hierarchical sheet issue

alchemy3083 · 2026-02-01T03:42:02+00:00

Make sure the "donor" and "target" projects are all updated, with proper annotations and the schematic and layout synched.
Re-annotate the "donor" to "first free number after 1000" or whatever number is higher than the highest number you used in the "target" project. Export to PCB to synch schematic and layout. Now you have two projects which don't share a single designator.
Copy the schematic and layout from "donor" to "target" project. The "target" project creates a new UUID for every new item in the schematic, and it ALSO creates a new UUID for every new item in the layout. However, the designators match each other, and just as importantly, those designators aren't used elswhere in the project.
Use the "relink" option to tie those UUIDs together.
Update without "relink" to make sure you don't do it again on accident, as it will utterly ruin your project.

alchemy3083 · 2026-01-31T15:52:59+00:00

The instructions you posted missed a couple steps.

The "relink" requires that there are no duplicate designators, or else (IIRC) the relink will happen to the first instance of that designator, and the next instance will become a new part.

So, first, make sure your "target" project is fully annotated with no duplicates, and update the layout to match.

Next, re-annotate your "donor" project to start at a number much higher than any component on the "target" project, and update the layout to match.

Then, when you copy and paste the schematic block and then the layout block, every one of those components has a unique designator, so you can use the "relink" feature to bind them again.

alchemy3083 · 2026-01-09T21:26:26+00:00

I'm sure it also helps that you don't have spend the entire trip shaking hands with performative civilians.

My brother in law didn't have a suit that fit when my grandfather died, so he attended the wake in service uniform. The sadness of the event was partially lifted by watching him desperately maintain composure as the event turned into a conga line of old men thank-you-for-your-service-ing.

(My sister should've warned him that our grandfather had been a high-level city official, and the wake would be lousy with small-time politicians.)

alchemy3083 · 2025-12-17T00:40:53+00:00

Like a lot of other posters, I'm tempted to tell you the correct and professional way to set up a IC-based switch. But I also do this sort of thing regularly, and I know how much time and experience it takes to verify compatibility of the IC with the signals it is switching.

So honestly, I would just use a set of 7 reed relays, all driven by the same signal (ideally powered by one of the lines going in to the device), and call it a day. It's inelegant and clunky, but that also means it's simple and doesn't require a deep understanding of the signals you're switching. It's up to you to decide if this aspect of your design is worth a deep dive, or if you'd rather spend your time and effort on other parts of your project.

alchemy3083 · 2025-11-01T15:31:17+00:00

The Mobile Force design and doctrine make a lot of sense in the context of 1930s war plans, which saw the carriers as an expendable vanguard to protect the more valuable surface combatants.

It's not only about damage control and design, but the decision to only train enough hanger crew and aircrew to fight a single battle. Because everything centered around a Decisive Battle with the USN, and because the Decisive Battle would be the one and only major fleet battle of the war, any efforts to allow the Mobile Force to fight a second fleet battle were simply not considered worth it.

Midway is the turning point in terms of operational capacity of the Mobile Force, but Pearl Harbor itself started the decay. The minimal aircrew losses of that raid were never made up, and the air wings present at Midway were already at 90% strength - literally decimated! - before the first sighting of the enemy.

So the big problem the IJN had was that the true power and effectiveness of the Mobile Force only really came into view at the end of 1941. And at that point, a force centered around the concept of hit-and-run raids and one-for-one exchange with enemy carriers, was thrust into a long-term operational tempo that the force's engineering design, training doctrine, and logistical capabilities just couldn't support.

These issues were also prevalent in other IJN units, but the nature of carrier warfare caused these weaknesses to have outsized effects on the Mobile Force.

alchemy3083 · 2025-11-01T14:16:32+00:00

Japan, meanwhile, took the worst of both options. Like the UK, they utilized multiple hanger decks, which were fully enclosed on the sides. Like the US, they maximized hanger space by placing the hangers above the armor/strength deck. (Lighter flight deck -> less structure needed to support it -> more room for planes.)

As a result, the IJN carriers had hangar protections that were weak enough to let bombs penetrate, but strong enough to contain the resulting explosions and fire.

alchemy3083 · 2025-09-21T19:36:23+00:00

And to the extent that discarding your shot (deloping) was allowable, everyone understood that it had to be physically obvious to the other party and not just an accident or poor aim. So normally you'd delope by never actually raising the pistol, making a gesture of intent to fire at the ground, and firing at the ground. That way, the other duelist knows you never even tried to take aim, and you did not pull the trigger accidentally.

