Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
One step better & more in keeping with the Fashion... oops I mean Software Industry would be to use XML. A textural database structure ( for want of a more accurate definition ). Cheers Don Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Protel EDA Forum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 7:14 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > It should be noted that the Protel ASCII format is not only text based, > but > > it is self-documenting. All the records and fields are named wherever they > > occur. The library format is binary only, but one could import parts to a > > PCB file and then create a library from the PCB file. > > True, but I think the reason for the gripe is that Protel files are not > native ASCII. To get ASCII, you have to export files, an extra step that > has to be done after each change to the original binary file. > > I agree with Chris that Protel's native file format should be ASCII. Back > in the days when we were using 286 PCs, the faster and smaller binary file > formats made the difference between snappy and sluggish. Anyone remember > OrCad SDT III where you had to compose and decompose the libraries? OrCad > was fast, fast, fast, but used native binary formats. Nowadays with > stratospheric CPU clocks and RAM sizes, it is less of an issue. The EXEs > are 10 times the size of the board data! > > Board data should be native ASCII because years later when someone wants you > to resurrect or modify an old design, you have data that you can read > without the program that created it. You probably won't have that old > program years from now! Even if you do, will it run on the computer you > have then? I recently read a science fiction book set in the present time > where one the characters in the story printed on paper anything he wanted to > save for the future. I thought this was hilarious until the next paragraph, > where he explained that paper records lasted longer than disk data (true) > and would always be compatible with future eyeballs (also true). We have > some floppies from late 80's/early 90's that are not readable anymore due to > magnetic decay. But we have plenty of paper office records from that time > that are still quite readable! > > Best regards, > Ivan Baggett > Bagotronix Inc. > website: www.bagotronix.com > > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 5:02 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > > > At 03:06 PM 7/26/01 -0400, chris mackensen wrote: > > >because > > >cadence's files are all OPEN and TEXT based and NOT ENCAPSULATED in a > > >DATABASE (and NOT BINARY), it was a matter of my perl script just parsing > > >Excel sheets of pin data (automatically saved as text files over the web) > > >and generating the concept/cadence schematic part as the appropriate TEXT > > >files. > > > > It should be noted that the Protel ASCII format is not only text based, > but > > it is self-documenting. All the records and fields are named wherever they > > occur. The library format is binary only, but one could import parts to a > > PCB file and then create a library from the PCB file. > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Abdulrahman Lomax > > P.O. Box 690 > > El Verano, CA 95433 > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, chris mackensen wrote: > for example, to get an Excel spreadsheet of pin data, one only has to copy > and paste from PDF to Excel (usually through MS-Word, to get the tables > correct) Hmm, the massaging this needs normally makes it very painful. I've not tried going through Word (I don't have Word to try it on...). Sometimes, a combination of txt copy from pdf, plus save pdf as rtf, gets a usable result, but neither copes gracefully with things like manufavturers leaving table entries blank for power pins, etc. Still, better than nothing! > I used to have an automatic Excel sheet to schematic part generator At a previous employment, I had a VHDL to Altera Part generator, which was sweet - consistent pin names from source to PCB, correct pin directions. It was driven from the post-layout Altera tools' output. Steve * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The pin data probably does exist somewhere as a text file or bonding details of > die pad location ( in x,y ) to pin number on the package. But for manufacturers > to put these into Protel specific format, its not going to happen soon. I don't need it in Protel format, just plain text, CSV, Excel, _anything_ more machine readable than pdf, which is people-readable. I'm prepared to write (or have written) perl / python / whatever proglets, or even editor macros, to turn the manufacturers info into an ASCII PCB part - there's no magic to it at all. Typing these things in, over and over again, is futile, error-prone and dull. > There is > possibly a legal implication in providing partial schematic details and if the > format was a text file of pin numbers and names ready to be imported into CAD > SCH editors it may not be where the manufacturers want to be involved in. They want to be involved in selling their products, and having them work. Xilinx came to terms with this, and it's likely to just be a matter of time before it's commonplace. > For high pin count devices the pin data is always in manufacturers data sheets > as tables spanning multiple pages and giving pin number, name and details. Im > speculating here but this could be scanned/ ocr'd and then maybe put in Excel > and massaged into some sort of format. But this is a load of reverse engineering that's error prone and futile. > But the missing link is Protel providing an easy and workable schematic editor > able to import some form of this data. Another one for Mr Protel. To be honest, I'm happy with what we've got. ASCII libraries are fine. Steve * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
The pin data probably does exist somewhere as a text file or bonding details of die pad location ( in x,y ) to pin number on the package. But for manufacturers to put these into Protel specific format, its not going to happen soon. There is possibly a legal implication in providing partial schematic details and if the format was a text file of pin numbers and names ready to be imported into CAD SCH editors it may not be where the manufacturers want to be involved in. For high pin count devices the pin data is always in manufacturers data sheets as tables spanning multiple pages and giving pin number, name and details. Im speculating here but this could be scanned/ ocr'd and then maybe put in Excel and massaged into some sort of format. But the missing link is Protel providing an easy and workable schematic editor able to import some form of this data. Another one for Mr Protel. "Steve Wiseman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 07/27/2001 03:19:34 AM Please respond to "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: (bcc: Clive Broome/sdc) Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Dennis Saputelli wrote: > sch parts, however, don't strike me as being hard at all My current design, with 3 devices over 250 pins, has reminded me how dull generating sch parts can be. It's just galling that the information _must_ be available within the IC manufacturers, and if it was available in a format more machine-readable than pdf, library generation would be a case of dragging pins round rather than dull-yet-critical typing, and I'm idle. Steve * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
> It should be noted that the Protel ASCII format is not only text based, but > it is self-documenting. All the records and fields are named wherever they > occur. The library format is binary only, but one could import parts to a > PCB file and then create a library from the PCB file. True, but I think the reason for the gripe is that Protel files are not native ASCII. To get ASCII, you have to export files, an extra step that has to be done after each change to the original binary file. I agree with Chris that Protel's native file format should be ASCII. Back in the days when we were using 286 PCs, the faster and smaller binary file formats made the difference between snappy and sluggish. Anyone remember OrCad SDT III where you had to compose and decompose the libraries? OrCad was fast, fast, fast, but used native binary formats. Nowadays with stratospheric CPU clocks and RAM sizes, it is less of an issue. The EXEs are 10 times the size of the board data! Board data should be native ASCII because years later when someone wants you to resurrect or modify an old design, you have data that you can read without the program that created it. You probably won't have that old program years from now! Even if you do, will it run on the computer you have then? I recently read a science fiction book set in the present time where one the characters in the story printed on paper anything he wanted to save for the future. I thought this was hilarious until the next paragraph, where he explained that paper records lasted longer than disk data (true) and would always be compatible with future eyeballs (also true). We have some floppies from late 80's/early 90's that are not readable anymore due to magnetic decay. But we have plenty of paper office records from that time that are still quite readable! Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > At 03:06 PM 7/26/01 -0400, chris mackensen wrote: > >because > >cadence's files are all OPEN and TEXT based and NOT ENCAPSULATED in a > >DATABASE (and NOT BINARY), it was a matter of my perl script just parsing > >Excel sheets of pin data (automatically saved as text files over the web) > >and generating the concept/cadence schematic part as the appropriate TEXT > >files. > > It should be noted that the Protel ASCII format is not only text based, but > it is self-documenting. All the records and fields are named wherever they > occur. The library format is binary only, but one could import parts to a > PCB file and then create a library from the PCB file. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Abdulrahman Lomax > P.O. Box 690 > El Verano, CA 95433 > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
At 03:06 PM 7/26/01 -0400, chris mackensen wrote: >because >cadence's files are all OPEN and TEXT based and NOT ENCAPSULATED in a >DATABASE (and NOT BINARY), it was a matter of my perl script just parsing >Excel sheets of pin data (automatically saved as text files over the web) >and generating the concept/cadence schematic part as the appropriate TEXT >files. It should be noted that the Protel ASCII format is not only text based, but it is self-documenting. All the records and fields are named wherever they occur. The library format is binary only, but one could import parts to a PCB file and then create a library from the PCB file. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax P.O. Box 690 El Verano, CA 95433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
At 12:28 PM 7/26/01 -0500, Ted Tontis wrote: > I would like to try and stay with Wind Rivers standards. They have >already done most of the leg work on this subject. An obvious step to take would be for a user to move that the Wind Rivers standards be adopted, and then we could go over them and discuss any possible changes. I have not seen those standards yet, so I am not specifically recommending this, but some of us *have* seen them. And I'd suggest that the motion be made on the library list (join by sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]), where some kind of formal process can be followed and the archive will serve as a focused record of discussions and decisions. On the association list, we have regular threads which are for free general discussion and then formal threads, with the subject line beginning with MOTION:, followed by a brief title. The formal threads are strictly monitored by the chair, who can delete irrelevant material from the formal threads in the list archive. Normally this is not necessary The MOTION threads become the formal record of the committee. I strongly suggest that any *formal* discussion be moved to the library list, for the same reason that projects involving detail are moved to committee in any large organization. As I conceive of it, the committee will only make recommendations and further general user input would be requested before finalizing anything. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax P.O. Box 690 El Verano, CA 95433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
