http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=198 A place to share, learn, and grow... en-US Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:22:12 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://forums.leaflabs.com/search.php http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=198#post-1467 Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:56:34 +0000 gbulmer 1467@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ <p>Okie - thank you very much for answering. I realise you're very busy, so I appreciate you spending time on such a low-priority question.</p> <p>I apologise, I should have updated my question.<br /> I dug through 13587.pdf (STM32F103x8, STM32F103xB).<br /> Your calculation exactly tallies with Figure 49 "Recommended Footprint" (for LQFP64), which shows pads are on 0.5mm pitch, but are 0.3mm wide, i.e. 0.5mm - 0.3mm = 0.2mm clearance.</p> <p>Could anyone tell me if there is a way to look at the details of a package in an Eagle PCB .brd file (without the library)? That might have given me the answer without having to ask. </p> http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=198#post-1449 Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:57:37 +0000 okie 1449@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ <p>gbulmer,</p> <p>Here's the calculation I get from the numbers on the datasheet for the recommended layout to get the spacing between the pads:</p> <p>((7.8mm)-(16*0.3mm))/15 = 0.2mm = 0.00787401575in</p> <p>The STM32 pad layout on Maple is identical to the datasheet's recommendations, which makes the space between the pads a little less than 8mils. I don't see how to derive what the width of the pins are from the package information, but they are probably narrower than the recommended pads, which means they probably are over-sized, if that's what you mean by that. </p> http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=198#post-1429 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:12:46 +0000 gbulmer 1429@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ <p>josheeg - I agree with the "Free and open source hardware should be made with free and open source software" philosophy.<br /> Otherwise we're just 'changing the master', and still fail to get freedom. Having said that I use Mac OS X, not Linux.</p> <p>It is only recently that I've seen such positive reports about KiCAD. In fact, for me, LeafLabs decision to move is the clincher.<br /> Previously a friend tried it (a while ago), driven by the open hardware on open software philosophy, and reported finding it better than Eagle, but still unpleasant compared to the proprietary tools which he was accustomed to. This coloured my view.</p> <p>I am working on some boards, and my collaborator was okay with Eagle, but didn't want to go to KiCAD under our time pressure. But I hope to look at KiCAD before Christmas. </p> http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=198#post-1419 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:45:04 +0000 josheeg 1419@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ <p>I am working on a open source maple done in kicad it is a free and open source program with design rule check and electrical rule check &amp; autorouter etc.<br /> Its video tutorials are good enough to get started but the manual that downlads with it is great also. You might have to click on the manual in synaptic package manager if you use linux. I would sugjest linux.</p> <p>Free and open source hardware should be made with free and open source software and the learning curve is less than eagle I made 2 boards in eagle and 2 in kicad I won't ever go back to eagle.</p> <p>the schematic symbol generator webpage is nice and the java footprint module maker helps also. Freeroute is the autorouter. </p> http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=198#post-1370 Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:09:05 +0000 gbulmer 1370@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ <p>I was looking at the Maple rev3 Eagle CAD.<br /> Just for giggles, I hit the Design Rules Check. Pretty nice.</p> <p>Looking at the design rules, the clearances are 6mil. I tried 8mil (still under 0.25mm), and got lots of clearance errors on the pads for the STM32F. Did Okie 'oversize' the pads (which is what it looks like), or am I misunderstanding how Eagles Design Rules Check works?</p> <p>This is low priority, just me being curious. </p>