Where can I find a 1.0mm pitch QFP adapter for a 52pin ic?
Ps I've been looking for a week w/o anything...
I would have said here, but 52 pins and 1mm pitch is kinda odd.
Can always design your own and have iteadstudio make you 10 for $10.
CrossRoads:
Can always design your own and have iteadstudio make you 10 for $10.
I would, but I'm afraid I will have a lot of errors in the file.
If anyone could make a Eagle package for this part it would help me out a lot..
mmcp42:
give this a whirl!
http://www.mmcpix.com/CNC/HT1632.lbr
Did you actually make that yourself?
Wow! Thanks so much!
Two quick questions...
Did you draw the pads based on the dimensions at end of datasheet?
And is it possible to put a 1.0mm pitch QFP on a footprint meant for 0.5mm if the 0.5mm has double the pads? (like 2 0.5mm pads per each 1mm lead?)
yup took about 40 minutes I think
Q1. the pads are nominally 1.0 by 0.4, but EAGLE had some a gnat's larger so I used those
Q2. er - if the footprint has twice as many pads then I guess it would work. I would print one out and drop the chip onto it, see what it looks like
Except I don't have any chips yet...
Oh but you do! Open the last page of the PDF in Inkscape. Copy out the package drawing. Scale it based on the noted dimensions then print out the package. I have done this many times with strange packages and it's worked every time. If you have any transparency paper, it really helps. I keep a transparent printed sheet of my most common components like capacitors that I have 600 of, then hold the transparency over my printed PCB designs to make sure I've out the right components on my design.
If you don't know how to do what I'm suggesting, I can do it for you today. Just reply and let me know!
Sure! That would really help!
No problem. Just give me a bit and I'll do that.
Can someone check this file to make sure it has everything needed to be sent to seeed's fusion pcb service?
HT1632breakout.brd (16.8 KB)
Sorry! The drawing they used is for the wrong lead spacing. They just changed the numbers while mucking up the scale. This seems common with this package, which is silly.
Best I can say is that the eagle package looks pretty good when printed out. Just hit it with a ruler and go from there!
brucethehoon:
Sorry! The drawing they used is for the wrong lead spacing. They just changed the numbers while mucking up the scale. This seems common with this package, which is silly.Best I can say is that the eagle package looks pretty good when printed out. Just hit it with a ruler and go from there!
What do you mean by that?
And what should I use in eagle as the footprint?
I mean that the package drawings are for a different part with the numbers changed. The package to pitch ratios are not consistent between pin pitches.
The lib posted earlier in the thread had a package that looked pretty solid, though I was using a printed ruler, as my REAL rulers are at home!
Prints well and looks perfect.
k thanks!
But are you sure the board I will be getting will be made correctly?
it would have been nice to get some feedback, rather than just making changes
I noticed that the pitch spacing for some of the pads was off - so I have uploaded an updated library
http://www.mmcpix.com/CNC/HT1632.lbr
in what way are the pins wrongly numbered?
I compared mine with what you have on your layout,
apart from being rotated it looks similar to me
I noticed that your pads are much longer and slightly narrower than mine
wondered why you did that?
I didn't realize I was looking at pads here... Those pads ARE too narrow and should be expanded. The package size is not the same as the recommended pad sizing.
Take a look here: