<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="RSS_xslt_style.asp" version="1.0" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:WebWizForums="https://syndication.webwiz.net/rss_namespace/">
 <channel>
  <title>PCB Libraries Forum : Pins too tight</title>
  <link>https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/</link>
  <description><![CDATA[This is an XML content feed of; PCB Libraries Forum : Footprints / Land Patterns : Pins too tight]]></description>
  <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 22:53:05 +0000</pubDate>
  <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:45:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
  <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
  <generator>Web Wiz Forums 12.07</generator>
  <ttl>360</ttl>
  <WebWizForums:feedURL>https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=677</WebWizForums:feedURL>
  
  <item>
   <title><![CDATA[Pins too tight :   Whenever the pin pitch and...]]></title>
   <link>https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/pins-too-tight_topic677_post2328.html#2328</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=3">Tom H</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 677<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> 13 Nov 2012 at 7:45am<br /><br />Whenever the pin pitch and the hole size conflict with the design rules, I use an oblong pad shape with a minimum pad on the sides&nbsp;and accept drill breakout on the sides (if it happens). <div>&nbsp;</div><div>I never had any manufacturing problems when using this technique. Sometimes you have to&nbsp;think outside the box. We'll have to introduce this pad shape to the through-hole calculator in V2013. </div><div>&nbsp;</div>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/pins-too-tight_topic677_post2328.html#2328</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title><![CDATA[Pins too tight : You are not alone. I have a similar...]]></title>
   <link>https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/pins-too-tight_topic677_post2322.html#2322</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=1092">DaveCowl</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 677<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> 12 Nov 2012 at 5:02pm<br /><br />You are not alone. I have a similar issue with a mini DisplayPort connector. You can't space 1mm pads 1mm apart. I don't have a good answer for this problem but think that pad clearance is probably more important than annular ring...?!]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:02:40 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/pins-too-tight_topic677_post2322.html#2322</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title><![CDATA[Pins too tight : uploads/45/Connector.jpg  Hello....]]></title>
   <link>https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/pins-too-tight_topic677_post2319.html#2319</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=45">budnoel</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 677<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> 12 Nov 2012 at 12:47pm<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pcblibraries.com/forum/uploads/45/C&#111;nnector.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">uploads/45/Connector.jpg</A><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>Hello. Using IPC density level C (Least) for the padstacks associated with pins 13-16 of the enclosed connector footprint I find less the 5mils of clearance between pads. (4.8mils)&nbsp; I had to make the pad even smaller than what Level C recommended (c140h90)&nbsp; Any comments? </DIV>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:47:09 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/pins-too-tight_topic677_post2319.html#2319</guid>
  </item> 
 </channel>
</rss>