Mail Archives: geda-user/2020/10/27/13:28:05
| X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
|
| X-Recipient: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com
|
| X-Original-DKIM-Signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
|
| d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
|
| h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
|
| bh=ayrROIMqfCRSoWQEDHC1/ZYXf9kSHSjx0tNExZVsZG4=;
|
| b=tPaTwz3E7MqbpduEty29UpdUxQgsLhMl46jiMOIPRR4YPfpa1gYJEJnSlkQrwmbkg/
|
| GVsBr5/qpjuCnfzeZ9RR9b2IDLPEkWlL9LQ6ImXdaytuWrJJ/5qIODgbEe2FLl4AuJLT
|
| Sgzu3T6sl+AeH5/c/jBRKXMKIE4nOTTR+QEw8oaqKlDQn3Vc26kIZ2C6oSHY9eiNOLlZ
|
| dQfQ3RcC4pPhHLl/uYUyDaAQfV2oK3nD57p0ragU3ZtStCMC1d5+pus8FPs2+PwI/fsU
|
| lmv/C5koVkEbUIs4h33Q6vZ4bw3GMErBzG7VIhZ4hcJes+D65+bU8tegFt8s6UyXcjKQ
|
| or8w==
|
| X-Google-DKIM-Signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
|
| d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
|
| h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
|
| :message-id:subject:to;
|
| bh=ayrROIMqfCRSoWQEDHC1/ZYXf9kSHSjx0tNExZVsZG4=;
|
| b=g7TswBExMMuo+IhR8FFU1uDZhoWXO5ivK5IR0jye1VxA0sL3bRKD+kihJwYcoy0qhj
|
| EQpE9QTCnNum25Zc4Dyut+ok94e1Nic2DcxEytpFsZb+Z+ghTBL+the7hk5UpO5nysqx
|
| 4vjruEhGPfX8gn2tcx5EvYGQJsuzAH7VadMLO0WWxZGPQsRBXeBIYeWKueQxu/vhndXS
|
| FKrn/zkC8CP1mbk3+RMRsgSBhtpD16H3cIWMJAzadWjmNUjEkqEN31rNXJ3sUDCyAAjo
|
| Qg9//4S6FAQTK2tK9mZe6i4ra7Bs3u13no/wHguAgThz2zjbvZdn6hWtMME+l06U5c6O
|
| 0ZSA==
|
| X-Gm-Message-State: | AOAM5302Rhy8SWs35P098besLrBs3Tt5kOXkLjnLmecCk61/LA/XKesk
|
| 7rQAXh+NhJ32ktJOKrjIBDgibHiZETbCCk5zIuEpv5z8
|
| X-Google-Smtp-Source: | ABdhPJzcscJJps8kJWdrj8wlSzxDkl45TVRMZPNg4a4o1rMPymZXgeiEIe2osdCqQxt/D75qyweH3FPBFjTAvAttRJ8=
|
| X-Received: | by 2002:a05:651c:101:: with SMTP id a1mr1393627ljb.451.1603818474665;
|
| Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
|
| MIME-Version: | 1.0
|
| References: | <CAGBFkM1vXVKman8TP0eVE2=T8bPA-ao50xQ+VfFVuyTMaeh9RA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
|
| <20201026155510 DOT 23661 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <7df63bf7-7216-c15f-0b56-2b712705cc90 AT linetec DOT nl>
|
| <CAJZxidB9h416oC+9_WMhL7LrjDS-=qQnVg_Lw+FQEXnixAOsdQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
|
| In-Reply-To: | <CAJZxidB9h416oC+9_WMhL7LrjDS-=qQnVg_Lw+FQEXnixAOsdQ@mail.gmail.com>
|
| From: | "Erich Heinzle (a1039181 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
|
| Date: | Wed, 28 Oct 2020 03:37:41 +1030
|
| Message-ID: | <CAHUm0tMcSaUh4tE2KFaZbKW0PN6uToZPqRJLeg8UspzE8QvP+w@mail.gmail.com>
|
| Subject: | Re: [geda-user] PCB, 2 parts physically in the same place
|
| To: | geda-user <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
|
| Reply-To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com
|
--0000000000007779de05b2aa169d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On a related note, there is a huge number of LCD footprints on
gedasymbols.org that I ported to gEDA .fp format, which might save
reinventing the wheel a bit.