> Oh for a pdf -> library converter that'd get the pin types, names > and numbers right! One solution may be to look at ClientBasic as Sch:PlacePin has some parameters that govern Name,Number,X,Y, etc. etc. but ClientBasic (VB for all intents and purposes) is a super major pain in the ass to do any string manipulation (compared to perl ;-)) I am also sure a server could be written using the Protel API, but (as in all cases herein) a very specific (say for example) data file (or spreadsheet) format would have to be defined but a database file might be better (in that the format does not matter, rather the field names and types do). for example, to get an Excel spreadsheet of pin data, one only has to copy and paste from PDF to Excel (usually through MS-Word, to get the tables correct) This will work if the PDF datasheet is not pages of embedded images and actually contains real text. some PDFs are locked which is where ghostview came in (a free'er PDF type viewer which can do a text extract of pages specified in a range). passwords were usually ignored in ghostview As another solution attempt, I did try to do a database import in a schlib, but it does not seem to work (even though a lot of the server processes in schlib are really sch processes, hence Sch:ImportSchematicFromDatabase doesn't work even though Sch:PlacePin does (in theory))! if they could at least add that feature like how they have it on regular sch's then this could work very well from the excel/access/export_to->DB4 then import pin database lists into protel approach... I used to have an automatic Excel sheet to schematic part generator it was a web automated and COM/OLE Automating perl script (perl is free and open to everyone) but it was tailored to Cadence unfortunately because cadence's files are all OPEN and TEXT based and NOT ENCAPSULATED in a DATABASE (and NOT BINARY), it was a matter of my perl script just parsing Excel sheets of pin data (automatically saved as text files over the web) and generating the concept/cadence schematic part as the appropriate TEXT files. It was then a matter of "pushing pins" around in the cadence graphical editing environment as the perl script instantiated the pins all in separate columns based upon pin type (power and ground pins were in two rows on the top and bottom of the schematic/library graphics page respectively). This was a very easy solution to typing in 1200 pins (and pin names in three different (3 * 1200 = 3600??yikes!) text files w/different formats as required by some of the processes of the day in cadence land) Oh the savings in part-debug time when human fat fingering of the keyboard is eliminated. I wish that I could get into protel without any specific requirements on which language to use (like, for example, by using COM/OLE Automation... I use it in Perl, C++, C++ Builder and any other language du jour) instead of *HAVING* to use extremely painful Delphi (C++ Builder would be a good compromise, because then I would write an OLE Automation wrapper (language independent) using RAD around protel's EXE/DLLs once the NDA is lifted heh heh heh)... sorry, my personal bias. I digress... Cheers, -chris * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
I would like to try and stay with Wind Rivers standards. They have already done most of the leg work on this subject. I know most have a lot going on and I wanted everyone to have time to look over some of the documentation on Wind Rivers setup, and comment on the possible problems or conflicts they may see in there setup. As for the one who should be leading the group on this matter, my intentions where to make this a group project and have everyone openly voice there opinion and ideas. Everyone's concerns should be addressed no matter what they are, is that not why this group was set up in the first place? ***(I vote no leader)*** (IMO) I do not believe one person should be the deciding factor for new ideas or possible revisions brought on by other users or them selves (it makes it look like one is trying to take credit for someone else's idea/work). Mind you this was not my idea. I got the idea from Tom Hausherr from Wind River, after I sat in one of his white paper sessions at the IPC designers council symposium. What he said struck a cord and I felt it would be a very helpful tool for everyone in the group, someone new to Protel, or another designer using another CAD pkg to shorten design time. Lets face it we all work with father time on or backs to get a project out in time. (step off the soap box) Thank you, Ted -Original Message- From: Andrew J Jenkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 11:04 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone On 11:10 AM 7/26/2001 -0400, Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: >Does anyone know if the wildcard character '?' >is acceptable in footprint names? Good question. According to a Windriver document (Getting20%Started.doc in the autocad directory), under the sub-heading "Pads software decal list defaults", item 3 states that the "?" is illegal, along with other "standard" illegal characters * < > ; , "Decals" are "footprints", yes? (i'm kinda ignorant of what PADS folk call footprints) I believe that Ted said he basically wants to follow the standards previously set by the folks at Windriver, who have already begun the process for the PADS community specifically, but also for the EDA community at large by virtue of their having already solved many of the administrative questions. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Dennis Saputelli wrote: > sch parts, however, don't strike me as being hard at all My current design, with 3 devices over 250 pins, has reminded me how dull generating sch parts can be. It's just galling that the information _must_ be available within the IC manufacturers, and if it was available in a format more machine-readable than pdf, library generation would be a case of dragging pins round rather than dull-yet-critical typing, and I'm idle. Steve * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
i would agree with steve's comments here sometime i have spent longer looking for a footprint than it would take to make one (simple ones only that is) also it is true that they can and sometimes should be slanted to the project at hand sch parts, however, don't strike me as being hard at all Dennis Saputelli Steve Wiseman wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Ian Middleton wrote: > > > It could also ask about paste, solder, plating and tenting overrides as > > well. It could also allow mixing on units when entering (mills and mm). > > you can type xxxmm and yyymil - works nicely. The rest of the wishlist I > also wish for... > > (The library discussion is interesting, but I'm an untrusting person, and > do my own library parts. The effort taken to validate a footprint is > similar to the effort to make it, and I often slant footprints to a > particular project / assembly tactic - for instance, if I know a board's > going to involve a lot of debug with a scope, the QFP pads all grow a > bit...) I also don't find making footprints that much of a chore, > certainly nothing compared to the hell that is building schematic > parts. Oh for a pdf -> library converter that'd get the pin types, names > and numbers right! > > Steve > -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Ian Middleton wrote: > It could also ask about paste, solder, plating and tenting overrides as > well. It could also allow mixing on units when entering (mills and mm). you can type xxxmm and yyymil - works nicely. The rest of the wishlist I also wish for... (The library discussion is interesting, but I'm an untrusting person, and do my own library parts. The effort taken to validate a footprint is similar to the effort to make it, and I often slant footprints to a particular project / assembly tactic - for instance, if I know a board's going to involve a lot of debug with a scope, the QFP pads all grow a bit...) I also don't find making footprints that much of a chore, certainly nothing compared to the hell that is building schematic parts. Oh for a pdf -> library converter that'd get the pin types, names and numbers right! Steve * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
> As for part naming, I think that only exact part numbers, down to the > full suffix will do in such a database. Though you can search for just the > prefixes in the database, we don't need the 'Napster' equivalent happening > here, but it will happen anyways. The problem with full suffix is that many parts use suffix modifiers for non-physical specification. For example, temperature and speed grades. Perhaps some standard for indicating wildcards in those suffix character positions is needed. For example, MAX186??AP is a MAX186 of any precision grade and temp grade, with an SSOP20 package. Note: this is not an endorsement of Maxim parts! Does anyone know if the wildcard character '?' is acceptable in footprint names? I haven't tried it. If not, some other non-alphanumeric character must be used (maybe '_'). Of course, this example is a chip. Many special footprints will be connectors and passives, not chips. The situation still applies, however. AMP (or Tyco, whatever they are calling themselves this week) connecters come in many variants with similar footprints. About Napster-like file sharing, the problem with it is that the person who has what you want has to be online when you want it. I don't like the idea of exposing my workstation PC to the outside world with an open tunnel through the firewall, and having to leave it on all the time. That's why we need a website to host this thingy. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: "Brian Guralnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > For validation, on the PCB side, I used to place a 'scanned version' in > a translucent state, of the part over the footprint. I've been able to find > and correct many footprint problems in advance using this technique. If > such an ability was built into Protel & a copy of the scan was kept with the > footprint in the library this would help ease proofing of the footprint. > > As for part naming, I think that only exact part numbers, down to the > full suffix will do in such a database. Though you can search for just the > prefixes in the database, we don't need the 'Napster' equivalent happening > here, but it will happen anyways. > > I also think that each component should also come with it's own > footprint, with the attached component name to it. Otherwise, matching > component footprint name could create a cross mess. > > I don't think that pin 1 should always be center. For example, SMD LED > which require placement based on their center of the footprint, or even a > slight offset which may be by design. > > We would need a database sharing tool, like sort a like 'Napster'. When > searching for a particular part, a spec column would list: > 1) user's source of part > 2) user who entered part, date of entry > 3) component part number / type / included / > 4) footprint part number / type / included / metric / imperial / pin1 > center / > > Though, to properly set this up, I have no clue there... > > > Brian Guralnick > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
For validation, on the PCB side, I used to place a 'scanned version' in a translucent state, of the part over the footprint. I've been able to find and correct many footprint problems in advance using this technique. If such an ability was built into Protel & a copy of the scan was kept with the footprint in the library this would help ease proofing of the footprint. As for part naming, I think that only exact part numbers, down to the full suffix will do in such a database. Though you can search for just the prefixes in the database, we don't need the 'Napster' equivalent happening here, but it will happen anyways. I also think that each component should also come with it's own footprint, with the attached component name to it. Otherwise, matching component footprint name could create a cross mess. I don't think that pin 1 should always be center. For example, SMD LED which require placement based on their center of the footprint, or even a slight offset which may be by design. We would need a database sharing tool, like sort a like 'Napster'. When searching for a particular part, a spec column would list: 1) user's source of part 2) user who entered part, date of entry 3) component part number / type / included / 4) footprint part number / type / included / metric / imperial / pin1 center / Though, to properly set this up, I have no clue there... Brian Guralnick * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Instead of a monster PCB footprint file with names that you can never match to the footprint, how about a much improved PCB footprint wizard. I spend quite a lot of time modifying the results of the Protel PCB footprint wizard as it often asks for "stupid" dimensions that are not on manufacturers data sheets. ie The Protel wizard asks for spacings at the corner of a QFP where as data sheets usually give pad sizes and centre line spacing. It could also ask about paste, solder, plating and tenting overrides as well. It could also allow mixing on units when entering (mills and mm). You get the idea. Regards Ian Middleton > -Original Message- > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 