Continue to Site

Welcome to our site!

Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

  • Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

How to avoid very thin lines appears in the pour copper ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PCBWING

New Member
Hi,
This is just an example that I drew.
View attachment 61832
In fact, it often has similar problems in many designs. Is there anything set options to avoid the problem occurred in different design software?

Thanks.
 
move the traces further apart.... i use PCB for linux which has options for setting minimum line widths and clearances. i also don't use ground plane "pours" in that manner unless the circuit is operating above 50Mhz.
 
That does not look like Eagle. In Eagle, you can control what is effectively the line width used for the copper pour and avoid such fine lines.

However, what I usually do is to set the copper pour to give the resolution I want. Then, if there are fill areas that I don't want, including fine lines, I lay out a restricted areas (layers 41 or 42) to prevent those areas from filling.

John
 
If you can set the isolation distance, either of the traces or the copper pour, then you should be able to get rid of it.
 
move the traces further apart.... i use PCB for linux which has options for setting minimum line widths and clearances. i also don't use ground plane "pours" in that manner unless the circuit is operating above 50Mhz.

Thanks for your reply. In many case there is no space to move the traces. Many kinds of width in the whole PCB. I think you said that setting line width and clearance may work well.
 
That does not look like Eagle... I lay out a restricted areas (layers 41 or 42) to prevent those areas from filling.
John

Thanks! That's not Eagle. Many designer use many kinds of software. But the problem almost would appear in a lot of software‘s exportation. You said use a fixed line width in Eagle... I found many copper pours are made of polygon, that has no width. They are just an outline with o width. And I'm not sure what the layers 41 or 42 things are if you have no explain further.
 
In Eagle, you have line width and isolate as two of the variables to set for copper pours. And of course, it is done with the polygon tool so it can be made a signal. Fills made with the rectangle tool cannot be made a signal, at least in the older versions.

What I said or intended to say was that isolate and width are set based on the needs of the whole PCB or areas of the PCB. For example, if you want the copper pour to include ground pins in a double or triple row connector, a wide isolate setting or too thick a line may prevent that from happening. Similar problems can occur with IC's and many other devices and situations. Remember that pours are used for things other than ground too.

So, instead of messing with multiple polygons to get past those issues, I use fewer polygons and then block out areas in which I don't want the copper pour with a restricted layer.

John

Edit: From discussions I have seen here and elsewhere, there is a high degree of similarity between current PCB drafting programs. They all have similar tools and layers. The ways in which the tools are invoked may differ (e.g, the cut>paste routine of early Eagle vs. copy>paste).
 
Last edited:
Thanks a lot. I think you said is the line fill case,
View attachment 61849
but not the 0 width line's polygon.
View attachment 61851
The lines pour case can set line width but the data size would be larger than the 0 width line's polygon one. Although it would be larger, I think it better one. Thanks again.
 
Excuse me. Then how about this one? Now "the piece of copper on the right between the three pads and the trace“ is connected to other thing. It should be there but there is still a too thin line in the pour copper.
View attachment 61854
 
I would just increase the isolation distance, it could be set to 8 mil now, so increase it to 10mil and those two thin lines should disappear. Then you should add a via to the remaining piece of copper to connect it to something or it should not be there at all.
 
Thanks a lot. I think you said is the line fill case,

If that comment is in response to my comment immediately above, then NO, I am not talking about the cross-hatch or lines fill (not available on Eagle) options. If you think of the fill as a vector rather than bit map, the fill is with lines that touch. The thicker the line, the more jagged will the edges be. The thinner the line, the more processing it takes. Eagle used to have a warning to that effect. Line width does not affect the gross appearance of the filled areas in Eagle, unless you pick the cross-hatch option.

Just to clarify, there are multiple ways to do what you asked in your first post. Your later post on page 2 illustrates one of the problems of using isolate as the variable. Of course, you can avoid that by using multiple polygons. The restrict method avoids that too, and I find it easier to do in a controlled and precise manner. In Eagle, isolate and line width can affect other things too, like the the way thermals are made.

