Part Metadata Review and Update
Thought for 3 mins 25 sec
I reviewed the current part project against the existing official datasheet URL and the project’s current symbol/footprint metadata. The general review flow I followed matches the part-project datasheet-sync guidance: verify the Datasheet URL first, treat the datasheet as source of truth, then compare project properties, terminal count, and terminal metadata
Review Summary
Table
| Area | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Datasheet URL | Pass | Already set to the official Weidmüller datasheet URL, so no update was needed |
| MPN / manufacturer / prefix | Mostly pass | MPN and manufacturer match; designator prefix J is appropriate for a connector |
| Part description | Pass, but could be improved | Current description is usable, but could be made more library-friendly |
| Pin count | Pass | Project has 2 terminals, matching the 2-pole part |
| Symbol terminals | Partial | Terminal numbers match, but pin types/descriptions are incomplete |
| Footprint | Partial | Pad count and pitch look correct; exact copper pad geometry was not exposed in searchable project data |
| Pin descriptions | Mismatch / missing | No pin descriptions are set in the project |
Table
| Field | Current value | Review |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer Part Number | 1667750000 | Matches |
| Manufacturer Name | Weidmuller | Matches manufacturer name spelling used in project; official pages use Weidmüller |
| Designator Prefix | J | Correct for connector class per the sync guidance |
| Mount | Through Hole | Matches THT / through-hole |
| Datasheet URL | Official Weidmüller datasheet URL | Correct, no change needed |
| Description | PCB terminal, 160 V, 16 A, Pitch in mm: 3.50, 2.08 mm, Number of poles: 2, Clamping yoke connection, THT solder connection, 90, Box | Contains useful data, but some values/wording appear inconsistent with the official listing |
From the current project, official product page, and linked datasheet metadata exposed through search:
Table
| Spec | Value |
|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Weidmüller |
| MPN | 1667750000 |
| Type | LM 3.50/02/90 3.2SN OR BX |
| Product type | PCB terminal / printed circuit board terminal |
| Poles | 2 |
| Pitch | 3.50 mm |
| Mounting | Through-hole / THT |
| Wire termination | Clamping yoke connection |
| Outlet direction | 90° |
| Solder pin length | 3.2 mm |
| Color | Orange |
| IEC rating | 320 V / 16 A / 0.5 - 1.5 mm² |
| UL rating | 300 V / 10 A / AWG 28-16 |
| Body dimensions | Approx. 7.6 mm W × 8.3 mm D × 16 mm H |
| PCB drill | 1.30 mm nominal, tolerance +0.1 mm |
| Pin size | 1.0 × 0.6 mm rectangular solder pin |
Table
| Item | Datasheet / official data | Project | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal count | 2 poles | 2 terminals | Pass |
| Terminal numbering | 1, 2 | 1, 2 with Pin Number 1 and 2 | Pass |
| Pin type | Electrically just passive connector terminals | Both are Unspecified | Flag |
| Pin description | Should indicate terminal function | None set | Flag |
| Symbol organization | Simple 2-pin part, single symbol is fine | Single simple symbol | Pass |
For a 2-position terminal block like this, the sync guidance says terminal numbers must match exactly and missing pin metadata should be filled from the datasheet rather than guessed . The count is correct, but both 1 and 2 are still missing useful terminal metadata.
Footprint cross-check
Table
| Item | Datasheet / official data | Project | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pad count | 2 | 2 pads | Pass |
| Pitch | 3.50 mm | Confirmed in project context | Pass |
| Hole / drill | 1.30 mm nominal | Not directly exposed in raw layout node output, but confirmed through indexed project/source data | Likely pass |
| Copper pad outer size | Not explicitly recovered | Not exposed | Needs manual/raw footprint check |
| Outline dimensions | Connector body approx. 7.6 × 8.3 × 16 mm | Footprint outline exists, but exact fab/silk geometry not exposed | Partial |
So the footprint is directionally correct: 2 pads and 3.50 mm spacing align with the part. What I could not fully verify from the available searchable geometry is the exact copper pad diameter/shape and exact silk/fab outline dimensions.
Mismatches and flags
Table
| Severity | Issue | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Medium | Description voltage appears off | Project description says 160 V, while official product data exposed via search shows 320 V IEC and 300 V UL |
| Medium | Description includes unclear 2.08 mm value | That does not match the confirmed 3.50 mm pitch; it may refer to another dimension, but it reads ambiguously in the description |
| Low | Pin types missing | 1 and 2 are Unspecified rather than a connector-appropriate type |
| Low | Pin descriptions missing | No short descriptions are present for 1 or 2 |
| Low | Manufacturer spelling normalization | Project uses Weidmuller; official branding is Weidmüller |
| Low | Package/case metadata missing | No explicit Package or Case Code property is present |
| Low | Part Type normalization | Indexed project metadata reports Connector, which is good; if absent in visible properties, it should be set explicitly |
Table
| Property / field | Suggested value |
|---|---|
| Description | 2-position PCB terminal block, 3.50 mm pitch, 320 V IEC / 16 A, THT, 90° wire entry |
| Part Type | Connector |
| Package or Case Code | THT_2P_P3.50mm_90deg or your preferred house naming |
| Max Current | 16 A if you store IEC rating, or note both IEC/UL in description/implementation details |
| Pin Type for 1 and 2 | Passive |
| Pin Description for 1 | Terminal position 1 |
| Pin Description for 2 | Terminal position 2 |
- The part is mostly correct structurally: MPN, manufacturer, official datasheet URL, 2 pins, and 2-pad 3.50 mm pitch footprint all line up.
- The main issues are metadata quality, not gross symbol/footprint failure.
- The biggest likely mismatch is the description’s 160 V value, which conflicts with the official product data surfaced from the manufacturer page.
- The symbol should be improved by setting both terminal pins to Passive and adding short pin descriptions. The datasheet-sync guidance explicitly recommends filling exact terminal metadata and not leaving pin properties incomplete
If you want, I can make the cleanup edits now:
Clean up part metadata
Verify footprint geometry
Review remaining parts
To get started, talk to Flux or create a New Document.