Regards,
Erich
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:52 Chad Parker (parker DOT charles AT gmail DOT com) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com], <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> I don't see any reason why pcb *shouldn't* allow overlapping parts, so
> long as other design rules aren't violated. And anyway, it's somewhat
> difficult to define what that actually means. Overlapping bounding boxes,
> for example, is not necessarily an indicator of parts that might interfere
> with each other.
>
> The one thing that I would like to see at some point is the addition of
> keepout zones. If you were to add a keepout zone to a part and then try to
> put something else inside that zone, I would like that to generate a
> warning.
>
> At some point I would also like pcb to start throwing warnings about
> overlapping holes, or holes too close together, or too close to the edge of
> the board.
>
> --Chad
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 7:05 AM Richard Rasker (rasker AT linetec DOT nl) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> Op 26-10-20 om 16:55 schreef Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via
>> geda-user AT delorie DOT com]:
>> > gene glick (geneglick AT optonline DOT net) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>> >> I want to do this on purpose. One part, a 2X16 character display has 10
>> >> connections to the PCB. Problem is, they are just holes. It is meant to
>> >> have a 10 pin header on the PCB, and then the display gets positioned
>> over
>> >> the header and soldered in place.
>> > Rather than having to deal with two footprints on top of each other I'd
>> > recommend this:
>> >
>> > Create one 2X16LCD footprint which has no electrical connections but
>> > only silk lines+text and any mounting holes (Pin with attribute "hole").
>> > I'd recommend to draw silk lines around where the electrical connections
>> > will go.
>> >
>> > Then place one 1x10 header footprint for the electrical connections.
>> >
>> > That way you can have both parts in schematic and BOM without having
>> > redundant connections in the netlist and layout, and no problems with
>> > two footprints with electrical connections on top of each other.
>>
>> This had occurred to me as well, but the major caveat here is alignment:
>> even a minute unnoticed nudge of either part may spell very serious
>> trouble.
>>
>> At the very least, I'd recommend combining the connector pins and
>> mounting holes in the same footprint when adopting this approach. After
>> all, a slightly shifted silk screen symbol isn't much of a problem, but
>> mounting holes in the wrong place usually boil down to an unusable board.
>>
>> > In addition to local simplicity I can imagine that fabs might be unhappy
>> > or at the very least confused with two drills on top of each other..
>>
>> Yes, that might indeed be an issue, depending on the fab house.
>>
>> My standard approach here is actually to NOT use a separate header
>> symbol in the schematic, but simply put a warning in the display
>> symbol's comment attribute to manually add the header to the bom
>> afterwards.
>>
>> My final boms (LibreOffice spreadsheet files) contain lots of other
>> parts that aren't entered in the schematic anyway, e.g. mounting studs,
>> washers, screws, and nuts, bezels, brackets etcetera. So manually adding
>> this header is a minor issue.
