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=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Kfb9ZmAJDgv8LndMrneZzozs0nJWEd8IXisqdKFLnCM=; b=Q5pXQB+Afhit8OD35iVkf789ZErkPXQruzqXN+fFxEZQWeQm18x0fKM/s0GjnbrJEj QhAOuKFc9lSwz/s0ttXyruzl7BMwRXQLFFwE65nkSnQr+VYtHDM2WWv5gUBLPMYt4Zqx xDe4kk9VDv9iMix/09V4p6kWrfgyAqbjteQQ91WbBTpJsmS5P0tIupSVGCoj044CsMN+ Szv3YrOq38J6ROBCEeGws2QWnSnLon1/jDMnCHUetOJUrpAimANYP7yJDdT/W9DhnPqZ 4ong43coTgDBAFcppsSirixsWNYQkhW8Io8uOu4epq6UUSqlFwXj/sg7Inwt0tYQqQCA SDDw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.48.131 with SMTP id w125mr37263831wmw.18.1451185844447; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:10:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151226214713.61c9396af946d08bcdbac081@gmail.com> References: <20151226214713 DOT 61c9396af946d08bcdbac081 AT gmail DOT com> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 18:10:44 -0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] using DRC for other clearance values -- probably a bad idea From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114242a4c2f2960527d888ae 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 --001a114242a4c2f2960527d888ae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Nicklas Karlsson ( nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] < geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote: > > I previously said existing DRC could be used for this. Unfortunately I > > guess that for cases where larger clearances are desired, it's often > > because of electromagnetic considerations, which means that it's probably > > really an inter-layer requirement, which means existing DRC code would > not > > be useful. Sorry. > > > > Britton > > Are they allowed to come close to each other on different layers? Or not? > There is no inter-layer bloat, everything is done in-plane (though connection checks follow vias, of course). So the existing DRC code has no chance of enforcing emag clearance requirements, and your original idea of simply examining features pairwise is more applicable. However, that's actually mostly a sub-case of a general keep-out mechanism which is probably something pcb wants as well (or perhaps there are already ways of doing this that I'm not aware of). Britton > > > Nicklas Karlsson > --001a114242a4c2f2960527d888ae Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-use= r AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> I previously said existing DRC coul= d be used for this.=C2=A0 Unfortunately I
> guess that for cases where larger clearances are desired, it's oft= en
> because of electromagnetic considerations, which means that it's p= robably
> really an inter-layer requirement, which means existing DRC code would= not
> be useful.=C2=A0 Sorry.
>
> Britton

Are they allowed to come close to each other on different layer= s? Or not?

There is no inter= -layer bloat, everything is done in-plane (though connection checks follow = vias, of course).=C2=A0 So the existing DRC code has no chance of enforcing= emag clearance requirements, and your original idea of simply examining fe= atures pairwise is more applicable.=C2=A0 However, that's actually most= ly a sub-case of a general keep-out mechanism which is probably something p= cb wants as well (or perhaps there are already ways of doing this that I= 9;m not aware of).

Britton


Nicklas Karlsson

--001a114242a4c2f2960527d888ae--