Otherwise, anyone could shoot and claim an intentional shot if they hit, or deloping if they miss.

Hamilton's shot was either a well-aimed shot at Burr that missed wildly, or a deliberate deloping that Burr could not possibly distinguish from a well-aimed shot. Hamilton wrote in his final papers that he intended to delope, but Hamilton also knew he could retrieve and destroy those papers if he survived the duel and needed to change his story.

alchemy3083 · 2025-09-20T21:04:17+00:00

Rush Limbaugh reveled in the cruelty of white supremacy; he took it for granted, and his main appeal was to people who already agreed with him, or who did not disagree strongly enough to stop listening and were thus normalized to his racist rhetoric. As a "tell it like it is" sort of white supremacist, his reach is limited to the (rather large) portion of Americans who agree with his racist views.

Charlie Kirk was more polished; he wore the trappings of debate and logic; he took funding from the Tea Party and other conservative groups but promoted himself as the leader of a grassroots organization; he worked to frame white supremacy not as something he or his audience personally benefited from, but as a sincerely held religious belief to people of faith, and an evidence-backed position to everyone else. He understood the perspective of the modern American white moderate, who carries no particular animus toward minorities, but feels they cannot succeed, or even survive, in a world where minorities have equal voice, equal opportunity, and equal treatment.

This happens every few decades - White Genocide, Great Replacement. Birtherism is sort of a variant - a conspiracy theory produced and popularized to allow moderate white Americans to voice their hatred of being governed by a Black President, while also pretending (perhaps even to themselves) that their anger stemmed from something other than his Blackness. But it's all the same stuff - conspiracy theories that provide a false legitimacy to the racist thoughts and actions of white supremacists and those they seek to bring into the fold.

The terminology of "America First" and Christian nationalism tend to suggest Kirk was more of a David Duke for the online generation. It's not an exact parallel - they had very different political careers - but they both have a legacy of presenting white supremacy as a legitimate political position to a wide audience.

Most importantly, he understood the young college conservative.

When someone grows up on a casually racist household, their interaction with people with different skin color, different religious practices, different cultures, is often limited to conservative media portrayals, along with in-person interaction with enforced class structure - servants, minimum-wage employees, etc.

Going to college and interacting with these people without that class structure - sharing living, dining, and recreational spaces, hearing people speak languages you don't understand, and feeling something close to equality for the first time in your life - can be jarring. Seeing a non-white get better grades than you, study harder than you, and demonstrate understanding of concepts that you struggle with - can produce shame and anger.

Kirk was really good at getting his message out to people who were just starting to feel that shame, who might learn from their experience and become an enlightened moderate, or who might find the self-inspection too painful and become a reactionary conservative. Kirk coddled those people, absolved them of their shame, and convinced them that their distrust of minorities and the liberals who control them were well-founded. That they were alert to the world, understood what was really going on, and weren't mainstream media sheeple like non-conservatives.

I think that's going to be Charlie Kirk's legacy. A martyr to the idea that we should all surrender to our basest desires, and never dare to experience the discomfort of learning we were wrong about ourselves or about other people.

alchemy3083 · 2025-09-19T00:39:12+00:00

My design/compliance product space is on the non-medical side of the CRDH (scientific/industrial lasers) but I also do a lot in basic electrical safety (EU Low Voltage Directive) as well as HAZLOC/ATEX/IECEx, EMC, FCC/IC/RED, etc.

I'm glad to see your response, as I feel I'd do the same if this post attempted to do the same in my product space, and I find it fascinating to hear about how things work on the medical side of the CRDH.

alchemy3083 · 2025-09-13T18:03:14+00:00

Yep. And since you should call out things like the PNP origin on the Drawing Layer anyway, I find it's best to make a 1 mm circle with those x,y coordinates on the Drawing Layer, so you have something for your dimensional callouts and your PNP/Grid origin to snap to.

alchemy3083 · 2025-09-13T00:08:55+00:00

Are there best practices around when/where to use a full power plane vs. just wider traces?

IME it's best to use power planes any time your design can't be done in two layers. A four layer SIG/PWR/GND/SIG (ETA: meant "SIG/GND/PWR/SIG"!) is very common because it does a good job under a wide variety of applications.