>>
>> But it is interesting to see that PCB allows these overlapping parts.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
--0000000000007779de05b2aa169d
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto">On a related=C2=A0note, there is a huge number of LCD foo=
tprints on <a href=3D"http://gedasymbols.org">gedasymbols.org</a> that I po=
rted to gEDA .fp format, which might save reinventing the wheel a bit.<div =
dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Regards,</div><div dir=3D"auto"><b=
r></div><div dir=3D"auto">Erich</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><=
div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:52 Chad Parker =
(<a href=3D"mailto:parker DOT charles AT gmail DOT com">parker DOT charles AT gmail DOT com</a>) =
[via <a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>], &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>> w=
rote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I don&#=
39;t see any reason why pcb *shouldn't* allow overlapping parts, so lon=
g as other design rules aren't violated. And anyway, it's somewhat =
difficult to define what that actually means. Overlapping bounding boxes, f=
or example, is not necessarily an indicator of parts that might interfere w=
ith each other.</div><div><br></div><div>The one thing that I would like to=
see at some point is the addition of keepout zones. If you were to add a k=
eepout zone to a part and then try to put something else inside that zone, =
I would like that to generate a warning.<br></div><div><br></div><div>At so=
me point I would also like pcb to start throwing warnings about overlapping=
holes, or holes too close together, or too close to the edge of the board.=
</div><div><br></div><div>--Chad<br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 7:05 AM R=
ichard Rasker (<a href=3D"mailto:rasker AT linetec DOT nl" target=3D"_blank" rel=
=3D"noreferrer">rasker AT linetec DOT nl</a>) [via <a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT del=
orie.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>] &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"norefe=
rrer">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,=
204,204);padding-left:1ex">Op 26-10-20 om 16:55 schreef Peter Stuge (<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:peter AT stuge DOT se" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">peter AT stug=
e.se</a>) [via <br>
<a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferre=
r">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>]:<br>
> gene glick (<a href=3D"mailto:geneglick AT optonline DOT net" target=3D"_blan=
k" rel=3D"noreferrer">geneglick AT optonline DOT net</a>) [via <a href=3D"mailto:g=
eda-user AT delorie DOT com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">geda-user AT delori=
e.com</a>] wrote:<br>
>> I want to do this on purpose. One part, a 2X16 character display h=
as 10<br>
>> connections to the PCB. Problem is, they are just holes. It is mea=
nt to<br>
>> have a 10 pin header on the PCB, and then the display gets positio=
ned over<br>
>> the header and soldered in place.<br>
> Rather than having to deal with two footprints on top of each other I&=
#39;d<br>
> recommend this:<br>
><br>
> Create one 2X16LCD footprint which has no electrical connections but<b=
r>
> only silk lines+text and any mounting holes (Pin with attribute "=
hole").<br>
> I'd recommend to draw silk lines around where the electrical conne=
ctions<br>
> will go.<br>
><br>
> Then place one 1x10 header footprint for the electrical connections.<b=
r>
><br>
> That way you can have both parts in schematic and BOM without having<b=
r>
> redundant connections in the netlist and layout, and no problems with<=
br>
> two footprints with electrical connections on top of each other.<br>
<br>
This had occurred to me as well, but the major caveat here is alignment: <b=
r>
even a minute unnoticed nudge of either part may spell very serious trouble=
.<br>
<br>
At the very least, I'd recommend combining the connector pins and <br>
mounting holes in the same footprint when adopting this approach. After <br=
>
all, a slightly shifted silk screen symbol isn't much of a problem, but=
<br>
mounting holes in the wrong place usually boil down to an unusable board.<b=
r>
<br>
> In addition to local simplicity I can imagine that fabs might be unhap=
py<br>
> or at the very least confused with two drills on top of each other..<b=
r>
<br>
Yes, that might indeed be an issue, depending on the fab house.<br>
<br>
My standard approach here is actually to NOT use a separate header <br>
symbol in the schematic, but simply put a warning in the display <br>
symbol's comment attribute to manually add the header to the bom afterw=
ards.<br>
<br>
My final boms (LibreOffice spreadsheet files) contain lots of other <br>
parts that aren't entered in the schematic anyway, e.g. mounting studs,=
<br>
washers, screws, and nuts, bezels, brackets etcetera. So manually adding <b=
r>
this header is a minor issue.<br>
<br>
But it is interesting to see that PCB allows these overlapping parts.<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
--0000000000007779de05b2aa169d--
- Raw text -