Synth-DIY Yahoo! Groups Archives

Drill Hole markers in Eagle?

2014-05-21 by Peter Johansson

Is there an easy way (using Eagle PCB) to convert all drill holes
(regardless of size) to a tiny "pip" for accurate drill centering? So
far I have been using the layer/group/change process, and while this
works it is somewhat kludgey and then throws design errors even after
I change them back. What I do now is save, modify, print, and then
close without saving. Kludgey to say the least!

Is there some way in the CAM settings like "fill pads" that fills the
pads but leaves a center mark?

-p.

Re: Drill Hole markers in Eagle?

2014-05-22 by craigl2@...

Have you tried running drill-aid.ulp. I think that will do what you are asking for.

Craig

---In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, <rockets4kids@...> wrote :

Is there an easy way (using Eagle PCB) to convert all drill holes
(regardless of size) to a tiny "pip" for accurate drill centering? So
far I have been using the layer/group/change process, and while this
works it is somewhat kludgey and then throws design errors even after
I change them back. What I do now is save, modify, print, and then
close without saving. Kludgey to say the least!

Is there some way in the CAM settings like "fill pads" that fills the
pads but leaves a center mark?

-p.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Drill Hole markers in Eagle?

2014-05-22 by James

I don't use eagle, but my gerber to etching artwork pdf bash script has the option to shrink all drill holes by a percentage down to some minimum.

https://github.com/sleemanj/gerb2etch

Option -d enables shrinking, the percentage and minimum can be set by editing the options at the top of the script.

On 22/05/14 10:58, Peter Johansson rockets4kids@... [Homebrew_PCBs] wrote:

Is there an easy way (using Eagle PCB) to convert all drill holes
(regardless of size) to a tiny "pip" for accurate drill centering? So

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Drill Hole markers in Eagle?

2014-05-22 by Peter Johansson

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:46 AM, craigl2@... wrote:

> Have you tried running drill-aid.ulp. I think that will do what you are asking for.

Aah yes. Indeed it does!

However, it does not seem to use this layer when I generate output via the CAM tool. It only seems to render the script-generated layer 116 when I use the print option. Should I not be using the CAM tool when I am printing for homebrew PCBs? Is the Print option what I should be using regardless?

-p.

Re: Drill Hole markers in Eagle?

2014-05-22 by craigl2@...

I have just started learning to use Eagle and have only made a couple simple single sided PCBs. The last time I made a PCB was 40 years ago. The ones I made recently were done with the toner transfer method and I just printed the board pattern directly from Eagle. To use the CAM processor you would have to tell it to include layer 116 in the output file. For home use I am not sure what advantage, if any, the CAM processor provides. Perhaps someone with more experience can inform both of us of the advantages and disadvantages of each method..

Craig

---In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, <rockets4kids@...> wrote :

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:46 AM, craigl2@... wrote:

> Have you tried running drill-aid.ulp. I think that will do what you are asking for.

Aah yes. Indeed it does!

However, it does not seem to use this layer when I generate output via the CAM tool. It only seems to render the script-generated layer 116 when I use the print option. Should I not be using the CAM tool when I am printing for homebrew PCBs? Is the Print option what I should be using regardless?

-p.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Drill Hole markers in Eagle?

2014-05-23 by Peter Johansson

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:55 PM, craigl2@... wrote:

> I have just started learning to use Eagle and have only made a couple simple single sided PCBs. The last time I made a PCB was 40 years ago.

Sounds like we're in the same boat. I made a bunch of PCBs back in the early 1980s using manual layout and resist-ink pen. I migrated into software and did not get back into electronics again until just a few years ago. So far I have been building everything on protoboard, and after discovering how easy it really is to make PCBs with toner transfer and CuCl I'm wishing I had gone down that road sooner.

> To use the CAM processor you would have to tell it to include layer 116 in the output file. For home use I am not sure what advantage, if any, the CAM processor provides. Perhaps someone with more experience can inform both of us of the advantages and disadvantages of each method..

Yup. I enabled layer 116 in the CAM processor and it did not render. Using the "print" option is actually easier, so unless there are no downsides to that (I can't see any) that is how I'll be doing things.

-p.

Re: Drill Hole markers in Eagle?

2014-05-23 by craigl2@...

I haven't tried CuCl for etching but probably will. So far I have used sodium persulfate - overall more benign but it could get expensive if you do a lot of boards or an occasional large board and mix up a large batch since once mixed it only lasts a few weeks. So far I have only mixed a small amount and put it in a ziplock bag with the board in it then put the bag in a warm water bath to raise the temperature of the sodium persulfate solution.

I am still experimenting with various things to get the best technique. So far the best paper I have found to use is finger paint paper (Melissa and Doug brand, bought from Amazon). It has a thin plastic coating which adheres with the toner to the board and provides extra protection from the etchant. I don't think the plastic alone adheres at all to the copper but I do have to use a piece of masking tape to remove it from narrow spaces between traces and use a piece of tape over the ball of my finger to "pluck" or "peck" at some of the drill holes to open them up. I think they are more difficult to clear because the plastic is being held on all sides (360 degrees) by the adjacent toner. I think the plastic will allow thiner traces if necessary than toner alone. Also I don't think the small defects in large areas of copper that people complain about will occur.

Craig

---In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, <rockets4kids@...> wrote :

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:55 PM, craigl2@... wrote:

> I have just started learning to use Eagle and have only made a couple simple single sided PCBs. The last time I made a PCB was 40 years ago.

Sounds like we're in the same boat. I made a bunch of PCBs back in the early 1980s using manual layout and resist-ink pen. I migrated into software and did not get back into electronics again until just a few years ago. So far I have been building everything on protoboard, and after discovering how easy it really is to make PCBs with toner transfer and CuCl I'm wishing I had gone down that road sooner.

> To use the CAM processor you would have to tell it to include layer 116 in the output file. For home use I am not sure what advantage, if any, the CAM processor provides. Perhaps someone with more experience can inform both of us of the advantages and disadvantages of each method..

Yup. I enabled layer 116 in the CAM processor and it did not render. Using the "print" option is actually easier, so unless there are no downsides to that (I can't see any) that is how I'll be doing things.

-p.