Hey guys:

Can't you panelize the PCB in CAMtastic?

Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website:  www.bagotronix.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Multiple Subcircuits

> At 10:38 PM 11/27/01 +1000, robi artwork wrote:
> >PCB-Circuit - Duplication can only be done within the PCB-Package.
> >You simply select, copy & paste.
> >If you ask me  -  "don't do it"
> >Your board manufacture should have proper software to do these things -
and -
> >he also knows the panel size and the router bit he's using to separate
> >individual  pcb's, when penalizing.
> Panelizing, unless they are planning to charge extra.... :-)
> Robi misunderstood the question, which is about a subcircuit, not
> identtical boards.
> Ths original question from Dave Babcock:
> >>I have a PCB I am designing that I want to duplicate a subcircuit 64
> >>I want to be able to layout the subcircuit once in PCB and then make an
> >>array of this subcircuit.
> >>Can I do this from the schematic or in the PCB?   Any help is
> There are a number of ways to do this. The only other response which has
> been made as I write this described how to duplicate the track but not the
> components themselves.
> You could simply select the components from one section and copy and paste
> them, using Paste Array.
> The problem is that the components will be renamed when copied, and the
> names will not be what you want, probably.
> I recommend using partnames that can be readily edited to unique names for
> each section, both in PCB and in Schematic. For example, assume that a
> section has no more than ten of each type of part class designator, i.e.,
> R,C,U, etc. You could name two resistors in the first section R010 and
> R011, in the second R020 and R021, etc., up to R640 and R641. You want to
> keep the designators short to make it easy to keep them readable. If you
> consider that desireable.
> Make your first section on the schematic, synchronize it to the PCB, and
> arrange the parts for it and route them. Get it right at this point, it
> will be a big pain to change it later, every change will be multiplied by
> Once you have your section, carefully planned so that when multiplied up
> is going to fit, and use the paste array tools to multiply it by 64,
> *keeping the component reference designators the same*. Unselect it and
> then select each section in turn, globally editing selected components
> to  give them the section's designator prefix and then dEselect All. (With
> the designator scheme I gave, I would name the original parts RXX0, RXX1,
> etc. Then I would edit each section to substitute the section number for
> It would be possible to write a utility which would automate this process.
> With 64 sections, I'd be tempted.... (I haven't done this for a while, and
> I would not be surprised if someone will pop in with the information that
> the utility exists, either in the Protel system or externally, that will
> handle the designator renaming problem automatically. I don't have time to
> check at the moment...)
> Now, your original schematic has the XX parts. Using a similar process in
> the Schematic, multiply up your section schematic and edit each section to
> give it the same reference designators as you used on the PCB. There are
> some tools, including the automatic annotation functions, which may ease
> this process.
> Update the PCB from the Schematic.
> Then dEselect All and select all the copper (track, vias, free pads, arcs,
> fills) in your first section. Copy it to each section, setting a reference
> point on a component pad easy to identify. (You might also be able to do
> array paste on the copper as well, I haven't done it that way.)
> The copper will normally take on the proper nets, unless you have made an
> error in copying either the schematic or the PCB sections. Delete the
> stepping reference pads on the mech layer if you used them and have not
> already deleted them.
> Done.
> I haven't done a big array for a while, so, as I mentioned, I will not be
> at all surprised to find that it has become easier. However, the process
> I described it took perhaps half as long to describe as it would have
> to do it for 64 sections, not including the time to design the individual
> section. The time will not increase with an increased number of parts,
> with an increased number of sections, because of the renaming time.
> 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:
* 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