Re: [PEDA] Paneling
Do not know if I have the energy to answer this one or if its worthwhile :-) I actually took Brads point as I do see the 'bean counter' mentality a lot. We license out a lot of reference designs & manufacturing kits to other companies who frequently out source their assembly. But when the design vs yeild vs manufacturability issues arise due to poor process analysis, capability or planning, we usually have to go and support it ourselves. I have found sub contact houses VERY eager to blame the design data or work instructions instead of looking closer to home, its easier to shift the problem to some-one elses desk. I believe this is what Brad encountered. As for our own manufacturing, it never runs at more than 60% capacity, but I can deliver a turnkey solution in time scales some would find hard to believe. It was never our intention to offer the facility for rent to 'in fill' gaps in capacity. Biggest issue for me is a reliable source of quick turn, high quality PCBS Assembly is easy, quality PCB fab in a short time at a good price, that's hard. John > -Original Message- > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:08 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Paneling > > > At 08:35 PM 9/2/2003, Brad Velander wrote: > >Why your company does? Couldn't tell you but I know why most > companies don't. > > Because to a bean counter there is a real and > tangible cost to > > keeping your own assembly facility. To production there is > a very real > > but less tangible savings to keeping your own assembly > facility. A bean > > counter can't put an easy figure on problems, headaches, > missed project > > dates, etc.. So typically the simple solution from the bean > counters view > > point is to outsource. From production and engineering's > viewpoint, they > > can put all the figures they want to those less tangible > problems but the > > bean counters just scoff and won't accept them. A dollar in > the bean > > counters hand today is better than two dollars tomorrow. > > Wait a minute. "Bean counter" means, in what Mr. Velander wrote, "the > profit motive." As I understand what is being said, allegedly > there are > difficult-to-quantify benefits to having one's in-house > assembly facility. > Similar arguments might apply to in-house panel > silk-screening, in-house > printed circuit board manufacture, how about in-house > integrated circuit fab? > > Obviously, sometimes the overhead associated with doing it > yourself is > simply too high. And in-house facilities certainly can > include a lot of > otherwise avoidable "problems, headaches, missed project dates," etc. > > When an ouside supplier of common goods or services can't > meet a required > deadline because of lack of capacity or for whatever reason, you can > usually find another supplier. When your own in-house > facility can't do it, > you can always go outside, but if you have an in-house > facility, the "bean > counters" might not be happy about spending money outside *plus* > maintaining an inside facility. > > If your company has enough work to keep a moderate sized > assembly operation > busy most of the time, it can make sense to do most assembly > in-house. But > if you set up enough capacity to be able to handle peak > loads, you'll have > idle equipment and staff most of the time. To solve this, you > might take in > outside assembly, but then you are running a commercial > assembly operation, > and I'm sure that any assembler will tell you it's a tough, highly > competitive business. > > Before I became a printed circuit designer, I was a printer. > Yes, ink on > paper. I got into that because I went to work, as an editor, for a > publisher. The publisher got the bright idea that he could > save money by > setting up his own printing plant. His wife had a lot of > money, so the > capital was not a problem. A half-million dollars later, he > had a few books > published and a printing plant to run. He could have had the books > published for less than a tenth of what he put into it, and I > won't even > mention the headaches involved in running a printing > business. Eventually > his wife got tired of pouring cash into the business and it > was all shut > down and sold off. At a big loss. > > As I said, *if* you have enough work to keep an assembly > facility running > most of the time, it might make sense to do it inside. Otherwise, > generally, no. > > T
Re: [PEDA] Paneling
At 08:35 PM 9/2/2003, Brad Velander wrote: Why your company does? Couldn't tell you but I know why most companies don't. Because to a bean counter there is a real and tangible cost to keeping your own assembly facility. To production there is a very real but less tangible savings to keeping your own assembly facility. A bean counter can't put an easy figure on problems, headaches, missed project dates, etc.. So typically the simple solution from the bean counters view point is to outsource. From production and engineering's viewpoint, they can put all the figures they want to those less tangible problems but the bean counters just scoff and won't accept them. A dollar in the bean counters hand today is better than two dollars tomorrow. Wait a minute. "Bean counter" means, in what Mr. Velander wrote, "the profit motive." As I understand what is being said, allegedly there are difficult-to-quantify benefits to having one's in-house assembly facility. Similar arguments might apply to in-house panel silk-screening, in-house printed circuit board manufacture, how about in-house integrated circuit fab? Obviously, sometimes the overhead