You might want to search/review the PEDA archive. If I'm not mistaken,
this topic was discussed at some length about three or four years ago
(perhaps a bit longer) by quite a few people in the group who appeared
to me at the time to be "heavy hitters" in PCB layout/design...

>Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

FWIW, it has always seemed to me that a solution lies in the fact that a
surface mount pad is essentially just a fill. If it is acceptable for
the PCB routing to be dominated by the thru-hole pad, then loss of "pad"
status for the tandemed "virtual" surface mount pad would not be of any
functional merit. This means that one could create a component
incorporating both rule-based thru-hole pads and surface mount features
(not single-layer pads...) that functionally act as surface mount pads,
then what's the harm?

regards,

aj

"The inside's bigger than the outside"
- Dr Who

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Dammeyer
>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 11:40 PM
>To: 'Protel EDA Discussion List'
>Subject: [PEDA] Mixing Surface mount and through hole in one 
>PCB component.
>
>I'm trying to make a circuit board with pushbutton switches 
>universal enough so it can use either a through whole switch 
>pattern or a surface mount one.  The four through hole pads 
>fit nicely outside the surface mount pattern. I've labelled 
>each of the pairs designators the same so I have a round 
>through hole with a designator 1 and a surface mount with designator 1.
>
>However, it seems Protel 99SE has problems with two pads with 
>the same designator. 

 
____________________________________________________________
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]

Reply via email to