Phil Taylor wrote:
>>>The separate power slot
> Geda does this ... if you want to give it a try.
I hesitated, because it does not provide the necessary caps for every
opamp. But you may be right, there is no need for an extra power slot.
If some of the opamps will be supplied with a different su
> > The separate power slot
Geda does this ... if you want to give it a try.
Phil
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 11:44:31PM +0100, kmk wrote:
> At my former job we defined opamp symbols with the rails included in a
> separate slot. This power slots of all opamps plus their corresponding
> 100n caps could be conveniently clustered at one corner of the sheet.
> That way the schematics we
kmk wrote:
> Ok. They are 300mil now. (See attachment)
Ouups. Forgot to attach...
---<(kaimartin)>---
--
Kai-Martin Knaak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog: http://lilalaser.dyndns.org/blog
v 20050820 1
T 600 1900 5 10 0 1 0 1 1
device=L165
T 1000 225 5 10 1 1 0 1 1
devicename=L165V
T 600 1700 5 10 0 1
Phil Taylor wrote:
> You might make your pins 300 units long, that's geda protocol.
Ok. They are 300mil now. (See attachment)
> Also, I would try to extend your rail pins a little further out.
This was deliberate. With opamps there is almost always some kind of
feedback. This feedback circu
KMK,
You might make your pins 300 units long, that's geda protocol. Also, I would
try to extend your rail pins a little further out. You'll find that when your
pins are larger, the entire symbol should be larger.
It's okay for pins to connect to lines, because once they're in the .sym file,
the
Hi all,
today I am got serious with geda. My first project is a PID regulated
peltier cooler. The output stage is going to be the power amp L165 which
can drive up to 3A. The package of this component is of course non
standard (pentawatt) with non standard pin numbers. So I decided to to
define m
