> Good Afternoon All,
> I am not in the same position here as most, and I have absolutely no
> experience with Gerber readers, but it seems to me that it would be quite
> easy these days to make a prototype run to check out any radically new or
> questionable PCB structures. Granted, the monetary resources may prohibit
> this in a lot of cases. Just my 2 cents worth.
>
> Dan Enslen
>
> The only reason time exists is so
> everything doesn't happen all at once.
As I mentioned in another message to this thread, I would strongly suggest
that *everyone* designing PCBs should acquaint themselves with at least one
application which can preview Gerber files (and NC Drill files), and
furthermore, that they subsequently preview those files for *every* PCB
which they design before despatching any files to any board house.
Even learning (just) how to use the CAMtastic server would be beneficial in
that regard, though I still think that it would be preferable to learn how
to use at least one third-party application (for additional "peace of
mind").
I wouldn't regard it as necessary to also have an understanding of the
contents of Gerber files and NC Drill files, though having that knowledge
would definitely not be harmful (and could even be beneficial in some
circumstances, such as if, shock/horror, there are still any outstanding
bugs affecting the contents of Gerber files).
And users who do learn how to preview Gerber (and NC Drill) files are not
only less likely to have PCBs mis-manufactured from then on (for whatever
reasons), but would then also be able to "gamma test" any new functionality
while avoiding the costs of having any prototype PCBs manufactured.
(For those who weren't previously in the know, "alpha testing" involves "in
house" testing of an application, while "beta testing" is testing conducted
by selected end users. Thus "gamma testing" is testing conducted by end
users, and frequently has pejorative connotations. It is regarded as "best
practice" that comprehensive "alpha testing" be conducted to detect as many
bugs as possible, and in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary,
that all bugs detected at that time be rectified prior to releasing any
files to beta testers. And when beta testers detect any bugs, they should
similarly be customarily rectified before any files are subsequently
("publicly") released to end users. However most applications are so complex
that even the combined efforts of alpha testers and beta testers are unable
to detect every bug afflicting them, and hence there is nothing atypical
about end users discovering yet more bugs. That said, there are still
substantial differences between applications which have been developed
according to "best practice" as just described, and applications which have
not...)
Regards,
Geoff Harland.
____________________________________________________________
You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
To Post messages:
mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe and Other Options:
http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