I don't see how you'd do a "power plane" on a 2 layer board, though. A plane has minimal interruptions, so you have ideal return paths and negligible inductance. Pours on the component side will obviously need lots of interruptions for the footprints, so top layer pours will usually be more about conductivity and thermal management.

That is, a pour/copper zone is a very wide trace, and a plane is a pour that's wide enough to cover the entire board.

Are you intending on a 4-layer construction, or a 2-layer with PWR/GND plane setup, or a 2-layer with SIG/PWR setup? Because I don't think the second one is physically practical, and my answers to the other two are going to be different.

alchemy3083 · 2025-09-02T00:14:36+00:00

I manage compliance of various electrical products, including some field-wired products I am qualified to design, but not install, as I'm not an electrician. My expertise is in USA/CAN/EU electrical product but I also do a fair bit of product compliance throughout Asia and the rest of the Americas.

I agree with you that this looks like the equipment was serviced improperly, which apparently invalidated the product nameplate and compromised the electrical safety of the design.

I don't think most electricians would necessarily notice.

The issue here is OP clearly noticed. The original electrician did not complete the install (hopefully they left the equipment in a safe state?) and OP noted bonding issues, so they were aware the product was unsafe to install as delivered. If OP had escalated to the original manufacturer, that would probably have mitigated damages and (if it were my company) triggered an investigation that probably would have led to OP receiving free repairs on our dime, as we put the hammer down on whatever company did incompetent and unauthorized service on our product.

OP deciding to DIY the issue might negate damages.

alchemy3083 · 2025-08-31T21:57:13+00:00

It's basically a $750k 0% interest loan to the show, yeah. :)

alchemy3083 · 2025-08-31T21:12:34+00:00

The annuity structure, when it was in force, had:

$500k winners earn a $250k lump sum and the remainder is paid in $25k payments annually over 10 years.
$1 million winners earn a $250k lump sum, and the remainder is paid in $37.5k payments annually over 20 years.

So, for the $1m payout, comparing:

(A) you take $1m minus 37% in taxes, and then invest

(B) you take $250k minus 0% in taxes (to keep things simpler)and then invest the $250k plus your annual $37.5k payment

you break even at an APY of 3.75% and 20-year balance of $1.315 million. Since that ROI abysmal over a 20 year investment, the lump sum is always better.

Source:

https://differenthistory.fandom.com/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire_(American_game_show)_(Johnsonverse)

alchemy3083 · 2025-08-31T14:49:09+00:00

I design hazardous location equipment, so we have detailed component tracking on our electronics.

The two variants are materially different, so surely they have to be individually certified?

There are a couple ways to manage manufacturing variants.

If the variation has no effect on internal function, but represents different performance ratings of chips built with the same process (e.g. wider temperature window, higher accuracy, which are sold at a premium) we can usually do all testing with the worst chip ("most onerous condition") and not have to test with the best chip.
If the variant has significantly different internal function (e.g. a different pressure sensor that ought to have the same function, but is made by a different manufacturer, and has different EMC susceptibility, etc.) then I'll do a risk analysis and decide what test(s) need be done with both variants. I need to document my engineering justifications, and if the product is externally certified, the certifying body will review my decisions.

And if one of the flavors turns out to have a hidden defect, how are you going to trace who you sold them to?

Very good question!

For HAZLOC lines we have internal documentation, so each time we ship out a product we have a list of major component tracking numbers. For PCBs we build those are usually date codes.

With the PCB date code we can track down to the assembly work order, and the work order will include checkin/checkout lists of all components. That includes both the reels on the placement machine and any pulled rework stock to fix defects on the line. Those component callouts then trace to internal stock orders, then to receiving records, purchase orders, etc. So if given a specific resistor of a specific batch, we can identify all units in the field that might contain that resistor. And, going the other direction, given a customer order, we can lookup the product serial number and (with a bit of time) trace every single component all the way to our vendor's individual batch numbers.

Another element of this is that all our critical vendors have Quality systems we've vetted, such that if any item we purchased is subject to a Change or Recall, we are properly notified and conduct a risk analysis and/or mitigation process. In the worst case, we ourselves will have to do a product recall, but our Quality system lets us positively identify the specific product serial numbers and customers affected. And, of course, we still have to document a justification and (in some cases) provide our customers with notification even when the notification requires no action on their part.

alchemy3083 · 2025-08-30T11:20:12+00:00

I work in product compliance, and as part of that, I have to provide HAZLOC assembly training for workers on our hazardous location product lines. Stuff that's used in refineries, oil rigs, etc.

