Re: gEDA-user: Rounded copper clearances vs square soldermask apertures

[Dan McMahill <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ben Jackson wrote:
> So I've been thinking about how to do the soldermask DRC.  To recap,
> I want to include a soldermask registration tolerance in the DRC parameters,
> and warn if the mask is anywhere too close (risking an overlap with the pad)
> or too far (risking exposing a nearby trace or adjacent plane).
> 
> One particular problem is that a copper pad's clearance (from other
> copper) is a uniform distance all the way around the pad, producing a
> rounded rectangle.  On the other hand, the hole in the soldermask for
> the pad is simply a rectangle that's bigger in X and Y by the mask amount.
> So if a pad has a 10mil clearance and a 10mil mask, there will be an arc
> of exposed copper even with ideal mask placement.  This is most obvious
> when there is a flood of copper (with a polygon) around the pad.  You
> can turn on the soldermask and zoom in to see.  The maximum allowable
> mask would be the clearance/sqrt(2) (via a bit of trig).  So a 10mil
> clearance would allow a max ~7mil mask.  If you had a 3mil registration
> tolerance for the mask, it would only allow a mask of either 3 or 4mil.
> If it had a 4mil max error there would be no possible mask (given a 10mil
> clearance) that would be guaranteed not to possibly hit the pad or expose
> the adjacent copper.
> 
> Do people think the mask *should* have square corners, or should they
> be rounded to conform to the clerance, and leave more leeway?
> 

It seems like the rounded mask would be better.

-Dan



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