26 July 2001 01:06 > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > > At 02:07 PM 7/25/01 -0400, Andrew J Jenkins wrote: > >The problem, as I see it, with traffic in multiple locations is > that it's > >end result is fragmentation of the group and > > Meeting in committee is hardly "fragmentation." The records of the > committee are open to the public and will remain so, and anyone > who wishes > to join the discussion may do so. Further, the committee will report back > to this list and anyone who does not like its recommendations > will be free > to express it. > > I don't know that Mr. Jenkins is aware that I was elected chair of the > Protel Users Association. I am the "owner" of record for the Protel-users > yahoogroups lists, but I only hold those lists as trustee for the > association; my decisions regarding them are subject to > association review, > and not only can I be overruled by the association, I *have* been > overruled > in one case. > > Every organization which has accomplished something significant > has learned > to divide and delegate responsibility. Not everyone wants to > participate in > every activity, and we are already bleeding subscribers to the Techserv > list, people who unsubscribe simply because the volume of mail > becomes too > much. I spoke to a number of these at the last PC Design Conference West. > > (There is a list, protel-users-announcements, which is a *very* > low traffic > list, and I recommend that anyone who would like to receive association > announcements without maintaining active list subscription(s) join that > list. A piece of mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will > accomplish it. It's a moderated list specifically to keep it from > receiving > traffic which is not association-sponsored.) > > I know that some of us, even some of those who have been active in > association affairs (such as Mr. Wilson, who has done a great > deal and who > deserves our gratitude), dislike the proliferation of lists. Some > organizations similar to ours have a single list, but have > required subject > headers, and people can set their subscription preferences to include or > exclude particular subjects. That's another way of accomplishing > a similar > purpose. > > However, requiring that all users receive all mail is the same kind of > error as was made by many cooperative organizations back in the > seventies: > everything was decided by the entire organization. Problem was, > it was very > difficult to get everyone to agree, and a single argumentative > person could > effectively prevent anything from being done. In the end, the > organizations > went according to the decisions of those who could afford the time to sit > through long-winded plenary sessions. And, usually, after a few > years, the > organization was gone. > > I'd prefer to have an opt-out system, where everyone was > subscribed to all > the lists, and then could opt out of the ones not of interest to them. If > Mr Jenkins had his way, it would seem, *we couldn't opt out.* Is this > really what we want? > > Techserv has periodically popped in here to stop discussions it deemed > off-topic. Originally, the yahoogroups lists were started for two reasons: > > (1) to provide a backup list for when the Techserv list was down, which > happened too many times. > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > (2) to provide a place or places to discuss or announce matters > which were > against Techserv policy, such as announcements regarding protel license > resales (protel-users-resale) or miscellaneous discussion > (protel-users-misc). > > If you want to talk fragmentation, it would be in the recent founding of > the Open Forum by Techserv, which was a direct duplicate of > protel-users-misc. *That's* fragmentation. > > Response to protel-users-library has been substantially greater than was > the response to any other of the accessory lists. In less t
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
At 02:07 PM 7/25/01 -0400, Andrew J Jenkins wrote:
>The problem, as I see it, with traffic in multiple locations is that it's
>end result is fragmentation of the group and
Meeting in committee is hardly "fragmentation." The records of the
committee are open to the public and will remain so, and anyone who wishes
to join the discussion may do so. Further, the committee will report back
to this list and anyone who does not like its recommendations will be free
to express it.
I don't know that Mr. Jenkins is aware that I was elected chair of the
Protel Users Association. I am the "owner" of record for the Protel-users
yahoogroups lists, but I only hold those lists as trustee for the
association; my decisions regarding them are subject to association review,
and not only can I be overruled by the association, I *have* been overruled
in one case.
Every organization which has accomplished something significant has learned
to divide and delegate responsibility. Not everyone wants to participate in
every activity, and we are already bleeding subscribers to the Techserv
list, people who unsubscribe simply because the volume of mail becomes too
much. I spoke to a number of these at the last PC Design Conference West.
(There is a list, protel-users-announcements, which is a *very* low traffic
list, and I recommend that anyone who would like to receive association
announcements without maintaining active list subscription(s) join that
list. A piece of mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will
accomplish it. It's a moderated list specifically to keep it from receiving
traffic which is not association-sponsored.)
I know that some of us, even some of those who have been active in
association affairs (such as Mr. Wilson, who has done a great deal and who
deserves our gratitude), dislike the proliferation of lists. Some
organizations similar to ours have a single list, but have required subject
headers, and people can set their subscription preferences to include or
exclude particular subjects. That's another way of accomplishing a similar
purpose.
However, requiring that all users receive all mail is the same kind of
error as was made by many cooperative organizations back in the seventies:
everything was decided by the entire organization. Problem was, it was very
difficult to get everyone to agree, and a single argumentative person could
effectively prevent anything from being done. In the end, the organizations
went according to the decisions of those who could afford the time to sit
through long-winded plenary sessions. And, usually, after a few years, the
organization was gone.
I'd prefer to have an opt-out system, where everyone was subscribed to all
the lists, and then could opt out of the ones not of interest to them. If
Mr Jenkins had his way, it would seem, *we couldn't opt out.* Is this
really what we want?
Techserv has periodically popped in here to stop discussions it deemed
off-topic. Originally, the yahoogroups lists were started for two reasons:
(1) to provide a backup list for when the Techserv list was down, which
happened too many times.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
(2) to provide a place or places to discuss or announce matters which were
against Techserv policy, such as announcements regarding protel license
resales (protel-users-resale) or miscellaneous discussion (protel-users-misc).
If you want to talk fragmentation, it would be in the recent founding of
the Open Forum by Techserv, which was a direct duplicate of
protel-users-misc. *That's* fragmentation.
Response to protel-users-library has been substantially greater than was
the response to any other of the accessory lists. In less than one day, 17
users have joined. There has been, as yet, no discussion on that list; I
assume that it will start up when the energy being spent here quiets down.
Yahoogroups lists have archives. The only reason that we have an archive
for the Techserv list is that one was started on yahoogroups.
(Protel-users-PEDA-archive). On the same day that this archive was opened,
there was apparently activity attempting to start up an archive on the
Techserv site. It was not completed.
An archive ("minutes") is essential for a working committee. If the minutes
of a committee are filled with material irrelevant to the purpose of the
committee, they will be next to useless. That's why we need a separate
list. It is for order, not for fragmentation. Discussion lists are great
for asking questions of a broad audience and for discussion. They are *not*
so great for making decisions.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
The suggestions for locating the library on a web site has a lot of merit, especially in view of the concerns summarised here by Andrew. Software that is used for on-line catalogue shopping could possibly be adapted, or used as a model, to allow users to browse through the various permutations possible for any particular footprint. This would probably produce the results that the users would want sooner, less expensively and more reliably than trying to have the same facility incorporated within Protel. It would then be possible to show all of the specifications and parameters related to the footprint, such as paste screen thickness, reflow vs solder wave vs hand soldering, margin from actual part to the part outline etc. Some guidelines should be set regarding the information to be included in the "spec. sheet" for each footprint. It would then be left up to the user to decide how applicable a particular footprint would be in his situation. This approach would allow Protel's programmers to stick with improving the basic product. The web site could be supported by one or more sponsors, donations or subscriptions. There are probably enough participants in this forum who have the skills to develop such a web site. People are already putting time into developing Protel servers and sharing them with other forum members. Just a thought or two. Phil So > -Original Message- > From: Andrew J Jenkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2001 05:56 > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > > On 01:10 PM 7/24/2001 -0700, Brad Velander wrote: > >Andrew, > > please don't throw me into the simple nay-sayers > > > Nope. I didn't. Just "doubting" Thomas, to whom I originally replied. > > > I have my doubts > >about whether it could be accomplished amongst a group as > diverse as ours, > >but it can be done. My concerns would be more for the > diverse opinions and > >desired features within the library and coming to some consensus on a > >standard approach. > > Features are the stumbling block. As has been mentioned, one > person's "preferred" footprint may not be another's. (my > efforts, for instance, have been primarily limited to > hand-soldered PCBs, resulting in a need for much larger pads > than might be expected with other soldering processes) > > This leads me to the conclusion that either multiple working > footprints for a given "base" footprint will have to be > individually generated, or another process which allows for > capturing the variations within a single, generalized part, > like folding an agreed-upon group of mfg methods requirements > into each footprint, by use of the available layers, or by > use of some other trick(s). Unless some "trickery" is > practiced, I'm concerned that the library size might grow > beyond the expected <10K count value that has been offered. > > > Many of us have that tendency to ramble, as long as > it is a flow of > >thoughts that others can discuss and build on what is the > problem with it? > > None that I can think of. I was just practicing my apologetics ;) > > aj > > P.S. In answer to your question/comment a few days ago, I've > been here all along, never left, just on Hiatus for the last > couple months, and so fell into the nether-state of > Lurker...Too much work on the decrepit 100+ yr old house to > accomplish, and too little time to accomplish it in...(right > now, it's just too "danged" hot here in Cleveburg to work > outside in the sun all day long, (ex: 88F & 70%RH @ 5pm > yesterday) so I have "un poco tiempo" with which to "play" > before dragging my butt back out into the lobster pot every so often. > The contents of this E-mail may contain information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect those of the company. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
At 01:11 PM 7/25/01 -0400, Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: >As far as "verification" of parts goes, I oppose any bureaucratization that >would hinder or slow down the footprint distribution process. This sounds >like more "total quality management" business school bullsh*t. The buyer >beware - free stuff may only be worth what you pay for it. Check the >footprint yourself before you use it. I do. As I would see it, a part that is submitted would immediately be available to all, but it would be flagged as unverified. Yes, caveat emptor. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax P.O. Box 690 El Verano, CA 95433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
