can be connected together?
>For example, I need to connect two different ground
>nets in one point of my PCB design and I do not
>want to use R0 resistor or jumpers, I need a "wire"
>that connect those nets.

It is possible, I know three ways.

(1) Set a short circuit rule that allows the two nets to short 
(Design/Rules/Other/Short Circuit Constraint). I do not recommend this 
method because no checking is done that there is only one point of short.

(2) use a virtual short. this is a footprint corresponding to a jumper on 
the schematic; it can be made in many ways, but one simple way would be two 
pads with 0.004 mil, yes 4 micro-inch, clearance between them. A clearance 
design rule allows this clearance for that footprint only. these pads will 
fabricate as a short. They can be made to look just like a wire....

(3) use a mech layer and set up a special plot file for the copper layer on 
which the short is to appear, so that the mech layer is merged for that 
plot and that plot only. To be safest, this mech layer short should be part 
of a footprint, i.e., as with method 2, there is a jumper on the schematic. 
(this allows moving the short around without leaving a dangerous piece of 
effective copper in some random place.) Or one could add the shorting piece 
to a footprint manually with Tools/Change/Add selected primitives to 
component footprint....





[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to