On Apr 27, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Mike Bushroe wrote: > As pointed out > above, a DIP-16 is a through-hole device in any process, the pins are > always 0.100 inches apart, the part number defines if it is a typical > 300 mill spacing, or a wide 600 mill. What ever process you use to > attach the chip to a circuit board, those things never change for that > physical part number.
Yes. Therefore footprint=DIP16, as recommended in the "footprint naming conventions" document, should be fine. > The closest I can guess to something that would be 'process > dependent' would be the size of the copper pads, and possibly the > exclusion zone around them. Who says there are pads? Some still use wire-wrap. gEDA would be a fine way to feed an automated wire-wrap process, although I don't know if anyone has actually done this. Imagine, then, feeding the identical schematics to a pcb flow once the wire-wrap prototype is working... John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [email protected] _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