On 01:10 PM 7/24/2001 -0700, Brad Velander wrote: >Andrew, > please don't throw me into the simple nay-sayers Nope. I didn't. Just "doubting" Thomas, to whom I originally replied. > I have my doubts >about whether it could be accomplished amongst a group as diverse as ours, >but it can be done. My concerns would be more for the diverse opinions and >desired features within the library and coming to some consensus on a >standard approach. Features are the stumbling block. As has been mentioned, one person's "preferred" footprint may not be another's. (my efforts, for instance, have been primarily limited to hand-soldered PCBs, resulting in a need for much larger pads than might be expected with other soldering processes) This leads me to the conclusion that either multiple working footprints for a given "base" footprint will have to be individually generated, or another process which allows for capturing the variations within a single, generalized part, like folding an agreed-upon group of mfg methods requirements into each footprint, by use of the available layers, or by use of some other trick(s). Unless some "trickery" is practiced, I'm concerned that the library size might grow beyond the expected <10K count value that has been offered. > Many of us have that tendency to ramble, as long as it is a flow of >thoughts that others can discuss and build on what is the problem with it? None that I can think of. I was just practicing my apologetics ;) aj P.S. In answer to your question/comment a few days ago, I've been here all along, never left, just on Hiatus for the last couple months, and so fell into the nether-state of Lurker...Too much work on the decrepit 100+ yr old house to accomplish, and too little time to accomplish it in...(right now, it's just too "danged" hot here in Cleveburg to work outside in the sun all day long, (ex: 88F & 70%RH @ 5pm yesterday) so I have "un poco tiempo" with which to "play" before dragging my butt back out into the lobster pot every so often. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
AJ If you get a chance look over the Defining a CAD library at www.pcbstandards.com and see what wind river has set up for there standards. I thought it would be a good idea to try to stay with there standards as we could use there libraries and they could use ours. It would cut development time down considerably. Ted -Original Message- From: Andrew J Jenkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:35 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone On 10:03 AM 7/25/2001 -0700, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: >At 09:29 AM 7/25/01 -0500, Ted Tontis wrote: > >> As designers we sometimes have to make the impossible happen, and we >>do make it happen. So why then all the negative remarks? > >All I know is that if you want to accomplish something valuable, get used to it. It is *much* easier to sit back and find fault with a proposal than to work out how to make it successful, and most people, or at least a sizable number, take the easy way. Actually, based on the thread so far, your "observation" is false. The majority of respondants in this group have had positive comments. Only two or three found outright fault with Ted's Tontis' proposal and denied any possibility of its fruition or their eventual use of such a library. >Obviously, I can't stop users from discussing the issue here No, you can't. Thanks Mark. I would urge other readers/writers to avoid the splintering that Mr Lomax is engineering within this group. Remember the old Roman trick: Divide and conquer. aj * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
For me at least, the issue of a separate list is moot. I'm interested, and I will (did) subscribe. Then it just comes as more email, mixed in with mail from all the other lists that I have joined. If a separate list makes it easier to administer, then I don't mind. A separate list does have some advantage for those not interested in pcb footprints (there are probably some!), they can reduce the clutter in their mailbox! Richard Cheesecote Mountain CAMAC 24 Halley Drive; Pomona, NY 10970 845 364 0211, www.cmcamac.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
On 10:23 PM 7/24/2001 -0400, Brian Guralnick wrote: >email glitch... > > For validation, on the PCB side, I used to place a 'scanned version' in >a translucent state, of the part over the footprint. I've been able to find >and correct many footprint problems in advance using this technique. If >such an ability was built into Protel & a copy of the scan was kept with the >footprint in the library this would help ease proofing of the footprint. Brian, Neat idea. However, I have one question: How do you determine the accuracy of the scan? I expect your scanner has been calibrated...? > I don't think that pin 1 should always be center. For example, SMD LED >which require placement based on their center of the footprint, or even a >slight offset which may be by design. I for one hate the Protel standard of centering components and footprints on pin 1. It's counter-intuitive and has caused me wasted time. > We would need a database sharing tool, like sort a like 'Napster'. When >searching for a particular part, a spec column would list: > 1) user's source of part > 2) user who entered part, date of entry > 3) component part number / type / included / > 4) footprint part number / type / included / metric / imperial / pin1 >center / Limewire http://www.limewire.com/ is such a possibility, though it's likely that the readership would prefer a web-page based hosting. regards, aj * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
>From my standpoint, it is counterproductive to start a new list to deal with this issue. Having multiple lists merely serves to fragment the user community. If the topic is germane to Protel users, then it should appear on this list. I for one, do not have the time or the inclination to monitor numerous lists. I guess I need to be included as one who "is allergic to new lists and only accepts them with difficulty". Best regards, Max P. Henzi, CEO Lavenir Technology 2440 Estand Way Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 voice: (925) 680-7400 fax: (925) 686-5131 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.lavenir.com -Original Message- From: Bagotronix Tech Support [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 10:11 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > >You may prefer but the vast majority if people responding do not want > >another mail list it seems... > > Mr. Wilson, we know, is allergic to new lists and only accepts them with > difficulty. However, there will need to be a *lot* of detailed discussion, I don't think a new list is needed to handle PCB footprint message traffic. After all, aren't we all using Protel? The footprints being distributed would be in Protel data format. Therefore, it's a Protel EDA Forum issue, right? The Protel EDA Forum is not just about workarounds and software bugs, right? I think a "lib for everyone" is a great concept, but it will always be an unfinished work. I would prefer if there was a web page we could download PCB footprints from. Not a huge library that may or may not have what we are actually looking for, but individual footprints in their own little files. For example, if I am looking for an Amp RJ-45 footprint, I should not have to download the entire AMP library before I find out the footprint I want isn't in it. If possible, the footprints should be in Protel ASCII format so they could be used with older (pre-99SE) versions of Protel. If we don't get a web page, we can still ask others in this list for footprints. I did so 2 weeks ago and got several responses that were exactly what I needed - thanks to all who responded. But if we do get a web page for footprints, we could proactively contribute footprints. As far as "verification" of parts goes, I oppose any bureaucratization that would hinder or slow down the footprint distribution process. This sounds like more "total quality management" business school bullsh*t. The buyer beware - free stuff may only be worth what you pay for it. Check the footprint yourself before you use it. I do. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > At 07:10 PM 7/25/01 +1000, Ian Wilson wrote: > >On 08:55 PM 24/07/2001 -0700, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said: > > > >>As I stated, I do prefer that we move this discussion to the new list, > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >You may prefer but the vast majority if people responding do not want > >another mail list it seems... > > Mr. Wilson, we know, is allergic to new lists and only accepts them with > difficulty. However, there will need to be a *lot* of detailed discussion, > I expect, and we will need polling tools (if large numbers want to get > involved, otherwise it could be done more informally). > > There are already more subscribers to the new list than there are people > responding in this thread, so Mr. Wilson's comment about "vast majority" > may be a bit biased. I know that I'm now suppressing my own responses here. > Obviously, I can't stop users from discussing the issue here, but, if past > discussions are a guide, there will be a lot of talk and little or no > action coming out of it. We will need *ratified* standards or we will end > up with a library that many designers won't want to use; I want to maximize > consensus on the standards so that they will truly represent the collective > wisdom of our fellow users. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Abdulrahman Lomax > P.O. Box 690 > El Verano, CA 95433 > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
> >You may prefer but the vast majority if people responding do not want > >another mail list it seems... > > Mr. Wilson, we know, is allergic to new lists and only accepts them with > difficulty. However, there will need to be a *lot* of detailed discussion, I don't think a new list is needed to handle PCB footprint message traffic. After all, aren't we all using Protel? The footprints being distributed would be in Protel data format. Therefore, it's a Protel EDA Forum issue, right? The Protel EDA Forum is not just about workarounds and software bugs, right? I think a "lib for everyone" is a great concept, but it will always be an unfinished work. I would prefer if there was a web page we could download PCB footprints from. Not a huge library that may or may not have what we are actually looking for, but individual footprints in their own little files. For example, if I am looking for an Amp RJ-45 footprint, I should not have to download the entire AMP library before I find out the footprint I want isn't in it. If possible, the footprints should be in Protel ASCII format so they could be used with older (pre-99SE) versions of Protel. If we don't get a web page, we can still ask others in this list for footprints. I did so 2 weeks ago and got several responses that were exactly what I needed - thanks to all who responded. But if we do get a web page for footprints, we could proactively contribute footprints. As far as "verification" of parts goes, I oppose any bureaucratization that would hinder or slow down the footprint distribution process. This sounds like more "total quality management" business school bullsh*t. The buyer beware - free stuff may only be worth what you pay for it. Check the footprint yourself before you use it. I do. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > At 07:10 PM 7/25/01 +1000, Ian Wilson wrote: > >On 08:55 PM 24/07/2001 -0700, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said: > > > >>As I stated, I do prefer that we move this discussion to the new list, > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >You may prefer but the vast majority if people responding do not want > >another mail list it seems... > > Mr. Wilson, we know, is allergic to new lists and only accepts them with > difficulty. However, there will need to be a *lot* of detailed discussion, > I expect, and we will need polling tools (if large numbers want to get > involved, otherwise it could be done more informally). > > There are already more subscribers to the new list than there are people > responding in this thread, so Mr. Wilson's comment about "vast majority" > may be a bit biased. I know that I'm now suppressing my own responses here. > Obviously, I can't stop users from discussing the issue here, but, if past > discussions are a guide, there will be a lot of talk and little or no > action coming out of it. We will need *ratified* standards or we will end > up with a library that many designers won't want to use; I want to maximize > consensus on the standards so that they will truly represent the collective > wisdom of our fellow users. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Abdulrahman Lomax > P.O. Box 690 > El Verano, CA 95433 > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
