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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
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
Precedence: bulk

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