> -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, 16 March 2004 12:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEDA] An example why IPC footprints are often sub-optimal > > > One to stir up the hornets nest a little...and a little off > topic maybe > > http://www.considered.com.au/ProtelFiles/images/Phycomp_vs_IPC.gif > > shows the Phycomp (the old Philips, now part of Yageo) reflow 0402 > footprint versus the 0402 footprint from the Altium P2004 > Chip Resistor > library (in the ../Library/PCB folder) which I think is based on IPC. > > You can see the ridiculous difference. The one on the left > is based on > reflow with a +/-0.15 mm placement accuracy. I need maximum packing > density - IPC in this case is not on for this application.
I only use the protel footprints for boards that will be etched and hand soldered in house, if the boards are to be commercially fabbed then I design my own foot prints based on the manufacturers data sheet. Regards, Kat. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.618 / Virus Database: 397 - Release Date: 9/03/2004 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
