[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

gEDA-user: Some footprints I tried to create

I have tried to create some common footprints in PCB, partly just
to learn how this thing works. Since I have some experience with
Eagle, I liked the footprints in their library.

So I saw the footprints for common components in PCB and didn't
like their barebones shapes, and decided to create some of my
own. I kept the following in mind:

1. Some portions of the PCB library have values associated with
   footprints, e.g. "1M" resistors and "100K" resistors, etc. I thought
   this was unnecessary. Or maybe I'm missing some vital point...
   you can tell me about it.

2.  Eagle footprints are drawn using 6mil lines. I thought this was
   too thin, so I drew them using 8mil lines. (My PCB fab chap seems
   to generate really ultra-thin lines  on the silkscreen with 6mil.
   YMMV.) Existing footprints with PCB seem to be drawn with all
   sorts of line thicknesses, including 10mil  and 20mil, which I
   found too thick in some cases.

3.  I tried to make the parts look like "pictures", not "diagrams" or
   symbols. Being a novice circuit designer, I find this important.
   To me, accurate pictorial representation of a component on
   the silkscreen is akin to mnemonic variable names in code. The
   software works just as well with poorly chosen variable names,
   but it's easier to read and understand when the names are
   intelligently chosen.

4.  I did not understand the rationale for the drill dias of the pads
   in some of the parts in the PCB database. I have tried to select
   the drill dia carefully here, based on my limited knowledge of
   the lead diameters.

5.  In my hobby electronics experience, I find that the annular
   copper ring around a drill hole for a pad needs to be at least
   10 mil in width, preferably 15mil, for easy soldering and de-
   soldering. I've tried to retain this in the pins I've done with
   my footprints. YMMV. But with this brilliant decision of PCB
   to keep all file formats as ASCII, it'll be easy for someone
   to write a script to patch the pin annular widths as per your
   preferences if you wish. (I would love to have a script which
   can do with a PCB layout what Eagle does in its DRC: set a
   min width and max width for annular rings, with a percentage
   of drill dia as the guiding rule for in-betweens.)

6.  I did not like the transistor footprints for TO220, TO126, etc,
   which I found with PCB. Some of them did not give me any
   visual indication of which side was the "front" of the device.
   So I drew the shapes accordingly in my footprints, to give a
   clear visual indicator.

7.  I found square pins for Pin 1 of a lot of non-polar passive
   components in the PCB library. I found this unnecessary and
   adding to visual clutter. So I just decided to design my
   footprints with both pins round for such devices.

8.  I wanted elongated pins/pads for some of the higher-current
   devices. So I incorporated them. I don't know whether it'll
   work in reality when I include the device in PCB. I haven't yet
   generated Gerbers and checked.

9.  I created separate sets of footprints for each resistor form
   factor. In the existing PCB library, when you move from a 200mil
   leg spacing to a 300mil spacing, the device also becomes wider.
   This is misleading, and you can't use the silk outline effectively
   to place devices tightly when you are short of space. You need
   accurate body shapes and sizes in the silk outline, IMHO. I tried
   to do this.

I don't know whether these definitions will work. If any of you can
give me feedback, I'll correct my mistakes and put them back up
again. I need these things to be flawless, for my own sake. Check:

   http://www.dhandanought.org/tcpip/audio/EXP/geda-footprints/

Thanks for the help

Tarun


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user