A connector is an object designed to make a connection.
A connection can be made without such object.
Feel free to design a symbol and offer it to the official library. That’s what the symbol editor is for, DIY work.
I have no problem about that. I just thought the forum was a place to exchange ideas and converge.
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.
1 Like
“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.
2 Likes
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.
OK
I will add a “WirePad” symbol to the “Connector_Generic” library when I will find time, and I will send a Pull Request when ready.
1 Like
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.
Don’t you think that connecting wire directly to PCB is also workaround?
2 Likes
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.
For testing you would use a personal library. For submission you would clone the standard library modify it and submit a MR.
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.
…
Are these past topics relevant?
- Adding jumpers to PCB layout
- Jumper Wires for Single/Double Sided PCB’s
- Issues with jumpers
and more…
…
or…
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.
I don’t have Kicad on this machine however I seem to remember I used a plated through mounting hole with a connection to it.
I think the key is to size the hole ID to your expected wire and increase the OD for robustness.
1 Like
I think @OCLC is the only one that cares about this. The rest of us just use what works and move on. I have no involvement in managing the codebase, but I’m pretty sure a pull request for this would be DoA.
As for the definitions: A “connector” is used for anything that leaves the board, permanent or not. I’ve even used a connector footprint without ordering that connector, and then soldered directly to it instead.
I’ve also made my own footprints for standard library symbols. An XLR symbol, for example, made into a board-edge “connector”, so I could repurpose the end from a broken mic cord (shattered shield from kids using it as a rope…) by slipping the board between solder cups. Get out my calipers, lay out the pads according to those measurements, and assign it like any other footprint.
What is your source? In the electronic packaging industry, a connector is a supplementary object that is used for connecting things. In your message, you even seem to agree with this when you make the (fully appropriate) difference between a “connector footprint” and the “connector” itself.
I think @OCLC is the only one that cares about this
Before starting this topic, I had searched on the internet and I had seen that several people were confused when they searched for a wire pad symbol for KiCAD.
I’m sorry @OCLC , but I think you are missing the whole concept of Kicad; and probably every other CAD program in existence, whatever discipline:
It is just not possible to have permanently up to date libraries, holding every possible item that could be conceivably used, for that CAD program.
With respect to Kicad, existing symbols and footprints can be edited directly on the Schematic and PCB Editors, or if a permanent symbol or footprint needs to be created, there are the Symbol and Footprint Editors.
If you want something not in a library, use these functions.
As for the several other confused people; if they are unable to solve their problems, they should ask someone, somewhere.
3 Likes
There is no standard norm definition for “wire pad symbol” as far as i can tell.
There is a junction one named TestPoint_Small in the official libraries though, and i believe this will solve your issue in a nice way if you also exclude it from BOM.
Its name is easy to change, but you will probably need a few custom made footprints too.
I would suggest to open an issue in GitLab in order to discuss an upcoming addition with the librarians team before the MR, and also note that the wire type must then be also defined in the schematic and that would also require some custom symbol(s).
Best regards,
Aristeidis
Different industries have different definitions. A common tool cannot possibly cater to more than just one, so the best possibility is to take a rough average of everybody. (naturally, that’s easier to do for some things than for others) So you’ll have to understand beyond your own little world in order to use…pretty much anything, really, unless it’s so specialized as to be useless to anyone else.
In other words, broaden your horizons, and figure out on your own that <this term that you’re very well used to> has a slightly different meaning in a tool that’s used by everybody. And just deal with it. Make your own internal library, whatever it takes to make you and your specific crew happy.
That goes together with, “…use what works and move on.” I wanted holes in the board to solder wires in, with space to get an iron in there, and that existing footprint with a courtyard gave me those holes and the space. I knew I needed X number of wires, so I grabbed a generic connector symbol with that pin count, put that convenient footprint on it, and that was that. End of effort. No care whatsoever for what any of it is actually called, except to know what search terms to use.
The definition that I gave above, is what works for KiCAD, not necessarily any specific industry. Learn it and use it here. Or make your own private variation and use that.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 5 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.