At 09:29 AM 7/25/01 -0500, Ted Tontis wrote: > As designers we sometimes have to make the impossible happen, and we >do make it happen. So why then all the negative remarks? All I know is that if you want to accomplish something valuable, get used to it. It is *much* easier to sit back and find fault with a proposal than to work out how to make it successful, and most people, or at least a sizable number, take the easy way. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax P.O. Box 690 El Verano, CA 95433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
At 07:10 PM 7/25/01 +1000, Ian Wilson wrote: >On 08:55 PM 24/07/2001 -0700, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said: > >>As I stated, I do prefer that we move this discussion to the new list, >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >You may prefer but the vast majority if people responding do not want >another mail list it seems... Mr. Wilson, we know, is allergic to new lists and only accepts them with difficulty. However, there will need to be a *lot* of detailed discussion, I expect, and we will need polling tools (if large numbers want to get involved, otherwise it could be done more informally). There are already more subscribers to the new list than there are people responding in this thread, so Mr. Wilson's comment about "vast majority" may be a bit biased. I know that I'm now suppressing my own responses here. Obviously, I can't stop users from discussing the issue here, but, if past discussions are a guide, there will be a lot of talk and little or no action coming out of it. We will need *ratified* standards or we will end up with a library that many designers won't want to use; I want to maximize consensus on the standards so that they will truly represent the collective wisdom of our fellow users. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax P.O. Box 690 El Verano, CA 95433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Hi Ted, Wow... this really got some very interesting attention... Good points all. Ted, It sounds like you are working with those guys over at WindRiver in San Diego. They have undertaken a project to 'standardize' all footprints in millimeters and provide them with development tools and accessories to the world for free (with WindRivers name all over it of course). Tom Hausherr, a very experienced and driven PCB designer and leader in the PADS users group in San Diego, is coordinating the effort there along with consultation with the leaders of the IPC Designers Council and volunteer designers and has made considerable progress. The only drawback, that I can see, is that the libraries that are being created are in PADS, somewhat useless to other cad systems. Is this where you got the inspiration to try to get this going for Protel? It is really great to see the good will of so many technical people being exercised for the common good of the industry as a whole. I applaud your effort to make a difference! Keep it up! You 'nay' sayers... its already happening on a pretty big scale, I have seen the progress Tom Hausherr has made... its impressive. If the work is divided up among a large group its very possible to do amazing things... Protel people are some of the best technical people around... think about it. You can make a difference, even if its only a small difference, it adds up. You are a great bunch keep up the ideas... :) - Bill Brooks Bill Brooks PCB Design Engineer DATRON WORLD COMMUNICATIONS INC. 3030 Enterprise Court Vista, CA 92083 Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] IPC Designers Council, San Diego Chapter http://www.ipc.org/SanDiego/ http://home.fda.net/bbrooks/pca/pca.htm -Original Message- From: Ted Tontis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 7:30 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone I started the thread on this subject. I knew the size of this project was going to be large, that is why I posted the thread in the first place. I wanted to see if anyone else would like to help or even if anyone wanted to have a large library system that was free. My idea was to get everyone who wanted to try and shorten there design time and get there input and ideas. I do not have 8500 parts in on library please give me some credit. "I said that I am working on importing 8500 parts into Protel from another cad system." There are other designers doing this and they would most likely trade footprints for footprints. The scope of this goes further then here, and the possibility to increase the library could come from other designers or as Mr. Lomax stated help from Protel. I am sure Protel is following this thread closely, if we where to take up this project Protel would be able to say we have the largest certified free library. That would boost there sales to unbelievable numbers. As designers we sometimes have to make the impossible happen, and we do make it happen. So why then all the negative remarks? Ted * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Abd ul-Rahman, a footprint without associated paste mask detailing is only an incomplete solution. It's like having the PCB without components or a soldering iron to attach them. So everybody goes off into their corner and duplicates their time and efforts to prescribe and describe the paste mask for each and every footprint design? This would probably lead to footprint designs which had not considered paste mask or varying levels of paste deposition during the design. What was the point of this thread? I think you may have overlooked the obvious, that is the footprints should be a complete solution for all and eliminate duplicated individual effort. To this end the solder paste mask deposition should be specified from the start and the whole library designed to work with that deposition of solder paste. Otherwise you do nobody any favor if one footprint works with 4 mil solder but the one you choose to locate directly beside it was meant for 7 mil solder deposition. Brad Velander, Lead PCB Designer, Norsat International Inc., #300 - 4401 Still Creek Dr., Burnaby, B.C., V5C 6G9. Tel. (604) 292-9089 direct Fax (604) 292-9010 website www.norsat.com > -Original Message- > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 9:56 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > > > I'd assume that the libraries would not normally contain paste mask > information. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Abdulrahman Lomax > P.O. Box 690 > El Verano, CA 95433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
I started the thread on this subject. I knew the size of this project was going to be large, that is why I posted the thread in the first place. I wanted to see if anyone else would like to help or even if anyone wanted to have a large library system that was free. My idea was to get everyone who wanted to try and shorten there design time and get there input and ideas. I do not have 8500 parts in on library please give me some credit. "I said that I am working on importing 8500 parts into Protel from another cad system." There are other designers doing this and they would most likely trade footprints for footprints. The scope of this goes further then here, and the possibility to increase the library could come from other designers or as Mr. Lomax stated help from Protel. I am sure Protel is following this thread closely, if we where to take up this project Protel would be able to say we have the largest certified free library. That would boost there sales to unbelievable numbers. As designers we sometimes have to make the impossible happen, and we do make it happen. So why then all the negative remarks? Ted * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
On 08:55 PM 24/07/2001 -0700, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said: >As I stated, I do prefer that we move this discussion to the new list, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] You may prefer but the vast majority if people responding do not want another mail list it seems... Ian Wilson * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Agreed the Protel libraries (along with any others) need to be properly verified. The point is trying to cram all these footprints into one super library. If you just take the Protel semiconductor libraries as a basis for working out the number of parts, plus variations as you describe, its rather unwieldy. Add connectors (1K?) switches (1K?) general components (1K?) thats my estimate. Did the original poster say he had 8500 footprints? In one library? Thats serious library management problems. The usual compliants about the footprint wizard and 'pathing' the footprint back to a source library might solve a lot of the requirements for having 'verified' footprints. I wouldnt use any part I didnt make myself but trying to make it in the footprint wizard, it involves an estimation and a calculation and crossed fingers Its a joke. Mr Protel this needs attention BR Clive "John Haddy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 07/25/2001 02:04:02 PM Please respond to "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: (bcc: Clive Broome/sdc) Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone Under no circumstances should the Protel libraries be copied! They are riddled with errors (I'd list them all as "unverified"). For instance, any metric pitch component that's been created with the footprint wizard is likely to be wrong. The biggest hurdle I forsee is the widely differing requirements of any single footprint. For example: a footprint for wave solder is different from that for reflow; the IPC "worst-case" design methodology generates overly conservative footprints; a designer working on high density layouts will want "bleeding edge" land pattern designs, not general purpose ones with excessive silkscreen clearances (for example). So just with these few variations, we're up to at least four variants of every footprint! Much as I applaud the sentiment, I can't see a single library ever providing a single source set of footprints. I regularly use components that have land pattern designs tailored to the manufacturing process; e.g. I might create an SC70-6 footprint which is fine for the current project because I'll be using a 0.004" paste stencil thickness, however the same design may well cause manufacturing issues if it's used with a 0.006" paste stencil! We're going to need much more sophisticated design rules before I'd consider using anybody else's designs (so that I can check, for example, paste aperture ratios given a specified screen thickness) Just my $0.02 John Haddy > -----Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2001 12:03 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > > > > Im assuming that the existing PCB footprint libraries on the > Protel website > would be a subset of this super library. > The libraries are: > > BGA531 footprints in 9 libraries based on pin pitch > Through Hole 107 footprints in 5 libraries > QFP's 226 footprints in 12 libraries based on pin > pitch and > index position (with duplicated footprints) > Chip carrier74 footprints in 2 libraries > SOP 129 footprints in 2 libraries > > Plus a number of manufacturer specific and general libraries. > Taking just the > semiconductor footprints, thats > 1067 footprints that will be bundled into the super library that > someone will be > remaking. Or will these footprints > just be copied from the existing Protel libraries? If these > seperate libraries > get jumbled into one library, will > it make using and finding easier? Who will be doing the work on this? > > > > ___ > > Clive Broome > IDT Sydney Design CentrePh: +61 2 9763 3513 > 8 Bayswater Dr, HomebushFax:+61 2 9763 3409 > Sydney, NSW, 2127 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Australia > > Australia's Leading Semiconductor Designers > --- > > > > > > > > > "Ted Tontis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 07/24/2001 04:50:18 AM > > Please respond to "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Protel Forum (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc:(bcc: Clive Broome/sdc) > > Subject: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > > > Would there be any interest in a PCB footprint lib. with all the parts you > would ever need for free. I ask this because I am working on > trying to get a > la
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