associated with doing it yourself is simply too high. And in-house facilities certainly can include a lot of otherwise avoidable "problems, headaches, missed project dates," etc. When an ouside supplier of common goods or services can't meet a required deadline because of lack of capacity or for whatever reason, you can usually find another supplier. When your own in-house facility can't do it, you can always go outside, but if you have an in-house facility, the "bean counters" might not be happy about spending money outside *plus* maintaining an inside facility. If your company has enough work to keep a moderate sized assembly operation busy most of the time, it can make sense to do most assembly in-house. But if you set up enough capacity to be able to handle peak loads, you'll have idle equipment and staff most of the time. To solve this, you might take in outside assembly, but then you are running a commercial assembly operation, and I'm sure that any assembler will tell you it's a tough, highly competitive business. Before I became a printed circuit designer, I was a printer. Yes, ink on paper. I got into that because I went to work, as an editor, for a publisher. The publisher got the bright idea that he could save money by setting up his own printing plant. His wife had a lot of money, so the capital was not a problem. A half-million dollars later, he had a few books published and a printing plant to run. He could have had the books published for less than a tenth of what he put into it, and I won't even mention the headaches involved in running a printing business. Eventually his wife got tired of pouring cash into the business and it was all shut down and sold off. At a big loss. As I said, *if* you have enough work to keep an assembly facility running most of the time, it might make sense to do it inside. Otherwise, generally, no. The argument that if the plant is inside, one can give priority to one's own work ignores the fact that rush work can be done outside as well, ordinarily it's enough to toss a few more bundles of cash toward the assemblers. It's unlikely that everyone in the business is fully booked! Similar arguments can apply to in-house printed circuit design. Design load tends to vary greatly in small to medium sized companies. If you maintain enough staff to do all the work inside, you'll have idle staff much of the time. Expensive. My own general suggestion is to qualify a good outside designer or design service; a small company might even do all design outside, certainly I know many which do. As the company gets large enough to keep a designer occupied full-time, then one can be brought on board. Still, as the design load will typically vary wildly, there will then be times when that designer has too much work, so you'll still use an outside service. There are some engineers who believe that it is necessary to have the designer and engineer face-to-face in order to get quality work. It's an expensive belief: I've travelled at client expense to attend design reviews, and I'd say that most of the time was wasted. Very little was accomplished that could not have been accomplished with phone, fax, e-mail. Sometimes *less* is accomplished, really. Using fax and e-mail, in particular, leaves a record. Face-to-face meetings often don't. Well, I wandered a bit, didn't I? Let's just say that I've seen a lot of money wasted on in-house production when outside services could have done as good or better a job at lower cost. If you *are* going to have in-house work going on, be sure that the true cost is accounted for, costs such as increase of overhead, capitalization of equipment. Sure, there can be headaches dealing with outside vendors. But with care in choosing vendors, those headaches
Re: [PEDA] Paneling
At 21:56 02.09.2003 +0200, you wrote: Tim Fifield wrote: > > When making a panel is it best to do it in Protel or a gerber tool such as > Camtastic? I do it with Protel. select the region, copy. paste special - array while duplicating designators and not repouring polygons. That is it. You have to be careful about the "automatic layers" such as powerplanes, solder- and paste mask. E.g. if you have a design rule to close the paste mask on pad X in the component Y, have a very careful look to the copys! I also don't think this will work with split planes. Never tried. I usually let the board house do it. Edi Im Hof I tend the use a new pcb-file for that with copies of the perhaps various panel contents. Rene -- Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com & commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net + IH electronic+ Phone: ++41 52 320 90 00 + + Edi Im Hof + Fax: ++41 52 320 90 04 + + Doernlerstrasse 1, Sulz + URL: http://www.ihe.ch + + CH-8544 Rickenbach-Attikon + E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + + Switzerland + + * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Paneling
Why your company does? Couldn't tell you but I know why most companies don't. Because to a bean counter there is a real and tangible cost to keeping your own assembly facility. To production there is a very real but less tangible savings to keeping your own assembly facility. A bean counter can't put an easy figure on problems, headaches, missed project dates, etc.. So typically the simple solution from the bean counters view point is to outsource. From production and engineering's viewpoint, they can put all the figures they want to those less tangible problems but the bean counters just scoff and won't accept them. A dollar in the bean counters hand today is better than two dollars tomorrow. Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norsat.com > -Original Message- > From: John A. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:51 PM > To: 'Protel EDA Forum' > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Paneling > > > I wonder why we still keep our own production capacity, when the trend > is to always outsource > > Best Regards > > John A. Ross * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Paneling
