Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity (was: Taking advantage of internally connected pins)

2010-02-03 Thread timecop
At the very least, it seems that there should be a way to specify that any pin with the same number satisfies the connection. fairly ridiculous assumption especially with ICs, many of which specifically say something like all GND/VCC pads must be connected. The point of properly drawn symbols

Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity

2010-02-03 Thread Ethan Swint
On 02/03/2010 03:33 AM, timecop wrote: At the very least, it seems that there should be a way to specify that any pin with the same number satisfies the connection. fairly ridiculous assumption especially with ICs, many of which specifically say something like all GND/VCC pads must be

Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity (was: Taking advantage of internally connected pins)

2010-02-03 Thread Dave N6NZ
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:33 AM, timecop wrote: At the very least, it seems that there should be a way to specify that any pin with the same number satisfies the connection. fairly ridiculous assumption especially with ICs, many of which specifically say something like all GND/VCC pads must

Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity

2010-02-03 Thread Dave N6NZ
On Feb 3, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Vanessa Ezekowitz wrote: On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:47:19 -0500 Ethan Swint eswint.r...@verizon.net wrote: On 02/03/2010 03:33 AM, timecop wrote: At the very least, it seems that there should be a way to specify that any pin with the same number satisfies the

Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity (was: Taking advantage of internally connected pins)

2010-02-03 Thread Peter Clifton
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 21:22 -0800, Dave N6NZ wrote: I'm reposting this because the discussion died and I'd like to give the topic a bump -- I think it needs some collective thought by the group. It seems to me that we are missing a way to specify a connectivity satisfaction rule for a

Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity (was: Taking advantage of internally connected pins)

2010-02-03 Thread Dave N6NZ
On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Peter Clifton wrote: The danger comes if you don't populate the switch. This then causes break in the board connectivity. True enough. But population options are an orthogonal conceptual axis. Not populating the microcontroller causes a loss of functionality,

gEDA-user: pcb:All v. Any pin connectivity

2010-02-03 Thread João Silva
I've just join the list recently and I've also encountered this problem. In my view, the current gschem/PCB approach gives all the liberty to the designer although obliges him to take all the decisions. (a bit like spider man, with great power comes great responsibility :-) I was using IRLD024

Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity

2010-02-03 Thread timecop
I ran into the same thing four times within the last week, just tinkering with some old projects: * A common four-pin SPST momentary button with two pairs of electrically connected pins, * A DB25 connector had its metal metal shield/shell connected to the two primary mounting holes, * A

gEDA-user: close tracks leaving copper remnant in polygon

2010-02-03 Thread Dave N6NZ
I've got a pcb where close tracks through polygons are leaving thin shards of copper between tracks. These are 8 mil tracks on a 10 mil grid. Seems to me these have always been cleared out in the past because they are below minimum copper size, but then again, I usually close space my tracks

gEDA-user: Regression in autorouter and/or trace optimiser from pcb20081128 to pcb20091103 ?

2010-02-03 Thread Stephen Ecob
I seem to have hit a regression in the quality of output from the autorouter and/or trace optimiser in moving from pcb20081128 to pcb20091103. With 20091103 I end up with many Manhattan traces that the trace optimiser refuses to miter, see the attached images. If you wish to reproduce this, the

gEDA-user: very simple gnucap simulation

2010-02-03 Thread Chris Cole
Hey all, I was trying to do a simple gnucap simulation of a full wave rectifier circuit...probably something wrong in my schematic :( Attached is my schematic test.sch, here's what i did: cc...@studio:~/source/gaf/test$ gnetlist -g spice -o test.net test.sch cc...@studio:~/source/gaf/test$

Re: gEDA-user: very simple gnucap simulation

2010-02-03 Thread al davis
On Wednesday 03 February 2010, Chris Cole wrote: gnucap tran 1s 10s #Time 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Any suggestions? You need to specify what to print first. Before the tran

Re: gEDA-user: close tracks leaving copper remnant in polygon

2010-02-03 Thread Dave N6NZ
On Feb 3, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Dave N6NZ wrote: I've got a pcb where close tracks through polygons are leaving thin shards of copper between tracks. These are 8 mil tracks on a 10 mil grid. Seems to me these have always been cleared out in the past because they are below minimum copper

gEDA-user: Can't Autoroute rats to TSSOP48

2010-02-03 Thread Stan Katz
Hi, First time using TSSOP48. All rats, except those to/from TSSOP48, were successfully autorouted. Is this a limitation in version 20080202 of pcb, or am I missing something? Stan ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org

Re: gEDA-user: Can't Autoroute rats to TSSOP48

2010-02-03 Thread DJ Delorie
Check your bloat/shrink settings, and keep-out style. It may not allow traces as close together as the TSSOP's pads are. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user