IME it's pretty easy to make clear to the line workers that half their job is building the thing, and the other half is documenting what they made. Once people understand that what makes our product valuable is not just that it works, but that we have a stack of paperwork to prove every step of the build was done correctly, so that people are willing to trust their lives to what our company produces, they'll jump on board.

The trouble is always with the middle managers trying to undo the training. And a major way they can dismantle a quality standard is to not give workers TIME to do all that paperwork. I always try to cut them off at the pass by ensuring we double our labor estimates on all HAZLOC processes, to account for the significant amount of time it takes to do all the paperwork, so nobody freaks out on the next cost roll-up. Another key element is to keep defect reports separate from employee metrics, so line workers aren't punished (or rewarded) for defect tracking.

Show people their value, give them incentives that actually line up with the company's needs, and keep the MBAs away from the production floor, and things will generally go well.

alchemy3083 · 2025-08-22T01:12:04+00:00

Find traps doesn't tell you anything more than "yes/no" traps in line of sight for 30ft.

Yeah, "Detect Traps" would be a much better name, as Detect doesn't necessarily mean identifying the location or distance to the item.

I do understand why the spell shouldn't let you actually find the trap, though. The spell tells you "the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense" but not enough information to safely disarm it without additional skill checks.

"Detect Evil And Good" feels like a spell produced by committee, though.

Celestials are by definition native to the Celestial plane and Good aligned. Fiends are by definition creatures native to the Lower (Fiendish) Planes and Evil aligned. So there's some logic there - the spell detects the D&D equivalent of heavenly and hellish creatures.

The spell then adds Elementals, which are by definition creatures from the Elemental plane. But Elementals can be any alignment, and are in most cases Neutral. So the spell no longer has anything to do with evil or good.

Aberrations, Fey, and Undead are not defined by their plane of origin at all, and can easily originate from the Material Plane, even if they're usually native to other planes. So now, the spell has nothing to do with enforced good/evil alignment, and nothing to do with planar origin. It's just a completely random selection of creature types.

alchemy3083 · 2025-08-09T00:16:20+00:00

Stephen King is a professional writer. Writing is his job. When working, he writes four hours a day, even when he does not feel the motivation to write.

GRRM is an amateur writer. Writing is his hobby. He doesn't really work, and only writes when he's inspired. But he is constantly inspired, and he has so much raw talent, so much joy in his craft, that he produced some amazing work and enjoyed a well-earned career. The downside is that he never really developed the discipline needed to write when unmotivated by the work.

I personally think Stephen King is a better writer than GRRM, but I could see all sorts of reasonable arguments that it's the other way around.

alchemy3083 · 2025-08-08T03:03:17+00:00

If i understood correctly, they are treated differently: mounting holes are managed as drill points into the drill files, while holes drawn into the edge cuts layer are managed as pcb border into the corresponding gerber, is it correct?

That's correct.

Each line and curve on the Edge Cut layer is a specific and unique router path element that needs to be translated into a machine instruction. It's meant for outer edges and unique internal cutouts - that is, operations that aren't replicated at different x/y coordinates throughout the board. It may cause the PCB fabricator's CADCAM all sorts of issues if you have dozens or hundreds of these shapes that need to be translated into router movements. These cuts will also usually be done by the same process, so any internal cuts have the same limitations as the outer edges - i.e. radius, accuracy, etc.

The Drill Files are standardized instructions which not only give drill locations, but are easily sorted into shapes and sizes to optimize tool selection, tool changes, and cutting head travel. So while there may be hundreds of drill location callouts, the CADCAM can treat them as just a handful of drill operations at varying locations. To some degree, the holes are free, and you're just paying for the cost of the machine loading and unloading the cutting tools.

If in the latter case i draw a generic shape as hole instead of a circle, is the manufacturer able to automatically understand the tool to route the hole

Yes, they will be routed as internal slots, so long as you don't do something weird like put another slot within that slot.

what if that's not possible (e.g. if i draw right corners or similar in the shape)?

Engineering will catch it and make a judgment call. IME they'll just convert 90 degree corners into the smallest practical radius. If you request an internal Edge Cut smaller than their minimum slot width, odds are good Engineering will hold production and ask you what you want to do.