> -Original Message- > From: Brad Velander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:58 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Paneling > > > John, > not sure if it was clear, I could have worded it > better, but I was talking of 2 different PCBs on one panel. I > still thought it was a no-brainer. I supplied the P&P files > for both boards, the two fiducials were a know X,Y distance > apart. Apply the X,Y delta to the second file and oyu have > the two files to one original location. Like I said, I > thought they were just unwilling, seemed like a simple > problem to me. I would have done the fix myself in Excel in > an hour or less but they didn't ask and I don't volunteer for > extra work these days, I'll be here 16 hours a day! Sorry Brad Bit too late in the evening for me. But still should have been a no brainer for them, most placer off line software will accept the inputs just as you supplied it, as separate files, usually there are settings for either multi board/different image or multi board/same image, even is some of the most low end machines I have used, and even some of their (still DOS based) software. Should have taken them less than 15 minutes to load. The time is in feeder and part no allocation, which is when the BOM xref is sometimes handy, if you use them all the time they should also be able to build a default alias or start up file for you, so the info is on record. I wonder why we still keep our own production capacity, when the trend is to always outsource Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications Ltd 8 BorrowMeadow Road Springkerse Industrial Estate Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office) Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab) Fax +44 [0]1786 474653 GSM +44 [0]7831 373727 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW http://www.rsd.tv == * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Paneling
this method is the best set of trade offs esp good pointer is the SAVE-AS Dennis Saputelli Ian Wilson wrote: > > On 12:07 AM 3/09/2003, Tim Fifield said: > >When making a panel is it best to do it in Protel or a gerber tool such as > >Camtastic? > > > >Tim Fifield > > My preferred solution for production boards is to lay up the full panel on > the board outline layer, including breakoff strips (or v-groove) > information. This panel includes outlines for all the individual boards as > well as any production boarders, tooling holes and break-off holes > (unplated 0.75mm holes in my case and the only 0.75mm holes in the > design). I include dimensions showing the step and repeat. > > Then I lay up the design just in one individual board. So I have the full > production panel, but just the one board layed up. I then get the PCB > maker to do the step and repeat. > > This gives me control over the production panel, while still allowing me a > fully editable, synchronisable final design file. I do not have to muck > about with separate PCB files for the editable form and the final > production form (a problem maintaining consistency). The PCB makers I have > used to date have been very happy with this. > > Prototype or mixed boards are a different issue - with mixed board panels > watch out for inconsistent design rules if you are panelising in Protel - > especially anything to do with layer stackups and and planes. Remember > that copying and pasting from one PCB to another does *not* copy the design > rules - best off using Save-As, at least initially, to create a basis for > the panel that includes the appropriate manufacturing design rules from one > of the (hopefully) consistent individual PCB designs. > > Panelising in Protel is a great way to make odd mistakes but can work if > you keep very switched on. There are a number of gotchas, but many of us > do do it. > > Ian -- Dennis Saputelli = send only plain text please! - no HTML == ___ Integrated Controls, Inc. www.integratedcontrolsinc.com 2851 21st Streettel: 415-647-0480 San Francisco, CA 94110 fax: 415-647-3003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Paneling
On 12:07 AM 3/09/2003, Tim Fifield said: When making a panel is it best to do it in Protel or a gerber tool such as Camtastic? Tim Fifield My preferred solution for production boards is to lay up the full panel on the board outline layer, including breakoff strips (or v-groove) information. This panel includes outlines for all the individual boards as well as any production boarders, tooling holes and break-off holes (unplated 0.75mm holes in my case and the only 0.75mm holes in the design). I include dimensions showing the step and repeat. Then I lay up the design just in one individual board. So I have the full production panel, but just the one board layed up. I then get the PCB maker to do the step and repeat. This gives me control over the production panel, while still allowing me a fully editable, synchronisable final design file. I do not have to muck about with separate PCB files for the editable form and the final production form (a problem maintaining consistency). The PCB makers I have used to date have been very happy with this. Prototype or mixed boards are a different issue - with mixed board panels watch out for inconsistent design rules if you are panelising in Protel - especially anything to do with layer stackups and and planes. Remember that copying and pasting from one PCB to another does *not* copy the design rules - best off using Save-As, at least initially, to create a basis for the panel that includes the appropriate manufacturing design rules from one of the (hopefully) consistent individual PCB designs. Panelising in Protel is a great way to make odd mistakes but can work if you keep very switched on. There are a number of gotchas, but many of us do do it. Ian * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Paneling
