Difference between revisions of "Talk:PCB Manufacturers"
(Created page with '== 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 …') |
m (Reverted edits by 52.184.102.196 (talk) to last revision by DavidCary) Tag: Rollback |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
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). | 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 | + | Below is an example/test table to play with. |
{|class="wikitable sortable" style="border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #000; padding: 0em; text-align:left" border="1" cellpadding="2" | {|class="wikitable sortable" style="border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #000; padding: 0em; text-align:left" border="1" cellpadding="2" | ||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|scope="row"|[http://pad2pad.com/ Pad2Pad (low cost)]||2||8||-||-||-||20-||Y||green||~167 | |scope="row"|[http://pad2pad.com/ 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 :) | ||
+ | |||
+ | {|class="wikitable sortable" style="border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #000; padding: 0em; text-align:left" border="1" cellpadding="2" | ||
+ | |scope="row"|<span title="Name of the PCB fab and link to their service" style="cursor:help">Fab</span> | ||
+ | |scope="col"|[http://batchpcb.com/index.php/Products BatchPCB 2-layer] | ||
+ | |scope="col"|[http://batchpcb.com/index.php/Products BatchPCB 4-layer] | ||
+ | |scope="col"|[http://dorkbotpdx.org/wiki/pcb_order DorkbotPDX] | ||
+ | |scope="col"|[http://pad2pad.com/ Pad2Pad (low cost)] | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |scope="row"|<span title="Layers - maximum number of layers" style="cursor:help">Layers</span> | ||
+ | ||2||4||4||2 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |scope="row"|<span title="Traces - minimum trace width supported in mil" style="cursor:help">Traces</span> | ||
+ | ||8||6||6||8 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |scope="row"|<span title="Annulars - minimum annular width supported in mil" style="cursor:help">Annulars</span> | ||
+ | ||-||-||7||- | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |scope="row"|<span title="Spacing - minimum spacing between traces in mil" style="cursor:help">Spacing</span> | ||
+ | ||8||6||6||- | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |scope="row"|<span title="Clearance - minimum clearance between traces and board edge in mil" style="cursor:help">Clearance</span> | ||
+ | ||X||X||15||- | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |scope="row"|<span title="Drill - minimum-maximum drill size in mil" style="cursor:help">Drill</span> | ||
+ | ||20-500||13-500||13-260||20- | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |scope="row"|<span title="Vias - support for vias, Y=yes, B=Blind, b=buried" style="cursor:help">Vias</span> | ||
+ | ||Y||Y||Y||Y | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |scope="row"|<span title="Mask - solder mask color(s)" style="cursor:help">Mask</span> | ||
+ | ||red||red||purple||green | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |scope="row"|<span title="Silkscreen - silk screen resolution in DPI" style="cursor:help">Silkscreen</span> | ||
+ | ||-||-||~200||~167 | ||
|} | |} | ||
[[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 16:39, 5 August 2022
Table[edit]
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)