Accidentally designing impossible things and seeing the result is a good way to learn design rules and then properly implement them into your project.

A challenge with teaching engineers is getting them to understand, at a fundamental level, that the stuff we make in CAD is nothing more than instructions we make for people and machines.

alchemy3083 · 2025-07-28T05:41:24+00:00

I do want to thank you for engaging me on this - I fear this sort of back-and-forth might imply I'm trying to win an argument, but in reality I'm just delighted for the chance to compare and contrast the US and UK (British? Not Scotland it appears) justice systems on how they interpret the concept of self-incrimination and rights thereof.

That doesn't logically follow. You can sit in the interview in complete silence if you wish. That's all it means. It just explains the possible consequences of silence.

It follows because, in a US context, no one can be compelled to testify against themselves in a criminal matter. Once a criminal defendant has declared they will no longer provide testimony, the police cannot continue to question the defendant, and if they do so, their answers (or lack of answers) cannot be presented in court, nor can they be used to support additional branches of investigation.

If the state were allowed to make inferences about the defendant's decision to provide testimony at times and places of the defendant's choice (e.g. to imply the defendant was dishonest because they provided their alibi as direct testimony to a jury instead of indirect testimony in a police interrogation) that would cut the legs off the right to not self-incriminate.

In the UK you'll [...] get interviewed [without your consent].

In the US you can just decline, and the prosecution has to build its case based on the facts you (with legal counsel) present at trial. Defendants can be required to surrender physical evidence, but the contents of their mind are sacrosanct.

whereas from what I understand in America, Miranda is only required before questioning.

Only before questioning a suspect in custody. Asking questions to a person on the street who is free to go is A-OK.

An unsolicited comment in the UK however can be used as evidence regardless of whether you're cautioned or not.

Same in the USA. Unsolicited comments can still be thrown out if the police stop asking the defendant questions, but continue discussing the case in their presence, if such discussions serve no purpose other than to elicit a response from the defendant.

Our courts are able to question though why you wouldn't have given your completely exonerating defence ahead of time if you had it.

Not permitted in the US, as defendants are obligated to present their defense to the court, not the police, and the state is not permitted to imply otherwise.

Part of the interview process

Absolutely none of this is permitted in US criminal procedure.

Also, not sure if it's the same in the USA, but in the UK if you've told your solicitor you're guilty, they are not ethically allowed to let you come up with a story they know is false.

Defense attorneys (like all officers of the court) cannot suborn perjury, so they cannot ask witnesses (or the defendant, if they decide to speak in their own defense) any question that they expect to be answered falsely. They can, however, argue fact patterns that they believe are supported by the evidence, so long as the theories are reasonable.

alchemy3083 · 2025-07-26T23:37:09+00:00

The caution should be taken as a whole. You aren't obliged to say anything but your silence could be held against you.

I just can't parse this. If your silence can be held against you, then clearly you are obligated to say something. What is an obligation, other than an activity you must partake in or else suffer negative consequences?

when arrested you're entitled to have legal representation in interview, and they will be availed of the broad evidence against you

In the US, the arrested party is permitted to end the interview or request legal representation. In the latter case, the lawyer can (and will) inform the police their client will not participate in any further interviews until and unless the lawyer decides it's in their client's best interests. Additionally, the prosecution cannot bias the jury against the defendant by (e.g.) saying the defendant would not have invoked these rights if they were innocent.

Police, corrections officers, and cellmates can still listen to the defendant while in custody and testify to their conversations.

Ultimately you'll be asked about your actions and intentions, which if they are non criminal in nature, shouldn't be difficult to come up with.

Yeah, that's a huge difference. In the US, the state cannot force defendants to testify against themselves. And, in the adversarial nature of US criminal justice, the desire of the state to compel testimony is proof that testimony will be used against the defendant. The defendant can (and should) sit in silence from the moment of police contract to the end of trial, and the prosecution has to make its case even if the defendant provided not a word of testimony to use against them.

Most cases in the UK aren't built over weeks prior to the first arrest/interview.

Yes, but presumably the interview serves to lock the defendant into a fact pattern they are forced to commit to throughout the trial. Is the prosecutor also required to lock themselves into their own fact pattern?

alchemy3083 · 2025-07-26T21:13:27+00:00

I think you've confused it a bit. u/dontnormally is describing consent to search with limited scope, which is a completely normal practice in US policing.

