X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=WIZ5NoY2/Ize2ZKh+D/0nsQpKMnCH+wN5bAjcIhhqOg=; b=IOjbQwdSD5w2nEHJCIhZA+sMCA5YsWEWoeckgmp1Tdc7rQGc/2XUmwOgF8oY33kylX H/SgVbkG34lM+gZ36kvdIgkzKsXuGgU28wdirLGlPgxuF0UwtXWQnkEs7b3V7Nr5zYLL 2vj+WJxsBFiCkZIWsXnJWXKg4NHUE2powaRujFfUY16BGgiM6Lysq9R4pzUFGQDrOgrD /QlDVy8Lzn6PqaEHP7RBlKjjofvVy8GqkOGlK+kv/v1ATL/Vwyokml4vk1S4u4QelBgE vxxwczLw/u+HsXW5OaCjgIEeUJPWmF4NpNFMEJYJlkc/6W+SU4wKyZ5xxCw289ZgsW9p vTBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=WIZ5NoY2/Ize2ZKh+D/0nsQpKMnCH+wN5bAjcIhhqOg=; b=DEmuiyGge8eO6ynHGzEwVC/N64MJfT2qgeLxa2Q/gRIh6G/RGT3VwP15OPsB26dm8x 2zy44KtlwBAG6kcaDkkfqhVmJquOJUTe1MJ2AXv83FEq68920B5ub0hMENU2Du/TZ/1B zZr0KWYNLczz+xg6LNGXMAD/4vebMPH1SBCBrWoE1QhUrC7Cnw1//Z15T4z7uQsmu/GM 9EN6kp11W8uT37GCNHd67anU+xPlb9C+pHnw5H0wBe2Od+6RcmTrIncVylByxkrRSt0C hxWYA7cPPTcZzJPSToZ8VqehuqKvuT3TksPP7xjU22Jkiz53bg/zQ5Bgd1d09qk0PaDu DttQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIh6lw115lTq0lGvv9fqsvQbMHtLDvEqfyW845Fon5OGUUNXDH+RiHqD/hLJeFyXDaWqeM72oC/lDGCiw== X-Received: by 10.55.74.3 with SMTP id x3mr14902305qka.275.1485637999595; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:13:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1485636780.3072.196.camel@linetec> References: <1485607260 DOT 3072 DOT 77 DOT camel AT linetec> <1485629830 DOT 3072 DOT 163 DOT camel AT linetec> <1485636780 DOT 3072 DOT 196 DOT camel AT linetec> From: "Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 21:13:19 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] PCB antenna question To: gEDA User Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11488a423b205b05472e0d9a Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk --001a11488a423b205b05472e0d9a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 28 Jan 2017 20:55, "Richard Rasker (rasker AT linetec DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" wrote: > For the pcb resistor / inductors, I guess similar could work - > although it is probably desirable to implement within some kind of > "footprint" like construct in order to get the end connection points > tested as a part of the netlist. The above is indeed what I had in mind: a possibility to make some copper traces/shapes invisible for the netlister, combined with one or more normal pins or pads for proper netlist processing. Then again, this introduces the problem of checking the 'no-net' copper for shorts with other traces. In other words: how can be made certain that any connections to this copper are made through the designated pins exclusively? And that's probably just one of several tricky problems to solve when treating not all copper in the same way... Yes, tricky indeed. (And sometimes it might still be useful to extract the netlist as and ohm meter might see it). I had thought it should probably be a DRC error if any no-net copper not in the "footprint" gets touched by features external to the footprint other than the designated pads. The star net case is awkward too, as depending on the width of traces leading up to it (and exact contact points), it isn't clear how "pure" the star connection is. Give it some thought as to how it should behave from a usage point of view.. if it is possible to reconcile that with a clean, consistent data model, all the better. --001a11488a423b205b05472e0d9a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 28 Jan 2017 20:55, "Richard Rasker (rasker AT linetec DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc = solid;padding-left:1ex">

> For the pcb resistor / inductors, I guess similar could work -
> although it is probably desirable to implement within some kind of
> "footprint" like construct in order to get the end connectio= n points
> tested as a part of the netlist.

The above is indeed what I had in mind: a possibility to make some copper traces/shapes invisible for the netlister, combined with one or
more normal pins or pads for proper netlist processing.
Then again, this introduces the problem of checking the 'no-net' co= pper
for shorts with other traces. In other words: how can be made certain
that any connections to this copper are made through the designated pins exclusively? And that's probably just one of several tricky problems to=
solve when treating not all copper in the same way...

Yes, tricky indeed. = (And sometimes it might still be useful to extract the netlist as and ohm m= eter might see it).

I ha= d thought it should probably be a DRC error if any no-net copper not in the= "footprint" gets touched by features external to the footprint o= ther than the designated pads.

The star net case is awkward too, as depending on the width of trace= s leading up to it (and exact contact points), it isn't clear how "= ;pure" the star connection is.

Give it some thought as to how it should behave from a usage po= int of view.. if it is possible to reconcile that with a clean, consistent = data model, all the better.


--001a11488a423b205b05472e0d9a--