PCB Libraries Forum : L huh? https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/ Mon, 06 Apr 2026 23:54:53 +0000 Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:06:20 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.07 360 https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=1508 <![CDATA[PCB Libraries Forum]]> https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/forum_images/PCBLForumLogo.gif https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/ <![CDATA[L huh? : L30 = the Lead Tolerance The Nominal...]]> https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/l-huh_topic1508_post6118.html#6118 Author: Tom H
Subject: 1508
Posted: 18 Dec 2014 at 3:06pm

L30 = the Lead Tolerance

The Nominal Lead Length may be the same but it's the Tolerance that makes the pad longer or shorter.

]]> Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:06:20 +0000 https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/l-huh_topic1508_post6118.html#6118 <![CDATA[L huh? : I&#039;m confused about the library...]]> https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/l-huh_topic1508_post6117.html#6117 Author: SteveD
Subject: 1508
Posted: 18 Dec 2014 at 3:03pm

I'm confused about the library naming convention for those auto generated footprint names.  When I spec a lead length of .4 to .7 mm it generates a name that ends in L30.  Why not L55 as I told it in the nominal column.  Sometimes it comes out as expected - just enough to make one superstitious.

Reading the naming convention sheet, it says this is where the environment goes.   I don't see anything in the environment that would suggest L30.

Is this a bug or my misunderstanding?
]]> Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:03:28 +0000 https://www.PCBLibraries.com/forum/l-huh_topic1508_post6117.html#6117