At 02:04 PM 7/25/01 +1000, John Haddy wrote: >Under no circumstances should the Protel libraries be copied! They >are riddled with errors (I'd list them all as "unverified"). For >instance, any metric pitch component that's been created with the >footprint wizard is likely to be wrong. First of all, I doubt that the Protel footprints were created with the footprint wizard! If Protel employees had to use the wizard, it would be, shall we say, ... improved. I'd list the Protel footprints as "Protel-supplied." To call them "unverified" would be rude, even if, technically, from the user perspective, they are unverified. It is important that they be in the database so that users can verify them. >The biggest hurdle I forsee is the widely differing requirements >of any single footprint. For example: a footprint for wave solder >is different from that for reflow; the IPC "worst-case" design >methodology generates overly conservative footprints; a designer >working on high density layouts will want "bleeding edge" land >pattern designs, not general purpose ones with excessive silkscreen >clearances (for example). So just with these few variations, we're >up to at least four variants of every footprint! Right. But it is a question of standards. The standard to which a footprint is designed would be coded into the name of the footprint. The library would be indexed to manufacturer part numbers. (Schematic libraries likewise). I see no other way to cleanly organize the parts. Obviously, many different MFR part numbers will point to the same symbol. >Much as I applaud the sentiment, I can't see a single library ever >providing a single source set of footprints. For some of us, the user library (actually it will be a library of libraries) will be sufficient for most uses. There will always be a need for users to make new footprints or to modify existing ones. [...] >We're going to need much more sophisticated design rules before I'd >consider using anybody else's designs (so that I can check, for >example, paste aperture ratios given a specified screen thickness) I'd assume that the libraries would not normally contain paste mask information. The libraries will be as good as the rules used to design them, and the rules will be as good as we make them. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax P.O. Box 690 El Verano, CA 95433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Under no circumstances should the Protel libraries be copied! They are riddled with errors (I'd list them all as "unverified"). For instance, any metric pitch component that's been created with the footprint wizard is likely to be wrong. The biggest hurdle I forsee is the widely differing requirements of any single footprint. For example: a footprint for wave solder is different from that for reflow; the IPC "worst-case" design methodology generates overly conservative footprints; a designer working on high density layouts will want "bleeding edge" land pattern designs, not general purpose ones with excessive silkscreen clearances (for example). So just with these few variations, we're up to at least four variants of every footprint! Much as I applaud the sentiment, I can't see a single library ever providing a single source set of footprints. I regularly use components that have land pattern designs tailored to the manufacturing process; e.g. I might create an SC70-6 footprint which is fine for the current project because I'll be using a 0.004" paste stencil thickness, however the same design may well cause manufacturing issues if it's used with a 0.006" paste stencil! We're going to need much more sophisticated design rules before I'd consider using anybody else's designs (so that I can check, for example, paste aperture ratios given a specified screen thickness) Just my $0.02 John Haddy > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2001 12:03 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > > > > Im assuming that the existing PCB footprint libraries on the > Protel website > would be a subset of this super library. > The libraries are: > > BGA531 footprints in 9 libraries based on pin pitch > Through Hole 107 footprints in 5 libraries > QFP's 226 footprints in 12 libraries based on pin > pitch and > index position (with duplicated footprints) > Chip carrier74 footprints in 2 libraries > SOP 129 footprints in 2 libraries > > Plus a number of manufacturer specific and general libraries. > Taking just the > semiconductor footprints, thats > 1067 footprints that will be bundled into the super library that > someone will be > remaking. Or will these footprints > just be copied from the existing Protel libraries? If these > seperate libraries > get jumbled into one library, will > it make using and finding easier? Who will be doing the work on this? > > > > ___ > > Clive Broome > IDT Sydney Design CentrePh: +61 2 9763 3513 > 8 Bayswater Dr, HomebushFax:+61 2 9763 3409 > Sydney, NSW, 2127 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Australia > > Australia's Leading Semiconductor Designers > --- > > > > > > > > > "Ted Tontis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 07/24/2001 04:50:18 AM > > Please respond to "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Protel Forum (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc:(bcc: Clive Broome/sdc) > > Subject: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > > > Would there be any interest in a PCB footprint lib. with all the parts you > would ever need for free. I ask this because I am working on > trying to get a > large lib. in Protel. It would have the silk screen, a fence that would be > on the last electrical layer to avoid component placement conflictions, > assembly art work, pin 1 id. All parts would be in mm I welcome any input > towards this idea weather it be good or bad. > > Ted Tontis C.I.D. > Engage Networks > 316 N. Milwaukee Street > Suite 214 > Milwaukee WI, 53202 > PH 414-273-7600 ext. 7607 > FX 414-273-7601 > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
At 12:03 PM 7/25/01 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Taking just the >semiconductor footprints, thats >1067 footprints that will be bundled into the super library that someone >will be >remaking. Or will these footprints > just be copied from the existing Protel libraries? If these seperate > libraries >get jumbled into one library, will > it make using and finding easier? Who will be doing the work on this? As I stated, I do prefer that we move this discussion to the new list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] But here is what I would see. Most of us have had the experience of using a Protel part that was not, shall we say, what we would like. The holes are too small, for example, or something else about the part was not satisfactory. The Protel parts would be dumped into the library, assuming Protel consents, of course, as "Protel-supplied." There would still be a review process for all these parts. That process might have a low priority since there is so much other work to do. How about this: when we fab a board and we assemble it and everything is good with the footprints, we make a project library and send it off to the library center. The parts are compared with existing parts; if they match an existing part, that part gets a validation mark. This could be pretty much automated. When a part has several hundred validation marks, I'd think it we could consider it rather thoroughly checked! The tools to bring this together don't exist, as far as I know. But unless we describe them, they are not likely to come into existence. Protel, as I mentioned, might well help with the logistics, but the project should be -- *must be* -- a user-sponsored and controlled project. The work for putting together the library, the *hard* work, we are already doing: we are building parts and we are getting feedback on them. Protel could not afford to buy this! But Protel *could* make it easier for us to bring the data together, perhaps some HTML code, perhaps the labor of a coordinator, it will be up to them what they are willing to do. I do know that they are friendly to this kind of idea, if the legalities are properly arranged. I'll also note that Cadence has a full-fledged support site now which is a cooperative effort between the users and the corporation. Because we are isolated and not organized, it looks to us like Protel is large and we are small. That is an illusion! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax P.O. Box 690 El Verano, CA 95433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
email glitch... For validation, on the PCB side, I used to place a 'scanned version' in a translucent state, of the part over the footprint. I've been able to find and correct many footprint problems in advance using this technique. If such an ability was built into Protel & a copy of the scan was kept with the footprint in the library this would help ease proofing of the footprint. As for part naming, I think that only exact part numbers, down to the full suffix will do in such a database. Though you can search for just the prefixes in the database, we don't need the 'Napster' equivalent happening here, but it will happen anyways. I also think that each component should also come with it's own footprint, with the attached component name to it. Otherwise, matching component footprint name could create a cross mess. I don't think that pin 1 should always be center. For example, SMD LED which require placement based on their center of the footprint, or even a slight offset which may be by design. We would need a database sharing tool, like sort a like 'Napster'. When searching for a particular part, a spec column would list: 1) user's source of part 2) user who entered part, date of entry 3) component part number / type / included / 4) footprint part number / type / included / metric / imperial / pin1 center / Though, to properly set this up, I have no clue there... Brian Guralnick * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Im assuming that the existing PCB footprint libraries on the Protel website would be a subset of this super library. The libraries are: BGA531 footprints in 9 libraries based on pin pitch Through Hole 107 footprints in 5 libraries QFP's 226 footprints in 12 libraries based on pin pitch and index position (with duplicated footprints) Chip carrier74 footprints in 2 libraries SOP 129 footprints in 2 libraries Plus a number of manufacturer specific and general libraries. Taking just the semiconductor footprints, thats 1067 footprints that will be bundled into the super library that someone will be remaking. Or will these footprints just be copied from the existing Protel libraries? If these seperate libraries get jumbled into one library, will it make using and finding easier? Who will be doing the work on this? ___ Clive Broome IDT Sydney Design CentrePh: +61 2 9763 3513 8 Bayswater Dr, HomebushFax:+61 2 9763 3409 Sydney, NSW, 2127 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia Australia's Leading Semiconductor Designers --- "Ted Tontis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 07/24/2001 04:50:18 AM Please respond to "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel Forum (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc:(bcc: Clive Broome/sdc) Subject: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone Would there be any interest in a PCB footprint lib. with all the parts you would ever need for free. I ask this because I am working on trying to get a large lib. in Protel. It would have the silk screen, a fence that would be on the last electrical layer to avoid component placement conflictions, assembly art work, pin 1 id. All parts would be in mm I welcome any input towards this idea weather it be good or bad. Ted Tontis C.I.D. Engage Networks 316 N. Milwaukee Street Suite 214 Milwaukee WI, 53202 PH 414-273-7600 ext. 7607 FX 414-273-7601 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
I was just trying to inject a little reality into the discussion. It didn't seem to me that the original poster had any idea of the enormity of the task he had set himself. I too will be glad to help out, and will join the discussion group on yahoo. Tom. > -Original Message- > From: Andrew J Jenkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2001 5:10 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone -snip- > However, my main reply point was to the comment "It can't be > done". It's an irritating statement, that I find is most > often used by those who are nay-sayers, or those who are > simply trying to use 1st year psychology to goad a person > into action by negative reinforcement. > > I simply have an annoying tendency to ramble. > > regards, > > aj > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