Finally, as to the patch of copper that is not connected to anything, that is called an "orphan" in Eagle. You can choose to have them left in place or removed.

BTW, Are you actually a PCB manufacturer or is that just an avatar you like?

John
 
Okay,I know your meaning: There should be a fit distance to set. Thanks, kubeek.
 
Last edited:
If that comment is in response to my comment immediately above, then NO, I am not talking about the cross-hatch or lines fill (not available on Eagle) options. If you think of the fill as a vector rather than bit map, the fill is with lines that touch. The thicker the line, the more jagged will the edges be. The thinner the line, the more processing it takes. Eagle used to have a warning to that effect. Line width does not affect the gross appearance of the filled areas in Eagle, unless you pick the cross-hatch option.

Just to clarify, there are multiple ways to do what you asked in your first post. Your later post on page 2 illustrates one of the problems of using isolate as the variable. Of course, you can avoid that by using multiple polygons. The restrict method avoids that too, and I find it easier to do in a controlled and precise manner. In Eagle, isolate and line width can affect other things too, like the the way thermals are made.

Finally, as to the patch of copper that is not connected to anything, that is called an "orphan" in Eagle. You can choose to have them left in place or removed.

BTW, Are you actually a PCB manufacturer or is that just an avatar you like?

John

Thanks for your reply. I can know in Eagle there would be some set options for it. In PCB plants like us, the "orphan" was given the name "Island".

Yes, I'm working in PCBWING.com which is a online PCB manufacturer. But this is not an AD, at least before I become to a supporter of this "electro-tech-online" forum. Also we do not send Spam. I‘m here to make new friends, and also hope to maintain contact with the circuit professional technical personnel. Thank you very much.:)
 
I do like the tear-drop shaped pads you are using. Prior to version 6.x, that was not possible with Eagle. It might be with the new versions, but I haven't tried.

One thing to consider when using "isolate" to prevent the thin lines is that you may cure the problem is one area and create another somewhere else, particularly on complex PCB's. Using a restrict layer will not have that global effect.

John
 
I do like the tear-drop shaped pads you are using. Prior to version 6.x, that was not possible with Eagle. It might be with the new versions, but I haven't tried.

One thing to consider when using "isolate" to prevent the thin lines is that you may cure the problem is one area and create another somewhere else, particularly on complex PCB's. Using a restrict layer will not have that global effect.

John

Yeah, the tear-drop pads are useful. I saw many designs use it. If designers use the old version software, they could request the PCB house to add it. But it should be they done the copper pour before. Otherwise it would happen short circuit. Like this.
View attachment 61882
 
What a question?

Hi PCBWING,

it really drives me crazy to see so many posts for such a simple PCB layout stretching from Christ's birth till now! :mad:

There is absolutely no reason to keep traces that closely together as done in your layout! :confused:

Many traces could be drawn in a straight line from start to end - except for one. That one has to be rerouted to go around other pads. :)

Keeping safe distances between traces makes soldering a lot easier - thereby avoiding possible shorts between traces and/or pads.

When there is enough spacing between traces you might perform "ratsnest" setting up 0.4064 or 0.6096mm between ground pour and traces/pads. :p


Boncuk
 
Last edited:
Hi PCBWING,

it really drives me crazy to see so many posts for such a simple PCB layout stretching from Christ's birth till now! :mad:

There is absolutely no reason to keep traces that closely together as done in your layout! :confused:

Many traces could be drawn in a straight line from start to end - except for one. That one has to be rerouted to go around other pads. :)

Keeping safe distances between traces makes soldering a lot easier - thereby avoiding possible shorts between traces and/or pads.

When there is enough spacing between traces you might perform "ratsnest" setting up 0.4064 or 0.6096mm between ground pour and traces/pads. :p

Boncuk

Thanks for your "Hi" and so a many faces. I am worried that you did not understand the drawing. I do not think everyone agrees that these posts are useless. In many designs, there is not enough space for designers to draw a straight line, like this.
View attachment 61909
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

New Articles From Microcontroller Tips

Back
Top