Talk:PCB Manufacturers

From OpenCircuits
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Table)
(The tables Kamiquasi made look really nice.)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 65: Line 65:
  
 
[[User:Kamiquasi|Kamiquasi]] 23:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 
[[User:Kamiquasi|Kamiquasi]] 23:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
 +
The tables [[User:Kamiquasi|Kamiquasi]] made look really nice.
 +
If we make a table like this, I want each row of the table to link directly to the "capabilities" page where we got the data in that row --
 +
to make it easier for people to confirm that the current values are correct, and if not, to update them.
 +
 +
I agree that there are a lot of special cases that don't seem to fit a rectangular table. If that data is usually not necessary for PCB design, and it's easy to get from the "capabilities" link, I'm happy with deleting it from this page.
 +
 +
When I started editing this page, I was doing circuit board layout and wondering
 +
"Hey, how big do I really need to make the outer diameter of the vias?".
 +
Alas, I haven't seen *any* manufacturer directly state the outer diameter I need to draw for vias so they work fine when fabbed with their standard process. :-(
 +
I prefer to pick a via size that I'm sure that several manufacturers can easily manufacture using their low-cost standard process.
 +
So what size is that?
 +
 +
So this page started out as a few random examples of PCB manufacturers and
 +
how big to make the vias, etc., to fit their "minimum" process.
 +
 +
Then I discovered that if I actually designed to those "minimum" numbers,
 +
it took longer to get the hard PCB prototypes in my hand,
 +
than if I had designed to their "standard" process.
 +
Also, I got hit with a big fee for using their "non-standard" extra-small process.
 +
And it was a big hassle to re-lay-out the board,
 +
spreading everything out a little to make room for slightly larger vias.
 +
Which led to the "preferred" vs "minimum" subsections for each fab.
 +
 +
Then the page exploded into a huge list of every PCB manufacturer anyone around here had ever heard of.
 +
--[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 09:46, 5 June 2014 (PDT)

Latest revision as of 08:46, 5 June 2014

[edit] Table

This list is full of FIXME's, I'm not sure if anybody's working actively on those. I was going to implement a table of capabilities/etc. but then I saw that several fabs have all sorts of special case mentions. Perhaps a subset could be used; the user can always go straight to the fab's website/page to find out the nitty-gritty. Question is, though, what subset should be included?

A specifically difficult metric is pricing comparison. Two layers vs 4 layers vs 6 layers vs 8 layers etc. makes for a quickly-expanding table of hell. Perhaps 3 typical cases could be suggested next to a 'square inch' which seem ubiquitous, and each calculated at each fab, as an indicator only. For limited cases, a fab could be listed on more than one row (e.g. BatchPCB's 2 layer vs 4 layer differences).

Below is an example/test table to play with.

Fab Layers Traces Annulars Spacing Clearance Drill Vias Mask Silkscreen
BatchPCB 2-layer 2 8 - 8 X 20-500 Y red? -
BatchPCB 4-layer 4 6 - 6 X 13-500 Y red? -
DorkbotPDX 4 6 7 6 15 13-260 Y purple ~200
Pad2Pad (low cost) 2 8 - - - 20- Y green ~167

Transposing the rows/columns may be a better layout choice, though that will most definitely cause horizontal scrolling, and is a lot more difficult to edit. And apparently there's no method to sort the columns by a given row. Darn :)

Fab BatchPCB 2-layer BatchPCB 4-layer DorkbotPDX Pad2Pad (low cost)
Layers 2 4 4 2
Traces 8 6 6 8
Annulars - - 7 -
Spacing 8 6 6 -
Clearance X X 15 -
Drill 20-500 13-500 13-260 20-
Vias Y Y Y Y
Mask red red purple green
Silkscreen - - ~200 ~167

Kamiquasi 23:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


The tables Kamiquasi made look really nice. If we make a table like this, I want each row of the table to link directly to the "capabilities" page where we got the data in that row -- to make it easier for people to confirm that the current values are correct, and if not, to update them.

I agree that there are a lot of special cases that don't seem to fit a rectangular table. If that data is usually not necessary for PCB design, and it's easy to get from the "capabilities" link, I'm happy with deleting it from this page.

When I started editing this page, I was doing circuit board layout and wondering "Hey, how big do I really need to make the outer diameter of the vias?". Alas, I haven't seen *any* manufacturer directly state the outer diameter I need to draw for vias so they work fine when fabbed with their standard process. :-( I prefer to pick a via size that I'm sure that several manufacturers can easily manufacture using their low-cost standard process. So what size is that?

So this page started out as a few random examples of PCB manufacturers and how big to make the vias, etc., to fit their "minimum" process.

Then I discovered that if I actually designed to those "minimum" numbers, it took longer to get the hard PCB prototypes in my hand, than if I had designed to their "standard" process. Also, I got hit with a big fee for using their "non-standard" extra-small process. And it was a big hassle to re-lay-out the board, spreading everything out a little to make room for slightly larger vias. Which led to the "preferred" vs "minimum" subsections for each fab.

Then the page exploded into a huge list of every PCB manufacturer anyone around here had ever heard of. --DavidCary (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2014 (PDT)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox