I am looking for a book that for example describes how a
for/while/repeat/forever and other verilog behavioral constructs are
converted to multiplexors/and gates etc.
For FPGA work, I am unaware of any engine that can synthesize those
constructs.
If you read through the XST manual
My latest project has five PCBs designed in gEDA/PCB. One of those oddball
projects that uses PCB layout but no gschem or gnetlist. No netlist at all, in
fact.
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/go/eggbot
A tricky part of this was the mask keepout on two of the boards-- I ended up
drawing a
Windell H. Oskay wrote:
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/go/eggbot
me likes!
:-)
---)kaimartin(---
--
Kai-Martin Knaak tel: +49-511-762-2895
Universität Hannover, Inst. für Quantenoptik fax: +49-511-762-2211
Welfengarten 1, 30167 Hannover
On 09/10/2010 06:24 AM, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/go/eggbot
A tricky part of this was the mask keepout on two of the boards--
I ended up drawing a separate layer for mask, and using it instead of the
standard mask gerber.
The black on white rules and logo look
On Sep 10, 2010, at 8:28 AM, John Griessen wrote:
The black on white rules and logo look great Windell.
I like the idea of an engraver for it -- then it could do promotional
doo-dads and
trophies for club events...
The engraver is pretty neat-- it can make, for example, etched
On 09/10/2010 11:45 AM, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
The engraver is pretty neat-- it can make, for example, etched glass
christmas ornaments. Here's one that we made at MakerFaire Detroit:
[1]http://www.flickr.com/photos/lenore-m/4856324866/in/photostream/
The photo shows a
On Sep 10, 2010, at 10:10 AM, John Griessen wrote:
So, if the engraver vibration is too fuzzy, how about adding force feedback
control
and a rotary tool? The force feedback would let you hold up the weight of
the rotary
tool, and probably help pickup and touch down at the same spots
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:00:34AM +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
Gah, you perhaps saw my comments on geda-dev about that. I've got half a
mind to bulk rename as appropriat:
max_layer - max_copper_layer
OR- max_group
They happen to be the same number, but the context is different
Having said that, I'd do you one step further, and move /all/ the
layers into their own list structure. Each layer would have flags
set to indicate if it was a copper, silk, keepout or virtual (ie,
ratsnest) layer. They would also be tagged as being always on top or
always on bottom, in the
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:31:48AM +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
PS.. have you tried any of the GL stuff?
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/trans_poly.png
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-1.png
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-2.png
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 11:03 -0700, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
It's a PITA to find and read the geda-dev archives, and given the relatively
low volume, I don't usually bother. So I missed your comments.
If you're developing, ask Ales to get you signed up to geda-dev. As you
say, it is pretty low
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 11:05 -0700, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:31:48AM +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
PS.. have you tried any of the GL stuff?
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/trans_poly.png
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-1.png
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:31:48AM +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
PS.. have you tried any of the GL stuff?
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/trans_poly.png
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-1.png
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-2.png
Whatever we do, it is still useful to be able to designate component
/ solder side groups (or have some means to define physical
stack-up) so that pads can be rendered on the right layers ;)
I figure we need each layer to specify:
* type (copper, silk, mask, anti-copper, keepout, etc)
-
On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:01 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
I figure we need each layer to specify:
* type (copper, silk, mask, anti-copper, keepout, etc)
There are no types, there are only properties.
The conductors may not be copper. I've even worked with a board that had two
different conductive
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:42:21PM -0600, John Doty wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:01 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
I figure we need each layer to specify:
* type (copper, silk, mask, anti-copper, keepout, etc)
There are no types, there are only properties.
I disagree. Replace the word
The conductors may not be copper. I've even worked with a board that had
two different conductive materials on the same physical layer.
Interesting case. Let's suppose that you have conductors -- say niobium
and copper -- on the same physical layer. Does that have implications for
PCB? I'm
Windell H. Oskay wrote:
Wow. These screenshots are incredible.
Please excuse my naive question, but is this something that the rest of us
can expect to see in PCB someday?
I tried to use the 3D view for regular work a few moths ago (medium density,
4-layer, analog layout). Turns out, it
I tried to use the 3D view for regular work a few moths ago (medium
density,
4-layer, analog layout). Turns out, it makes routing/placing more
confusing
than pure 2D vertical view. It is difficult to tell the distance of
objects
on different layers. After all, the physical screen is 2D an
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 15:01 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
Whatever we do, it is still useful to be able to designate component
/ solder side groups (or have some means to define physical
stack-up) so that pads can be rendered on the right layers ;)
I figure we need each layer to specify:
*
If we have a real stackup, the 3-D view lets you verify it.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 16:23 -0400, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
The conductors may not be copper. I've even worked with a board that had
two different conductive materials on the same physical layer.
Interesting case. Let's suppose that you have conductors -- say niobium
and copper -- on the
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 22:48 +0200, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Windell H. Oskay wrote:
Wow. These screenshots are incredible.
Please excuse my naive question, but is this something that the rest of us
can expect to see in PCB someday?
I tried to use the 3D view for regular work a few
Just how useful is anti-copper?
Is it mitigated by allowing holes in polygons?
I don't know, but if we're going to have anti-layers, might as well
have them for everything. I imagine making a SMPS power supply, you'd
want to start with a polygon and cut thin slices off between regions,
to
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 14:16 -0400, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:31:48AM +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
PS.. have you tried any of the GL stuff?
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/trans_poly.png
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-1.png
With PCB as is.. you would probably use layer-groups to separate the
distinct sub-layers. I don't tend to use them, so I couldn't swear to
how the gerbers come out - but I'm certain it would not be hard to make
it produce separate gerbers if necessary (you might just need to
un-group the
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:49:45PM +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
Presumably anti- layers would have be be composited into a single output
layer by for various exporters?
What if the anti-layer isn't even a real layer - just an option while
editing a layer, to draw vacuum.
For example, if we
What if the anti-layer isn't even a real layer - just an option while
editing a layer, to draw vacuum.
If you use the line tool to cut up a polygon, how do you edit that cut
later?
And I think we need anti-layers to handle some soldermask and paste
issues anyway.
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 22:48 +0200, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Windell H. Oskay wrote:
Wow. These screenshots are incredible.
Please excuse my naive question, but is this something that the rest of us
can expect to see in PCB someday?
I tried to use the 3D view for regular work a few
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 06:11:05PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
What if the anti-layer isn't even a real layer - just an option while
editing a layer, to draw vacuum.
If you use the line tool to cut up a polygon, how do you edit that cut
later?
When the edit mode is set to 'vacuum', the
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 18:11 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
If you use the line tool to cut up a polygon, how do you edit that cut
later?
If the cut was in fact an anti-line, just a clearance created, then it
would remain editable - although I'm not sure quite how you'd render it.
--
Peter
On 09/10/2010 05:20 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 18:11 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
If you use the line tool to cut up a polygon, how do you edit that cut
later?
If the cut was in fact an anti-line, just a clearance created, then it
would remain editable - although I'm not sure
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 17:41 -0500, John Griessen wrote:
On 09/10/2010 05:20 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
The thing we are now calling layer group seems what Andrew wants to call a
layer.
Then you'd still have intermediates and what to call them?
I think layer groups as a way of partitioning
33 matches
Mail list logo
