I didn’t mean to, but here I seem to be with a common theme again. Like yesterday, and again not too long before that — parts under parts seems to be the thing of the hour.
Maybe the caps are shy and are just trying to hide. Or maybe we’ve been writing too much about package-on-package lately. Dunno.
I do wonder though, how many of these issues are caused by parts substitution (the cap originally chosen was narrower), the wrong CAD library footprint, or just a rushed layout. Who wants to vote on that one?
Just push on it harder. We’ll make it fit.
My vote would be the electrical engineer, whom has a disregard for manufacturing, just “HAD TO HAVE” the cap as close to the adjacent pin as possible. “Because”…
More interesting is the very thin track from the inductor to the cap, I hope its not part of a switcing output filtering circuit, or carrying much current!
In addition to it having a narrow track, you have to ask yourself – Why did the design “Hug” the mounting hole when they could have increased the clearance to the mounting hole by entering the inductor pad at the corner. Hopefully Hi-Pot is not a concern.
What about not using or lack DRC in the layout software? In the PCB design software we use, if as mentioned the right footprint and one that is properly designed this and yesterdays blog would fail and give multiple errors. As long as the DRC rules are set up properly as well.