John, not sure if it was clear, I could have worded it better, but I was talking of 2 different PCBs on one panel. I still thought it was a no-brainer. I supplied the P&P files for both boards, the two fiducials were a know X,Y distance apart. Apply the X,Y delta to the second file and oyu have the two files to one original location. Like I said, I thought they were just unwilling, seemed like a simple problem to me. I would have done the fix myself in Excel in an hour or less but they didn't ask and I don't volunteer for extra work these days, I'll be here 16 hours a day! Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norsat.com > -Original Message- > From: John A. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:54 PM > To: 'Protel EDA Forum' > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Paneling > > > > Brad, > > Sounds as if they were just un-willing, in my limited experience, the > normal method to program Placement machines for panelled images, is to > only supply placement information for a single circuit with a suitable > zero point, preferably a fiducial mark. For no other reason than to > avoid errors. > > Only additional information I have had to supply other companies as a > courtesy, is a 3 column XLS files which has a full part > number mapped to > the part reference in the PP file and also the package information > (8/12/16mm tape, matrix tray). > > The same fiducial mark is used as a reference point for all other > images, the step/repeat information only being a single entry in the > placement file per circuit. > > As a luxury on some lines, it is usually possible to also add 'bad' > marks, which the placement machine / AOI can look at before starting a > run, and if the bad mark is blocked by label or black marker, the > placement machine can skip placement of the 'bad' circuit on > the panel. > There can be many reasons for skipping a circuit, it does not actually > have to be electrically bad. > > We do this all the time on our own machines, but also on > those owned by > our partners Universal/Fuji/Panasonic/Philips... > > Best Regards > > John A. Ross * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Paneling
> -Original Message- > From: Brad Velander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:23 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Paneling > snippy - > One pro for panelizing in Protel, at least with the fab > shop we were just recently using. You can generate a P&P for > all boards using 1 reference location. The caveat, unless you > do something special, you will have duplicate designators > that will cause pains for P&P, assembly & inspection. The > shop we recently used was unable (or unwilling) to edit two > P&P files giving them a common reference and combining the > P&P files. (I don't know exactly why so don't ask, I thought > it was a no-brainer, they complained and actually ran the > board through P&P twice. Once for each board on the panel (2-up).) Brad, Sounds as if they were just un-willing, in my limited experience, the normal method to program Placement machines for panelled images, is to only supply placement information for a single circuit with a suitable zero point, preferably a fiducial mark. For no other reason than to avoid errors. Only additional information I have had to supply other companies as a courtesy, is a 3 column XLS files which has a full part number mapped to the part reference in the PP file and also the package information (8/12/16mm tape, matrix tray). The same fiducial mark is used as a reference point for all other images, the step/repeat information only being a single entry in the placement file per circuit. As a luxury on some lines, it is usually possible to also add 'bad' marks, which the placement machine / AOI can look at before starting a run, and if the bad mark is blocked by label or black marker, the placement machine can skip placement of the 'bad' circuit on the panel. There can be many reasons for skipping a circuit, it does not actually have to be electrically bad. We do this all the time on our own machines, but also on those owned by our partners Universal/Fuji/Panasonic/Philips... Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications Ltd 8 BorrowMeadow Road Springkerse Industrial Estate Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office) Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab) Fax +44 [0]1786 474653 GSM +44 [0]7831 373727 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW http://www.rsd.tv == * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Paneling
