Abd ul-Rahman

Isn't this just really saying the silkscreen IS the defining factor????
IMHO the silkscreen layer should never have been used as an indicator
or ultimately the real extents of a part. There really needs to be a user
defined layer that will be used at the extents of a part to check part
clearance.
And that layer does not necesarily have to be an assembly layer.
I have seen systems that define both actual part and real world
clearances required for assembly/test/rework etc., and control over
which rule pending level of technology required for design.
And line widths really should have nothing to do with it
when you are defining a clearance just center as if it were
a zero width line. Only silkscreen itself should be considered
for thickness itself with respect to all other features. But part
clearance should be to a dimension MMC, etc not ever dealing
with the thickness of a line defining it.

Bob Wolfe

> The "component clearance" rule is not about the silkscreen, it merely uses
> the silkscreen as an indicator of component extents. The idea is great,
the
> implementation fell short. We have talked about dedicating a mech layer to
> a true component outline, the clearance rule would then use that layer,
> looking for clearance between the outlines. There are plenty of details to
> be worked out, such as tolerances -- part outlines would be drawn at MMC,
> not at nominal, and the "clearance" would either be centerline or the
> outline would compensate so that the outer edge of the outline trace was
> the maximum possible condition....


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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