X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Virus-Scanned:	amavisd-new at neurotica.com
Message-ID:	<512F803B.2040301@neurotica.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:05:15 -0500
From:	Dave McGuire <mcguire AT neurotica DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] surface mount confusion
References:	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1302280929500 DOT 4237 AT tehzcl2 DOT tehzcl-arg>
In-Reply-To:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1302280929500.4237@tehzcl2.tehzcl-arg>
X-Enigmail-Version:	1.4.6
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 02/28/2013 10:42 AM, kqt4at5v AT gmail DOT com wrote:
> Being a beginner with not so steady a hand I choose to stick to through
> hole devices But I just tried a simple board with a soic chip
> I made a breakout board for TPIC2810D
> 1 chip and a single row header of 16 pins
> The board is single sided so the chip is on the solder side and the
> header is on the opposite side
> I setup the board so pin 1 of the chip is connected to pin 1 of the
> header and so on
> When viewed in pcb the traces appear not be connected correctly but when
> I export to gcode they are correct
> Would someone set an old fella straight

  I would love to help but I'm not sure I understand specifically what
the problem is...can you describe what you mean by "traces appear not to
be connected correctly"?

> If I were to try this on a more complex board it would make me crossed eyed

  Nah...I lay out surface mount PCBs and build prototypes for them all
the time.  It's just a different skill set from doing through-hole work.
 I actually despise through-hole work anymore, and minimize it when
possible.  (not just due to the additional assembly cost when a design
goes to volume production!)

               -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA

- Raw text -