I think this is a cool idea. I would think Protel would most certainly be
intrested in helping, it adds value to the product. They already have
standards in place and would want us to work to the same standards. That may
be the only drawback to Protel involvement, unless we agree with thier
standards. I would suggest that that might be a good starting point, to look
at the Protel standrad for footprint design and ask the question 'is it good
enough?' 'Can it be improved?'
I would also like to see more done to improve and increase the simulation
libraries. Perhaps the same approach could be made to generate simulation
ready models for a comprehensive simulation library and a method of updating
with new parts as time goes on.
But thats another topic and I guess that less folk would be intrested in it.
(although they might be if it was easier to get simulation ready models for
the parts they want to use)
TC
> ----Original Message-----
> From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 7:03 AM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone
>
> At 01:50 PM 7/23/01 -0500, Ted Tontis wrote:
> >Would there be any interest in a PCB footprint lib. with all the parts
> you
> >would ever need for free. I ask this because I am working on trying to
> get a
> >large lib. in Protel. It would have the silk screen, a fence that would
> be
> >on the last electrical layer to avoid component placement conflictions,
> >assembly art work, pin 1 id. All parts would be in mm I welcome any input
> >towards this idea weather it be good or bad.
>
> Of course I would be interested. I would be *more* interested if we were
> to
> have a project to develop library standards *before* we build a bunch of
> parts. We could set up Y.A.M.L. (Yet Another Mailing List) to function as
> a
> committee for that purpose.
>
> Another writer has suggested that "it cannot be done."
>
> If it cannot be done, then surely Protel is wasting a lot of time and
> money
> trying to do it....
>
> Now, who has more resources, Protel or the Protel user base?
>
> If anyone has any doubts about the answer to this question, I suggest a
> little reflection. All the resources Protel has come from the users (or
> their employers). Necessarily, those users provide only a small fraction
> of
> their resources to Protel. Further, the users are constantly gleaning
> actual experience with footprints from which Protel employees may be
> isolated.
>
> Of course, *organizing* the users is the difficult part. But it would be
> quite worthwhile. If a small percentage of the Protel designers were to
> devote a small percentage of their time to providing parts built to a
> defined standard, we could build a truly comprehensive library.
>
> *And we are already doing the hard part, building the parts!*
>
> Essentially, instead of dozens or hundreds or thousands of us building the
> same part, only one or a few parts need be built. (Variations on parts are
> necessary for different conditions.)
>
> While I would certainly like every part built exactly how I want it, I
> would give up that in order to have *validated* parts built according to a
> standard which I consider reasonable.
>
> What I forsee is a system whereby a user wishes to use a part which is not
> in the library we have created. He builds it, and he submits it. The part
> is posted as unvalidated. Another user, certified by the user group for
> this purpose, might check the part. The status of that part becomes
> "checked, not validated." And then users who use the part will report
> their
> experience with it, particularly with actual fab and assembly. Reports
> regarding the part are tallied and ultimately the footprint is
> automatically given validated status because of a multiplicity of
> validations and an absence of complaints. (If there are validations *and*
> complaints, the matter becomes more complicated, I won't go into that
> now.)
>
> The key to this will be making the submission and retrieval and validation
> of parts *easy*, so that no user is unduly burdened. Protel might
> definitely help with that part. Ultimately the reporting mechanisms might
> be built into client, with a tool that sends a footprint on command to a
> configurable address, together with comment text.
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Abdulrahman Lomax
> P.O. Box 690
> El Verano, CA 95433
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