> -Original Message- > From: Tim Fifield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 3:07 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: [PEDA] Paneling > > When making a panel is it best to do it in Protel or a gerber > tool such as Camtastic? Tim Depends what you want to do and if the board will be large volume or not. Some pcb suppliers will prefer to panel themselves in which case you will need to supply them with any data you might need such as waste strips for conveyor clearances, tooling holes for auto insertion machines, breakouts, slots/routs/v scores and so on. PCB houses do this all the time as most production is panelled anyway, they just supply it to you as single circuits. If you want to do it yourself, you will need to sacrifice an electrical DRC as Protel does not support DRC properly of arrays as no net information is retained on the copied array, when the panel is built up in the PCB editor. Usually if I am going to supply panel instructions or prepared panels I will copy the original PCB after complete DRC, to a new file with a different name. I would then, after making all layers active & primitives visible, copy the images into the format of array I wanted and add all waste strips, tooling holes, scores, fiducial markings, bad marks etc. If you do not want to actually panel the image completely, then you could add the panel instructions on different mechanical layers on the original PCB file, such as set the image relative origin within the board outline (such as on a fiducial mark or hole) and just mark the origins for the pasted images and let the PCB house apply their edits to the single image (which you can still DRC) and then they can past the array as you instructed. The process is more or less the same in Camtastic or other cam tool if you do it yourself. But most importantly the panelled image should be engineered for the production environment that it will be used in as the DFM rules for those processes / plant will dictate the actual array construction somewhat more than normal. When designing the method to 'break out' the panels, consider also the force that needs to be exerted to snap off from a V score (board flex/torsion, undue stress on fine pitch parts, BGA or ceramic/MLC parts) after assembly or at least allow clearance for a PCB separator/shears. If you make routs with key ways for break out, remember to keep them small enough to avoid flex in the wave, or solder floods (mixed tech boards) and also you might need some fixed tooling under a badly panelled board for some placement machines (usually just a temporary 'table' which snugs the underside of the board before placement) or automatic printers (vac platform) as you may experience 'bounce' during print / placement as the board will not be as rigid as you might think. Depends on the board of course, as a panelled 60 x 100 mm board panelled 3 x 3 up with a V score will have completely different characteristics than a 3 x 3 up with routs / break outs. Hope this helps in some way. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications Ltd 8 BorrowMeadow Road Springkerse Industrial Estate Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office) Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab) Fax +44 [0]1786 474653 GSM +44 [0]7831 373727 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW http://www.rsd.tv == > > Tim Fifield > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Paneling
Tim, the other responses I have seen are fine but one other issue is: how likely is it that one PCB would change? How much trouble will this cause with the other boards in the panel. I have to assume that you will keep individual copies of the PCBs for editing and changes down the road. One doesn't want to work in huge duplicated databases, with duplicated designators or nets. One pro for panelizing in Protel, at least with the fab shop we were just recently using. You can generate a P&P for all boards using 1 reference location. The caveat, unless you do something special, you will have duplicate designators that will cause pains for P&P, assembly & inspection. The shop we recently used was unable (or unwilling) to edit two P&P files giving them a common reference and combining the P&P files. (I don't know exactly why so don't ask, I thought it was a no-brainer, they complained and actually ran the board through P&P twice. Once for each board on the panel (2-up).) Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norsat.com > -Original Message- > From: Tim Fifield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:07 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: [PEDA] Paneling > > > When making a panel is it best to do it in Protel or a gerber > tool such as > Camtastic? > > Tim Fifield * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Paneling
Tim Fifield wrote: > > When making a panel is it best to do it in Protel or a gerber tool such as > Camtastic? I do it with Protel. select the region, copy. paste special - array while duplicating designators and not repouring polygons. That is it. I tend the use a new pcb-file for that with copies of the perhaps various panel contents. Rene -- Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com & commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Paneling
In my experience, it depends on the volume of production. If large, best to see what the pcb house recommends to get the best price... If small then do it in gerber tool in such a way to minimize setup time on the line etc etc... ralph garvin -Original Message- From: Tim Fifield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:07 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] Paneling When making a panel is it best to do it in Protel or a gerber tool such as Camtastic? Tim Fifield * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
