the pad is round in the inner layers
Dennis Saputelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm completing my first board, in 99SE SP5, with connections to internal
planes. I've noticed some questionable behavior and I'd like to confirm my
experience is normal.
1.) Protel does not create
Square pads are usually designating pin 1 or some other such
special designation and would serve no purpose on an internal
layer as you can not see them on the finished board.
Remember that internal planes are viewed as negative images
i.e. that where you see a pad there is no copper so that if
Hi Richard,
Actually, there might be a dirty way to do almost exactly what you want.
Brian's dirty way, I think this should work, haven't tried it yet.
Place library, or all components in a schematic keep this schematic.
When you want to do a global search replace, or change in your
Steve,
OK seems that I did not understand all the details of the pad
straddling a split plane but I was partly correct at least. In other words,
the DRC may not reliably catch the possible faults. I said I was no expert.
You seem to understand the basics of the error message. It is
At 02:04 PM 7/12/01 -0400, Brian Guralnick wrote:
Actually, there might be a dirty way to do almost exactly what you want.
Brian's dirty way, I think this should work, haven't tried it yet.
I did try it before writing my post on this subject, and I gave the results:
Another path, through the
You would hope that with as many people who have had this problem or needed
a work around, Protel would realize that they should add something to the
design rules. Possibly a design rule that lets you have a zero clearance
between a net. Or the ability to open the track attributes and check a box
Well Ted it is supposed to be possible through the Short Circuit Constraint
in the Other Design Rules Tab. Last anybody ever tried it, it still didn't
work but that was a little while ago. That might have been before SP6, I
don't remember.
Brad Velander,
Lead PCB Designer,
Norsat International
At 02:18 PM 7/12/01 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just ran the full DRC and it's a bit worked up. I'm not sure I understand
what it's trying to tell me.
Violation Net NetR100_2
Warning - Connection to overlapping split planes
I think this means that R100 is placed over two
I believe that Ian may be the keeper of the Wish list. I am not sure that I
like the sounds of editing a trace to allow a short. My preference would be
through the design rules so that it can be found and checked down the road
instead of being hidden in the trace properties.
Brad Velander,
Lead
Hi Steve.
The responses I have seen so far were in answer to the original dilemma of
joining analogue gnd and digital gnd at one point without DRC errors. I
think this solution doesn't meet your requirements - tha is if I'm reading
your intentions correctly.
I have used these shorted jumpers
Brad Velander wrote:
I did recently see an article on this exact question. It was thoroughly
tested using field solvers and the field solvers confirmed the reduction of
radiation from traces designed to the 20H rule. Sorry can't look for the
article right now and have no recollection of
On 04:03 PM 12/07/2001 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Protel is doing its job. I'm looking for a better way to do my job.
I have a footprint which performs as a jumper for me. That is, two pads
connected together by a trace. My schematic symbol for this part is two pins
with different
Steve,
I believe that you are giving up too easy, regardless of what
Brendon had said, I am sure that a variation of the virtual short will do
what you want. Use two pads which are narrow to make your shorting bar, use
fills, traces or anything else to make the rest of the pattern. Using
At 04:03 PM 7/12/01 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Protel is doing its job. I'm looking for a better way to do my job.
Yes. Some designers would just suffer through, perhaps cursing the program
because it is limited in certain ways. But it is not as limited as it might
seem, so the small
G'Day all.
I have been wondering about this (the 20H rule for planes) for some
time. I have been trying to think of practical situations (rather than
theoretical) why there may be some advantage.
First off - I agree that if both planes are equally noisy then keeping them
the same extents is
Jon,
yes it is a different story as I had mentioned myself if you had
read far enough. If you did read far enough then you must just be looking
for something or someone to bitch at. The response was a flow of thoughts,
not a technical paper. I didn't have time to go back and edit it as I
My understanding of the 20H rule, was with regard to planes.
If the planes have noise fields between them (I don't know how this can be
avoided, regardless of component/trace/via placement), when the planes end
equally at the edge of the board, this makes a nice dipole antenna, and the
noise
That's exactly what I was implying. The effect would be local to where the
trace and the plane edge coincide, and the radiation would be a function of
field strength (i.e. dc/analog/slow control signals would have very little,
5GHz clock would be very high).
-Original Message-
From:
having been in such a situation before i would suggest just making your
own based on the mech dwg with pad dimensions adjusted according to your
experience.
there are not a lot of pins on those uMax
the slight (but important) differences in footprints are as much a
matter of the particular assy
20 matches
Mail list logo
