Part Data Review and Update
Thought for 4 mins 1 sec
I reviewed the part project against the datasheet using the part-project sync workflow, which treats the datasheet as the source of truth and checks exact pin-count, project metadata, and terminal consistency
Summary
Datasheet URL
- A datasheet URL is already set, and it appears to be valid for Bourns EAW0J-B24-AE0128L.
- So I did not update the Datasheet property.
Table
| Item | Result |
|---|---|
| Part | Bourns EAW0J-B24-AE0128L |
| Function | Absolute contacting encoder |
| Output format | 8-bit Gray code |
| Resolution | 128 states/rev |
| Detents | 0 |
| Mechanical travel | 360° continuous |
| Speed | 120 RPM max |
| Contact rating | 10 mA @ 10 VDC or 0.1 W max |
| Closed resistance | 5 Ω max |
| Open resistance | 100 kΩ min |
| Insulation resistance | 1000 MΩ min @ 500 VDC |
| Dielectric withstand | 1000 VAC min |
| Shaft | 1/4 in plain slotted, 3/4 in length |
| Mounting | Bushing mount, PCB terminals |
Table
| Area | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| MPN | Good | Matches EAW0J-B24-AE0128L |
| Manufacturer | Good | Bourns |
| Datasheet URL | Good | Present and appears correct |
| Terminal count | Good | Project has 10 terminals, consistent with the datasheet’s 8 outputs + 2 commons |
| Basic symbol concept | Good | The symbol is representing 8 output lines plus 2 common terminals, which matches the device function |
Table
| Property | Current | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Part Type | Sensor | Too generic. This is more specifically an absolute encoder |
| Designator Prefix | U | Not a good fit for an electromechanical encoder |
| Package / mechanical style | Missing explicit property | Should include the mechanical style / mounting form |
The current terminal names are:
The datasheet naming is effectively:
- P1-P8
- C
- C
So:
- Functionally, the symbol is close
- Naming is not datasheet-exact
- Best match would be outputs labeled P1-P8, with the two commons clearly identified as common contacts
All current terminal components appear to have:
- Pin Type = Unspecified
- No useful pin descriptions surfaced in the project data
That is incomplete for a part project audit. The sync guidance specifically recommends setting exact pin number, pin type, and short pin descriptions from the datasheet
Footprint / mechanical mismatch
This is the biggest issue.
What I found:
- The project has 10 electrical pads corresponding to the 10 terminals, which is good.
- The layout also contains 4 additional mount pads, suggesting a bracket/mechanical mounting pattern.
- Cross-project inspection indicates the current footprint asset is named like a PCB-bracket-mounted housing B style.
- But the exact MPN EAW0J-B24-AE0128L appears to decode to a different housing/terminal configuration than that footprint.
So the footprint is likely mismatched mechanically to the exact ordered variant, even though the electrical pad count is plausible.
Overall assessment
Table
| Category | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Datasheet property | Pass |
| MPN / manufacturer | Pass |
| Symbol concept | Pass, but naming cleanup needed |
| Pin descriptions / pin typing | Fail - incomplete |
| Footprint mechanical correctness | Likely fail - needs correction |
| Project metadata quality | Needs improvement |
- Update project metadata:
- Make Part Type more specific than Sensor
- Replace designator prefix U with something encoder-appropriate
- Add a mechanical/package-style property
- Rename symbol terminals to match datasheet nomenclature more closely
- Add pin descriptions and pin types for all 10 terminals
- Re-check or replace the footprint so it matches the exact EAW0J-B24-AE0128L housing/mechanical variant
If you want, I can do a second pass that applies the metadata and terminal-name fixes directly, then we can decide whether to replace the footprint after one more mechanical verification.
Fix metadata and pins
Verify footprint match
Set encoder properties
Welcome 👋
Flux accelerates your PCB design with AI.
Create your account to start using this component and bring your ideas to life.