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 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: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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