At 11:14 AM 5/23/2002 -0700, Embedded Matt wrote: >I have placed a few pads on my PCB with the following >properties: > >X size: 0 >Y size: 0
Don't do that.... >Round >Hole size 147 mil >Multi-layer >Not plated > >These are supposed to be mounting holes. I get >annular ring violations on these pads. Of course: your hole violates the annular ring rule that you have set. > Should I not >be using pads for mounting holes? No, you should be using pads. There are a number of solutions to this problem. (1) Make the pad larger than the hole by an amount which matches the *hardware* which will mount to the hole. That way Protel's clearance rules will ensure that you don't have mounting hardware shorting to track or vias or other copper. (2) Use a pad substantially smaller than the hole, even smaller than any other pads used on the board. It will be drilled away, it is harmless. It is unlikely to confuse the fabricators. But this will still generate an annular ring error. You could disable annular ring checking, but it might be better to create a special annular ring rule. If you give these pads a distinctive name, for example "MH" you can make the rule apply to Free-MH. But I have not tested how the annular ring rule works in a case like this, I almost always use the larger pad solution. I prefer (1) for a number of reasons: it checks the hardware clearance automatically, and it does not confuse the Protel DRC even if no special rules are written. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