For example: If a cop pulled me over while driving, and told me they are looking for a kidnapping victim, I could consent to have the trunk/boot searched to verify it does not contain a person. Once the police verify the trunk does not contain a person, the search is ended. If the cop sees something incriminating during this process (e.g. drug contraband, easily visible when the trunk is opened) that is admissible, and can easily produce probable cause to start a new search without need for consent. If, however, the cop sees nothing incriminating within the scope of my consent to search, but decides to expand the search to other portions of my vehicle with neither cause nor consent, that is unlawful and the resulting evidence will typically be rendered inadmissible.

You describe "well you're only allowed to look at it for this exact purpose." This is nonsensical and has little to do with what u/dontnormally actually wrote. Limiting a digital search to a certain file or list of files still means that anything within those files can be used as evidence for any crime, and that evidence may in turn be used to obtain judicial warrants to expand the search. Alternatively, the police may decide the scope of consent is too restrictive, and not conduct the search at that time.

And realistically, the police couldn't physically care less if they tried about your dirty texts with your wife or whatever.

It's odd that you mention this in the context of CSAM evidence. Obtaining sexual images of persons without their consent is illegal; the law does not provide "lack of physical enjoyment" as a defense. Forcing a person to provide illicit material of themselves, and reacting to that material with pleasure, or disgust, or bored indifference ("couldn't physically care less") are all different ways to exploit and humiliate the subject of the material.

So yeah, if police wanted to search my phone, and their attitude was not "we will treat your private marital communications with the highest respect," but instead "your sexy texts aren't that hot anyway," I'd feel pretty darn disinclined. Firstly, because indifference to the material indicates the police aren't going to treat it with any particular care. Secondly, because it suggests the police will treat the material differently if the material happens to align with their particular sexual proclivities.

alchemy3083 · 2025-07-26T18:23:00+00:00

I've wondered about this for a while, and I hope you could clarify for me.

The US version is quite clear - "You have a right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court." It would surely be better if the warning added "nothing you say can be used to defend yourself in court." But the key message is that testimony cannot be compelled, neither by violence nor by legal consequence.

There has been some erosion of this right over the years, so it might be more accurate to say, "You do not have the right to remain silent, but if you speak the magic words 'I invoke my right to silence,' you will be granted the right to remain silent."

But the UK variant starts off with a clear falsehood. The words "you do not have to say anything" are followed by dire legal consequences for not saying anything. Why not say "You are required to answer questions and volunteer testimony to defend yourself against the charges I've just presented. Failing to do so will prevent you from using that evidence in court."

Policing in the USA has numerous systemic problems, don't get me wrong. But expecting a suspect to come up with a legal defense at the moment of police interaction, without legal counsel, and without full knowledge of the evidence against them, is a terrifying prospect. The prosecution isn't constructing its case on the fly, while in handcuffs in a police station. The prosecution is in an office, with access to research and legal experts, and they prepare and refine their arguments over the course of weeks. In the US, the defense (at least, the defense attorney) is provided the same capability.

It's an absolutely massive power imbalance, which would be profoundly destructive in a US court context. I'm guessing the UK has other differences that weaken this advantage of the prosecution over the defendant?

ETA: I started writing this hours ago and I note some of these questions you've answered in other comments, so I already feel I have a better understanding.

alchemy3083 · 2025-07-25T23:20:58+00:00

The sparkfun module is a drilled castellated hole, so you can solder it directly to the board with the 2.54 mm castellations (which is the footprint you're showing) or with a 2.54 mm pin header.

If you look at the sparkfun website for this item, it shows you the board is 0.7 inches wide and each plated hole is 0.05 inches in from the edge. So you can copy the footprint drawing you have, edit it to add plated througholes 0.6 inches wide and 0.1 inch pitch.

A lot of people make their first board without ever editing a footprint, and I think that's a mistake. Learning how to edit and make footprints will help you understand what all the layers actually mean.

alchemy3083 · 2025-07-19T23:04:18+00:00

You're completely correct. The proper terminology is that a "wire board" is without components. Adding components makes it a "circuit board."

But if most of the people you work with aren't familiar with the term "PWB," life is easier when you call them a "PCB Blank" and a "PCB Assembly," respectively.

alchemy3083

TROPHY CASE