delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f |
X-Recipient: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Date: | Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:26:25 +0200 |
From: | Jan Kasprzak <kas AT fi DOT muni DOT cz> |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] Trace width - best practices? |
Message-ID: | <20121024162625.GW32696@fi.muni.cz> |
References: | <20121023192443 DOT GK524 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz> |
<CAPYb0EFCARPnutMQBNBJEbiDaE7Wj3PttucDY4HYGC6nU42GSg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> | |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
In-Reply-To: | <CAPYb0EFCARPnutMQBNBJEbiDaE7Wj3PttucDY4HYGC6nU42GSg@mail.gmail.com> |
User-Agent: | Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) |
X-Muni-Spam-TestIP: | 147.251.48.3 |
X-Muni-Envelope-From: | kas AT fi DOT muni DOT cz |
X-Muni-Virus-Test: | Clean |
X-Greylist: | Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (tirith.ics.muni.cz [147.251.4.35]); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:26:26 +0200 (CEST) |
Reply-To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
Bob Paddock wrote: : On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Jan Kasprzak <kas AT fi DOT muni DOT cz> wrote: : : > Note that I don't want the whole net to be made from wider traces, : > only connections between some of the pins of the same net should be made wider. : : These are better known as Fuses, and are generally a bad idea. : Not saying it is not very common, just consider the Fuse aspect. :-) Interesting. But burning the trace in PCB can still be better than burning the components. : > - this decoupling capacitor should be placed as close to this chip as possible : > : > or : > : > - these four connections together form a current loop, and the loop as a whole : > should be made as short as possible : : It would be great to mark segments of the same net with attributes in : both PCB and the schematic. The problem (both with gschem nets and pcb rats' nests) is that the segments of the net don't match the actual routes. I for example can have net (rat's nest) A-B-C displayed as one segment between A and B, and one segment between B and C. However, I may need the high-current trace only between A and C. So it might make sense to draw a thick trace between A and C (and place A and C as close to each other as possible), and then draw a thin branch from any point of that trace to the pin B. So I think net (or net segment) attributes are not the best place for storing such information. This information is essesntially pin-to-pin based, not net segment based. : What I have below here was : written on a different list to a different question but the : information is relevant to yours: Interesting, thanks! -Yenya -- | Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak <kas at {fi.muni.cz - work | yenya.net - private}> | | GPG: ID 1024/D3498839 Fingerprint 0D99A7FB206605D7 8B35FCDE05B18A5E | | http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/ Journal: http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/blog/ | Please don't top post and in particular don't attach entire digests to your mail or we'll all soon be using bittorrent to read the list. --Alan Cox
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |