On 27 Jul 2014 17:01:43 -0700, you wrote:
"constrain to 45 degrees by moving both ends" behavior as an option.
were at 90 degrees (that was the expression they used). In theory, I
can imagine that etching through at the 90 degree junction may be a
problem. As such, I will avoid 90 degree joints (even T joints) and
bevel at 45 degrees.
I suspect that it was a result of etching (and etching *in* at the 90
degrees inside point), since they used photoetching (KPR) and had
production etching capability in house.
Therefore, the toner transfer method would not make a difference, one
way or another.
(or so says logic and my memory).
Harvey
>I was wondering how many of you folks use fillets in your PCB patterns where two traces, or any two edges for that matter, meet at 90 degrees.I almost always bevel at 45 degrees. I rather wish that Eagle had a
"constrain to 45 degrees by moving both ends" behavior as an option.
>I was told many years ago that traces had a tendency to break if they
>I was looking at some commercially produced patterns and they seem to frequently employ fillets. This is I presume to prevent cutting in of the pattern at 90 degree corners when the board is etched. For a pattern produced on a computer it's easy enough to add them in. Would it make any difference if one is using the toner transfer method?
>
were at 90 degrees (that was the expression they used). In theory, I
can imagine that etching through at the 90 degree junction may be a
problem. As such, I will avoid 90 degree joints (even T joints) and
bevel at 45 degrees.
I suspect that it was a result of etching (and etching *in* at the 90
degrees inside point), since they used photoetching (KPR) and had
production etching capability in house.
Therefore, the toner transfer method would not make a difference, one
way or another.
(or so says logic and my memory).
Harvey
>Thanks in advance for your comments.
>
>John