Ben Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:47:42PM -0700, Steve Meier wrote:
>
>> I don't see anything inherently wrong. But it is probably a little
>> dated. Were you using my doc?
>>
>
> Yes, I was using one updated by Stuart Brorson.
>
>
Using sub mill capabilities is needed as
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:54:45PM -0700, Steve Meier wrote:
> As a second thought, where do you want the center of your foot print to
> be? I tend to make my cneters be the center of what ver is the first pad.
I found that setting the mark values had no effect, I always had a mark
at the origin.
As a second thought, where do you want the center of your foot print to
be? I tend to make my cneters be the center of what ver is the first pad.
This is an issue that we need to address as board shops that have the
ability to do point to point probing are asking for files that define
the location
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:47:42PM -0700, Steve Meier wrote:
>
> I don't see anything inherently wrong. But it is probably a little
> dated. Were you using my doc?
Yes, I was using one updated by Stuart Brorson.
> For today's capabilities I would suggest that instead of working in
> units of mi
Ben,
I don't see anything inherently wrong. But it is probably a little
dated. Were you using my doc?
For today's capabilities I would suggest that instead of working in
units of mills you work in units of 0.01 mills.
I won't or don't have time to check it for correctness otherwise. But
you see
I created this for LT1764A and friends, it's a DD5. This is exactly their
recommended footprint, plus an outline I made up. It's very tight to the
part, more so than some I looked at on professionally made boards using
the same package.
I did test-fit the part on a 1:1 printout.
I initially set
6 matches
Mail list logo
