I am drawing a circuit schematic where I want to place two wires (power supply wires in my case), where the wires will be directly soldered onto the board. I am looking for a wire pad symbol with no success. What should I use?
Note:
I spent a lot of time scrolling through the huge library and I couldn’t find.
I think there is a philosophical problem with the current library: it has countless variations of the same symbols with tiny variations. This level of detail is exagerated while some basic needs seem to be absent (like the one mentioned above).
You haven’t internalized the library system and the idea of “parts” or “components” in KiCad yet.
There are quite many wire connector footprints in the footprint libraries (Connector_Wire) – 326 in v9.0.3 to be exact!
There are generic symbols in the symbol libraries. You can use whatever you want, for example a generic connector symbol. Add the symbol to the schematic, attach the footprint to it.
Not all “components” or “parts” have a dedicated symbol in KiCad libraries (those words aren’t even usually used in KiCad). Rather, you will select a proper symbol and a proper footprint and combine them by assigning the footprint in the symbol Properties. Because KiCad uses this kind of system which is both powerful and flexible, it wouldn’t make much sense to have hundreds of symbols for a PCB wire connector.
Just change the Value of the symbol in the schematic.
Or save the symbol with a new name, value and footprint assignment to a personal library if you don’t like the symbol name or/and want to re-use the same combination.
So if you didn’t want a connector you should have used a different word in the title instead of connection like wirition or padition or solderition or something like that.
PS: Feel free to design a symbol and offer it to the official library. That’s what the symbol editor is for, DIY work.
You can use whatever you want, for example a generic connector symbol
No.
“Connector_Generic”, i.e. the “Conn_” series of symbols, is intended for pin headers, sockets, or similar physical elements added to the board. Using the “Conn_01x01” is just a dirty workaround.
“TestPoint” is for test points.
“MoutingHole” is for mechanical mounting.
=> OK to add a “WirePad” symbol into the “Connector_Generic” library?
Advantage : People will find it immediately when they write the word “wire” in the search => no time wasted, no dirty workaround => improved user experience.
Disadvantage: None ; one single useful symbol added(*).
(*) While there are countless identical symbols that should be vastly merged, check for example how many “ACS7*” or “CQ-2*” are identical symbols in the schematic library.
Are you saying – in quite confident tone – that you know how the librarians were intending the symbols to be used? For reference, the FAQ article linked above was written by the former head librarian of KiCad. He says “The standard connector symbols might be a good option. (Most likely the Conn_01x01 symbol)”.
You can file a request (or a merge request) in the libraries gitlab issues, but it may not be accepted. There’s no standard symbol for a wire pad (in general, not just KiCad). Generic connector symbols are already used for many purposes, even outside KiCad, and I just don’t feel your reasoning about physical connector vs. plain wire would be convincing.
“The standard connector symbols might be a good option. (Most likely the Conn_01x01 symbol)”.
It is a workaround, a working option, but not a good way, as I explained above.
There’s no standard symbol for a wire pad
A rectangle would do the job.
Generic connector symbols are already used for many purposes
Workarounds shall not be turned into strict rules.
When I need a connector, I use a “Conn_*” symbol, when I need a mounting hole, I use a “MoutingHole” symbol, when I need a test point, I use a “TestPoint” symbol. Is there really something so dreadful about a “WirePad” symbol ?
It is just like a “TestPoint”, but aimed at soldering a wire on it. Footprint may be the same, but function is different. And schematic is about function, which is why symbols should be different in good practice.
I just don’t feel your reasoning about physical connector vs. plain wire would be convincing.
Take you veteran pride away for a second and consider honestly:
Is there any drawback to the point I push?
Do you understand that for some people at least this proposal would be an advantage, would be what they were looking for, and would ease their time?
Yes, it’s wasting your time and the time of users here trying to help you . . . you have some good answers/help, you know how you can address your issue now.
What if I want a connector specifically for bell wire, or for solid core wire or for copper braided wire ? should we expect the volunteer Librarians to create them too ? the key thing to take away from this thread is that symbols are symbolic . . . . you can use them to represent what you want (as long as they have the correct number of “pins”) and simply change their name.
Then associate the physically correct footprint and you are all set.
I wouldn’t have any problem with the proposal being included in KiCad libraries. As far as I can see, your real problem was that you searched in symbols and didn’t find it, and a named symbol could have helped you. OK for me.
As I said, you are free to file an issue in gitlab, as long as you understand they have hands full of requests. This forum is a place to discuss with other end users. Some developers or librarians may or may not read this thread.
You should create it in a personal library. A symbol added to the standard library will get wiped out on update, assumig you get past the read-only setting on it.
Hum… I am not sure to understand what you mean. Are you talking of personal use of a new symbol, or a Pull Request to modify the std library? I was talking of the latter.
Millions of modules are currently produced with wires directly soldered to the board. For example small laser modules, small brain implants, etc. You can qualify this wiring as a “workaround”, and maybe sometimes it is, but they do exist, they are currently manufactured, and they are useful.
I’m using a translation engine, so please forgive any mistakes in English.
Are you trying to connect a wire to a surface pad without connecting it to a through-hole soldering post? I think there’s a high possibility that the surface layer will peel off due to the physical mechanics of the cable. Is that what you’re intending to do?
If you insert a wire into a through-hole and solder it, I think that wire is both a wire and a connector component.
In other words, wouldn’t it be better to use a connector that already exists on the schematic? ( used Conn_01x01 or x02 )
Or would it be better to just create a pad that you expect to be a connector on the schematic and a surface-mount component on the assembly? Unlike a test pin, I think this pad is a non-general-purpose pad that has been individually designed to withstand physical damage, as described above.
If PCB with jumper wires on a one-layer board, it may be a good idea not to place components parts on the Schematic, but to draw the PCB on two layers and design the surface as a jumper wire.