We are moving from California to Massachusetts and things are a bit hectic right now, but I have started a mailing list for the purpose of developing -- or choosing -- standards for library creation. We might decide to adopt en masse the IPC standards, or we might pick and choose. Some good ideas have been proposed, but we need a mechanism for choosing which ideas to follow and which ones to set aside. The Techserv list is great for discussion, but not so great for making decisions. On a yahoogroups list we will have, among other things, polling mechanisms so that we can vote if we need to do so. So I'm asking those who want to have input or at least to watch the library standards process join [EMAIL PROTECTED] As with all the association lists on yahoogroups, you can join by sending a piece of mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and then replying to the confirmation message from yahoogroups. I do have reason to expect that Protel will welcome user involvement in library creation. Protel itself would face liability issues by providing user-supplied parts, but a user group would not face the same problem. Yes, there will still be legal issues, but they can be addressed and I am confident that there are reasonable solutions. First things first: the standards. I would suggest that we move the discussion to the new list. We will, I assume, periodically report back to this list as to our progress and to invite further participation. I may, for reasons explained above, be a little slow in responding for the next month. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax P.O. Box 690 El Verano, CA 95433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Andrew, please don't throw me into the simple nay-sayers, I have my doubts about whether it could be accomplished amongst a group as diverse as ours, but it can be done. My concerns would be more for the diverse opinions and desired features within the library and coming to some consensus on a standard approach. Would these be IPC standard? With what tolerances applied? What difference in basic part dimensions constitutes the design of a footprint variation? Etc.. While the AutoCAD blocks are a good example, I want some coordinate control in Protel that would match AutoCAD, then boy could we do footprints. Right now I find the greatest issue with making footprints is simply the weak dimensional coordination supported in Protel. I would gladly do footprints in ACAD any day. Many of us have that tendency to ramble, as long as it is a flow of thoughts that others can discuss and build on what is the problem with it? Brad Velander, Lead PCB Designer, Norsat International Inc., #300 - 4401 Still Creek Dr., Burnaby, B.C., V5C 6G9. Tel. (604) 292-9089 direct Fax (604) 292-9010 website www.norsat.com > -Original Message- > From: Andrew J Jenkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:10 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > > On 08:54 AM 7/24/2001 -0700, Brad Velander wrote: > >Andrew et al, > > I get the feeling that many people think that there > would not be too > >many footprints. > > IMO, "too many" is a relative term. 2500 is nothing compared > to the discrete number of components available, footprint(s) aside. > > > How many is not too many? My SMT+ footprint reference has > >2474 footprints and adds at least 50 - 100 per year. ... > > Additionally there would be the work of documenting > such footprints > >and deriving a naming structure. Whew, a lot of work people. > Not to mention > >there will be several dozen opinions about how to construct > everything based > >upon biases, opinions, experiences and guidelines. > > I agree, it would/will be a daunting task, to be sure, but > not impossible, by any means. And, while your ref shows ~2.5K > footprints, as you say, many are used by very few, but also, > many are probably also obsolete. (granted, I can't say for > sure, but I have my suspicions...) > > As an example, I once created over 100 unique multi-layer > Autocad blocks in less than a day, most of which included > much greater levels of detail than the average Protel block. > Tedious, yes, impossible, no. > > However, my main reply point was to the comment "It can't be > done". It's an irritating statement, that I find is most > often used by those who are nay-sayers, or those who are > simply trying to use 1st year psychology to goad a person > into action by negative reinforcement. > > I simply have an annoying tendency to ramble. > > regards, > > aj * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
On 08:54 AM 7/24/2001 -0700, Brad Velander wrote: >Andrew et al, > I get the feeling that many people think that there would not be too >many footprints. IMO, "too many" is a relative term. 2500 is nothing compared to the discrete number of components available, footprint(s) aside. > How many is not too many? My SMT+ footprint reference has >2474 footprints and adds at least 50 - 100 per year. ... > Additionally there would be the work of documenting such footprints >and deriving a naming structure. Whew, a lot of work people. Not to mention >there will be several dozen opinions about how to construct everything based >upon biases, opinions, experiences and guidelines. I agree, it would/will be a daunting task, to be sure, but not impossible, by any means. And, while your ref shows ~2.5K footprints, as you say, many are used by very few, but also, many are probably also obsolete. (granted, I can't say for sure, but I have my suspicions...) As an example, I once created over 100 unique multi-layer Autocad blocks in less than a day, most of which included much greater levels of detail than the average Protel block. Tedious, yes, impossible, no. However, my main reply point was to the comment "It can't be done". It's an irritating statement, that I find is most often used by those who are nay-sayers, or those who are simply trying to use 1st year psychology to goad a person into action by negative reinforcement. I simply have an annoying tendency to ramble. regards, aj * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Dennis, What I meant to say is that Protel offers up to 32 signal layers, therefore the fence would be located on the 30th signal layer. since this is a conductive layer you can set design rules or clearance constraints for your components. It would solve the silk screen pad violations, help in design spacing for test points, and rules for rework or placement. When you are done laying out the board turn that layer off and your fence is gone. Thus avoiding generating gerber data for that layer. Sorry I should have explained my self in more detail. Ted -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:01 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone wow, what ambition! can you pls explain: > 2 There is a conductive fence on the lowest layer as to avoid part placement > conflicts a little more? lowest layer = bottom layer? and how does conductive help? Dennis Saputelli Ted Tontis wrote: > > The standards are all ready set. I do not have control of them, this task > was put into motion sometime ago. If you want to look at the standards you > can at www.pcbstandards.com . again I have no control over the set > standards. > anyone who thinks this can not be done is sorry to say wrong. We as > designers make libraries every day. If we where to stick to the standards, > follow them as they have been written, and everyone puts some time in the > project the end result will be one large library that everyone will be able > to uses. Just think of the amount of time you will save if you did not have > to make a library. How many of us have the same foot prints in different > designers .ddb, or have no real standard in there company and your library > is a free for all. > > Here is a list of standards. > > 1 All parts must be in metric. > 2 There is a conductive fence on the lowest layer as to avoid part placement > conflicts > 3 for through hole parts the center is located on pin 1 > 4 for SMT parts center is located in the center of the part > 5 each part has an assembly drawing > 6 parts naming i.e.. Small Outline Packages, 7.8mm Lead Span (Pitch 0.65mm) > SOP78- Pin Qty > > There are more but you get the idea. The end result will benefit everyone in > the group, I am doing this in my free time and I wanted to make sure that > people would be interested before I dig in and get my hands dirty. I am > currently working on translating 8500 parts into this format. Look over the > standards and give me as much input weather it be positive or negative. I am > also working on getting a forum started or get on the existing one as the > project extends it self. > > Ted > -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
wow, what ambition! can you pls explain: > 2 There is a conductive fence on the lowest layer as to avoid part placement > conflicts a little more? lowest layer = bottom layer? and how does conductive help? Dennis Saputelli Ted Tontis wrote: > > The standards are all ready set. I do not have control of them, this task > was put into motion sometime ago. If you want to look at the standards you > can at www.pcbstandards.com . again I have no control over the set > standards. > anyone who thinks this can not be done is sorry to say wrong. We as > designers make libraries every day. If we where to stick to the standards, > follow them as they have been written, and everyone puts some time in the > project the end result will be one large library that everyone will be able > to uses. Just think of the amount of time you will save if you did not have > to make a library. How many of us have the same foot prints in different > designers .ddb, or have no real standard in there company and your library > is a free for all. > > Here is a list of standards. > > 1 All parts must be in metric. > 2 There is a conductive fence on the lowest layer as to avoid part placement > conflicts > 3 for through hole parts the center is located on pin 1 > 4 for SMT parts center is located in the center of the part > 5 each part has an assembly drawing > 6 parts naming i.e.. Small Outline Packages, 7.8mm Lead Span (Pitch 0.65mm) > SOP78- Pin Qty > > There are more but you get the idea. The end result will benefit everyone in > the group, I am doing this in my free time and I wanted to make sure that > people would be interested before I dig in and get my hands dirty. I am > currently working on translating 8500 parts into this format. Look over the > standards and give me as much input weather it be positive or negative. I am > also working on getting a forum started or get on the existing one as the > project extends it self. > > Ted > -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Andrew et al, I get the feeling that many people think that there would not be too many footprints. How many is not too many? My SMT+ footprint reference has 2474 footprints and adds at least 50 - 100 per year. Now a large number of them would not typically be used by any one user but against a larger number of users you would start to increase the total number required to rather large numbers. (i.e. I don't use any BGA, QFP, not many connectors, large VLSI, large SOIC, DIPS or leaded electrolytics, resistors, capacitors. Some other users may use all or significant numbers of these.) Sometimes the number of part variations elude us because we deal with our own little universe of parts and part requirements. Additionally there would be the work of documenting such footprints and deriving a naming structure. Whew, a lot of work people. Not to mention there will be several dozen opinions about how to construct everything based upon biases, opinions, experiences and guidelines. Brad Velander, Lead PCB Designer, Norsat International Inc., #300 - 4401 Still Creek Dr., Burnaby, B.C., V5C 6G9. Tel. (604) 292-9089 direct Fax (604) 292-9010 website www.norsat.com > -Original Message- > From: Andrew J Jenkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 9:48 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > > On 09:52 AM 7/24/2001 +1000, Thomas wrote: > > >It cannot be done. > > While I understand the sentiment, boy do I just hate when > people say such things... > > After all, there are not all THAT many footprints. > Components, yes, footprints...I don't think so... > > aj * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
-Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:03 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone Mr. Lomax >What I forsee is a system whereby a user wishes to use a part which is not >in the library we have created. He builds it, and he submits it. The part >is posted as unvalidated. Another user, certified by the user group for >this purpose, might check the part. The status of that part becomes >"checked, not validated." And then users who use the part will report their >experience with it, particularly with actual fab and assembly. Reports >regarding the part are tallied and ultimately the footprint is >automatically given validated status because of a multiplicity of >validations and an absence of complaints. (If there are validations *and* >complaints, the matter becomes more complicated, I won't go into that now.) >The key to this will be making the submission and retrieval and validation >of parts *easy*, so that no user is unduly burdened. Protel might >definitely help with that part. Ultimately the reporting mechanisms might >be built into client, with a tool that sends a footprint on command to a >configurable address, together with comment text. Mr. Lomax You are right on the money this is how the validation works. when a part is designed it goes in a special file on the web sight as a "not validated part". When a designer or Protel (if where lucky) can validate the part the name of the person who validated it is put on the part and it is then moved to the validated folder. I believe there is a lock on the folders, We as designers can not change parts we post them and someone else moves them to the validated and not validated folders. Ted * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
The standards are all ready set. I do not have control of them, this task was put into motion sometime ago. If you want to look at the standards you can at www.pcbstandards.com . again I have no control over the set standards. anyone who thinks this can not be done is sorry to say wrong. We as designers make libraries every day. If we where to stick to the standards, follow them as they have been written, and everyone puts some time in the project the end result will be one large library that everyone will be able to uses. Just think of the amount of time you will save if you did not have to make a library. How many of us have the same foot prints in different designers .ddb, or have no real standard in there company and your library is a free for all. Here is a list of standards. 1 All parts must be in metric. 2 There is a conductive fence on the lowest layer as to avoid part placement conflicts 3 for through hole parts the center is located on pin 1 4 for SMT parts center is located in the center of the part 5 each part has an assembly drawing 6 parts naming i.e.. Small Outline Packages, 7.8mm Lead Span (Pitch 0.65mm) SOP78- Pin Qty There are more but you get the idea. The end result will benefit everyone in the group, I am doing this in my free time and I wanted to make sure that people would be interested before I dig in and get my hands dirty. I am currently working on translating 8500 parts into this format. Look over the standards and give me as much input weather it be positive or negative. I am also working on getting a forum started or get on the existing one as the project extends it self. Ted * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
Ted Tontis wrote: > Would there be any interest in a PCB footprint lib. with all > the parts you would ever need for free. I ask this because I am > working on trying to get a large lib. in Protel. It would have the > silk screen, a fence that would be on the last electrical layer to > avoid component placement conflictions, assembly art work, pin 1 id. > All parts would be in mm. Art Zirger started such a task many years ago (back in the Protel 1.x days); he's not there anymore, but it looks like the workstation hosting the server is still up at Caltech. See http://leonardo.caltech.edu/protel/protel.html This isn't really suitable for the current versions of Protel, but it might give you an idea of what's involved. Some of the issues, off the top of my head: - Naming conventions. - Differing process rules (I may want a 10 mil pad in one process, 5 mil in another). - Slightly different layouts amongst manufacturers. - Revision control (not specific to this, but an issue with design databases in general). - All the random people-related issues involved in coordinating such a task. While I agree that getting a library with *all* of the parts I'll *ever* need together is impossible, certainly it is possible to get a library with *most* of the parts I need *today*. Heck, if I had a footprint library for the parts carried by DigiKey/Newark/Allied/etc., I'd be extremely grateful. For contributors to such a task, there's an issue with intellectual property. In my case, for example, I could use such a library at work, but would have to run all submissions by our legal department. Nonetheless, if you're up to such a task, I'll give you whatever support I can in my spare time. Dave Cuthbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
On 09:52 AM 7/24/2001 +1000, Thomas wrote: >It cannot be done. While I understand the sentiment, boy do I just hate when people say such things... After all, there are not all THAT many footprints. Components, yes, footprints...I don't think so... aj * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
I think this is a cool idea. I would think Protel would most certainly be intrested in helping, it adds value to the product. They already have standards in place and would want us to work to the same standards. That may be the only drawback to Protel involvement, unless we agree with thier standards. I would suggest that that might be a good starting point, to look at the Protel standrad for footprint design and ask the question 'is it good enough?' 'Can it be improved?' I would also like to see more done to improve and increase the simulation libraries. Perhaps the same approach could be made to generate simulation ready models for a comprehensive simulation library and a method of updating with new parts as time goes on. But thats another topic and I guess that less folk would be intrested in it. (although they might be if it was easier to get simulation ready models for the parts they want to use) TC > Original Message- > From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 7:03 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > At 01:50 PM 7/23/01 -0500, Ted Tontis wrote: > >Would there be any interest in a PCB footprint lib. with all the parts > you > >would ever need for free. I ask this because I am working on trying to > get a > >large lib. in Protel. It would have the silk screen, a fence that would > be > >on the last electrical layer to avoid component placement conflictions, > >assembly art work, pin 1 id. All parts would be in mm I welcome any input > >towards this idea weather it be good or bad. > > Of course I would be interested. I would be *more* interested if we were > to > have a project to develop library standards *before* we build a bunch of > parts. We could set up Y.A.M.L. (Yet Another Mailing List) to function as > a > committee for that purpose. > > Another writer has suggested that "it cannot be done." > > If it cannot be done, then surely Protel is wasting a lot of time and > money > trying to do it > > Now, who has more resources, Protel or the Protel user base? > > If anyone has any doubts about the answer to this question, I suggest a > little reflection. All the resources Protel has come from the users (or > their employers). Necessarily, those users provide only a small fraction > of > their resources to Protel. Further, the users are constantly gleaning > actual experience with footprints from which Protel employees may be > isolated. > > Of course, *organizing* the users is the difficult part. But it would be > quite worthwhile. If a small percentage of the Protel designers were to > devote a small percentage of their time to providing parts built to a > defined standard, we could build a truly comprehensive library. > > *And we are already doing the hard part, building the parts!* > > Essentially, instead of dozens or hundreds or thousands of us building the > same part, only one or a few parts need be built. (Variations on parts are > necessary for different conditions.) > > While I would certainly like every part built exactly how I want it, I > would give up that in order to have *validated* parts built according to a > standard which I consider reasonable. > > What I forsee is a system whereby a user wishes to use a part which is not > in the library we have created. He builds it, and he submits it. The part > is posted as unvalidated. Another user, certified by the user group for > this purpose, might check the part. The status of that part becomes > "checked, not validated." And then users who use the part will report > their > experience with it, particularly with actual fab and assembly. Reports > regarding the part are tallied and ultimately the footprint is > automatically given validated status because of a multiplicity of > validations and an absence of complaints. (If there are validations *and* > complaints, the matter becomes more complicated, I won't go into that > now.) > > The key to this will be making the submission and retrieval and validation > of parts *easy*, so that no user is unduly burdened. Protel might > definitely help with that part. Ultimately the reporting mechanisms might > be built into client, with a tool that sends a footprint on command to a > configurable address, together with comment text. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Abdulrahman Lomax > P.O. Box 690 > El Verano, CA 95433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
At 01:50 PM 7/23/01 -0500, Ted Tontis wrote: >Would there be any interest in a PCB footprint lib. with all the parts you >would ever need for free. I ask this because I am working on trying to get a >large lib. in Protel. It would have the silk screen, a fence that would be >on the last electrical layer to avoid component placement conflictions, >assembly art work, pin 1 id. All parts would be in mm I welcome any input >towards this idea weather it be good or bad. Of course I would be interested. I would be *more* interested if we were to have a project to develop library standards *before* we build a bunch of parts. We could set up Y.A.M.L. (Yet Another Mailing List) to function as a committee for that purpose. Another writer has suggested that "it cannot be done." If it cannot be done, then surely Protel is wasting a lot of time and money trying to do it Now, who has more resources, Protel or the Protel user base? If anyone has any doubts about the answer to this question, I suggest a little reflection. All the resources Protel has come from the users (or their employers). Necessarily, those users provide only a small fraction of their resources to Protel. Further, the users are constantly gleaning actual experience with footprints from which Protel employees may be isolated. Of course, *organizing* the users is the difficult part. But it would be quite worthwhile. If a small percentage of the Protel designers were to devote a small percentage of their time to providing parts built to a defined standard, we could build a truly comprehensive library. *And we are already doing the hard part, building the parts!* Essentially, instead of dozens or hundreds or thousands of us building the same part, only one or a few parts need be built. (Variations on parts are necessary for different conditions.) While I would certainly like every part built exactly how I want it, I would give up that in order to have *validated* parts built according to a standard which I consider reasonable. What I forsee is a system whereby a user wishes to use a part which is not in the library we have created. He builds it, and he submits it. The part is posted as unvalidated. Another user, certified by the user group for this purpose, might check the part. The status of that part becomes "checked, not validated." And then users who use the part will report their experience with it, particularly with actual fab and assembly. Reports regarding the part are tallied and ultimately the footprint is automatically given validated status because of a multiplicity of validations and an absence of complaints. (If there are validations *and* complaints, the matter becomes more complicated, I won't go into that now.) The key to this will be making the submission and retrieval and validation of parts *easy*, so that no user is unduly burdened. Protel might definitely help with that part. Ultimately the reporting mechanisms might be built into client, with a tool that sends a footprint on command to a configurable address, together with comment text. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax P.O. Box 690 El Verano, CA 95433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
All the parts? I don't think you know the enormity of the task you have set yourself. Protel has a full time team doing this. All be it poorly. For example, are you going to do all the footprints for MOVs, gas arrestors, Tranzorbs, 10A inductors etc... It cannot be done. > -Original Message- > From: Ted Tontis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 24 July 2001 4:50 AM > To: Protel Forum (E-mail) > Subject: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone > > > Would there be any interest in a PCB footprint lib. with all > the parts you > would ever need for free. I ask this because I am working on > trying to get a > large lib. in Protel. It would have the silk screen, a fence > that would be > on the last electrical layer to avoid component placement > conflictions, > assembly art work, pin 1 id. All parts would be in mm I > welcome any input > towards this idea weather it be good or bad. > > Ted Tontis C.I.D. > Engage Networks > 316 N. Milwaukee Street > Suite 214 > Milwaukee WI, 53202 > PH 414-273-7600 ext. 7607 > FX 414-273-7601 > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
