6502.org

I'm not sure I understand. I see "v1.0a" and "v1.0b" on the board images, but no "v1.0d", and the image above has some design-rules violations, primarily the green trace from pin 14 of the control slot going too close to a via for another net, and another thing about the same right near pin 74 of PVB3.

Version 1.0b is what I meant, sorry about that. Version 1.0a is flawed, that design was just before I made major modifications based on your advice and it was right after I had realized I was erroneously still using the 4 layer board option. At least you haven't found errors on v1.0b. I'm still looking myself, and I hopefully can get to updating the head post about pin assignments today.

Work was busy, so I could not do the pin assignments which requires much dedicated 'uninterrupted' time. But I did find an error on the layout, and optimized some routings. Header should be updated soon.

On a side note, I received parts from Digikey for a few 'pass-thru' PVB's using minimal parts. These pass-thru PVB's would potentially be PVB1 thru PVB5... I should spec one of these boards on the PVB thread... I'll be able to catch up Tue&Wed.

Ok, finished the pin assignments for the controller board. Following the traces for each pin led me to one more shorted signal on PVB1. This I believe to be the last error, and the head pic has been updated. I have the funds needed for a board run and will make one tomorrow if nothing else comes up...

There appear to be traces touching pads they shouldn't at pins 17 and 50 of the connectors, but I realize that what I'm seeing might just be round-off errors in the drawing for the small size. Be sure to visually scan both layers individually, blown way up, up and down the rows.

Good eye Garth, they're shorted but pins 17 & 50 are GND on each PVB.

This looks wrong to me:
Do you have a DRC checker?

Cheers
Ed

If they're supposed to make contact, I would recommend making the trace head directly into to the pad, so there aren't angles of much under 90° in the copper. My understanding from one of our PCB supplierss' explanation is that it makes it harder for them to get a good yield of reliable boards. Ed's picture shows what could turn out to be a problem. BTW, there's nothing wrong with straying from 0-45-90° trace angles. Make them whatever you need to.

Well, I've tried to keep the GND's in parallel with the high speed clock signal pretty much equidistant, even around bends... EDIT: I will enlarge the copper even more for the types in BigEd's snapshot.

If your CAD doesn't have teardropping, you can zoom way in and add little traces in the corners to accomplish the same purpose. Keeping "equidistant" keeps a consistent transmission-line characteristic impedance (if other things remain equal too), but that in itself is probably pretty meaningless if you're not keeping to a particular value and terminating to that value. You'll still be keeping the signal's return current very closeby which accomplishes much of the desired goal.

Thanks Garth & Ed, I think I may have something worthy of manufacture now. Maybe this one will be without 1 mistake. Updated header pic. I'll be able to polish off the rest of the header tonight when I get home.

Updated...

Time to move on! I'm rolling the dice with this final version. It's in the queue...

I just received the boards. Tomorrow, I will solder in the receptacles and put together 1 PVB bypass board. Will document how to do this on that thread.

I'm done soldering today. 800+ holes. Will do another PVB board next week.
More form than function at this point...