> -----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]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to