kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/08/2012 02:28 PM, Edwin van den Oetelaar wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 04/08/2012 07:14 AM, Edwin van den Oetelaar wrote:
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Edwin van den Oetelaar <oetelaar.automatisering@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM
>>> Subject: remarks about the internal nanometer resolution
>>> To: KiCad Developers <kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>
>>> First of, I have not followed the discussion about the NanoMeter.
>>> I do have some remarks.
>>> >From an engineering standpoint the NanoMeter makes little sense to me.
>>> If the smallest item represented is a nano-meter, in a 32 bit integer
>>> this means the largest board can be only 2.14 meters in size. (-/+ of
>>> the origin)
>>> >From my viewpoint this is not enough. (I know of CNC machines much
>>> larger than 2 meters)
>>> I have seen boards (radar systems and backplanes of 60 layers) which
>>> do not fit in there either.
>>
>> a) This is a single BOARD of this size > 2 meters, or replication array of a smaller board?
> Although it has been only once that I seen one, the board was a single
> board of a radar system
> similar to http://www.atc-network.com/News/34754/Thales-wins-contracts-to-supply-air-traffic-management-and-radar-systems-for-Croatias-Zagreb-Airport

My time is too valuable to even continue this conversation.  I think nano-meters will meet
my needs and the needs of many.

The business needing a board larger than 2 meters can hire somebody to create a patch at
that time.

Thanks,

Dick