Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: double check your drawings!

Expand Messages
  • largrin
    True stuff, for sure. When I was chief inspector of new and repaired machined parts, we had to straighten out some crazy stuff too. Our biggest trouble came
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      True stuff, for sure.
      When I was chief inspector of new and repaired machined parts, we had to straighten out some crazy stuff too.
      Our biggest trouble came from the issue # of a drawing.

      As often happens, the draftsmen, and the mechanics, and the engineers work out some details and change the drawing specs. Then they pulled the old drawings out of the master files and added the new ones.
      The problem came when our purchasing man would call the vendor to order a part. The vendor just made the part to whatever his current drawing was.
      So the part comes to me for inspection, and it does not meet the drawing spec.
      The vendor did not make a mistake. The parts were perfect...to the old drawings.

      A big meeting was held, and all parties were ordered to always be sure to have the current drawings in hand. The purchasing department had to specify what issue # in addition to the print #.

      Larry jn WV

      http://larrystoys.webs.com/



      --- In mill_drill@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Durand <jdurand@...> wrote:
      >
      > Just as a reminder to people, don't sign off approvals without actually
      > checking things. I'm well into the re-design of a PC board for a
      > client's product (I didn't do the first version) and suggested an LCD
      > display to replace the obsolete one from their old board.
      >
      > They signed off on it and ordered a small case full of them.
      >
      > They just gave me a sample of the enclosure this goes in and I noticed
      > the enclosure is 88mm wide while the LCD is 93mm. Hmmm, grease and a
      > hammer?
      >
      > Oh, and once it's signed off, it isn't my problem the thing doesn't fit
      > since I didn't have an enclosure to fit it into at the time.
      >
      >
      > --
      > Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc. www.interstellar.com
      > tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
      > Skype: jerrydurand
      >
    • MC Cason
      Jerry, I have a really funny one that I did. Working on a design with Rick, I designed a set of boards, rendered them in 3D, liked the results, and ordered a
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 24, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Jerry,

        I have a really funny one that "I" did.

        Working on a design with Rick, I designed a set of boards, rendered
        them in 3D, liked the results, and ordered a set of boards. I have a
        couple of pictures that show just what happens when somebody (me)
        doesn't double check the size of components.

        Before looking at the second image, take a look at this board layout.
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/46689581@N03/9130412439/

        Now, see if you can see what's wrong with this picture. There's more
        than one thing wrong with it, but this is all I needed to see, to
        realize that I had made a mistake:
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/46689581@N03/8009355036



        On 06/19/2013 05:23 PM, Jerry Durand wrote:
        >
        > Just as a reminder to people, don't sign off approvals without actually
        > checking things. I'm well into the re-design of a PC board for a
        > client's product (I didn't do the first version) and suggested an LCD
        > display to replace the obsolete one from their old board.
        >
        > They signed off on it and ordered a small case full of them.
        >
        > They just gave me a sample of the enclosure this goes in and I noticed
        > the enclosure is 88mm wide while the LCD is 93mm. Hmmm, grease and a
        > hammer?
        >
        > Oh, and once it's signed off, it isn't my problem the thing doesn't fit
        > since I didn't have an enclosure to fit it into at the time.
        >
        > --
        > Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc. www.interstellar.com
        > tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
        > Skype: jerrydurand
        >
        --
        MC Cason
        Associate Developer - Eagle3D, Created by Matthias Weißer
      • Jerry Durand
        ... I skip the nice color sketches and go with actual dimensions. Here s part of a board we did a number of years ago with 0201 (0.02 x 0.01 ) parts in the
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 24, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On 06/24/2013 08:56 PM, MC Cason wrote:
          > Jerry,
          >
          > I have a really funny one that "I" did.
          >
          > Working on a design with Rick, I designed a set of boards, rendered
          > them in 3D, liked the results, and ordered a set of boards. I have a
          > couple of pictures that show just what happens when somebody (me)
          > doesn't double check the size of components.
          >
          > Before looking at the second image, take a look at this board layout.
          > http://www.flickr.com/photos/46689581@N03/9130412439/
          >
          > Now, see if you can see what's wrong with this picture. There's more
          > than one thing wrong with it, but this is all I needed to see, to
          > realize that I had made a mistake:
          > http://www.flickr.com/photos/46689581@N03/8009355036
          >
          >
          I skip the nice color sketches and go with actual dimensions. Here's
          part of a board we did a number of years ago with 0201 (0.02" x 0.01")
          parts in the circled area. I designed the board with some restrictions
          on the parts I could use (it could have been simpler), it's a 2048
          channel VoIP board for a telephone central office.
          http://interstellar.com/temp/Tiny_parts.png

          --
          Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc. www.interstellar.com
          tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
          Skype: jerrydurand
        • MC Cason
          ... The bad part is, that I programmed many of the components that I use, but I did not program the chips, somebody else had already done them. I now have
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 24, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            On 06/24/2013 11:03 PM, Jerry Durand wrote:
            >
            > On 06/24/2013 08:56 PM, MC Cason wrote:
            > > Jerry,
            > >
            > > I have a really funny one that "I" did.
            > >
            > > Working on a design with Rick, I designed a set of boards, rendered
            > > them in 3D, liked the results, and ordered a set of boards. I have a
            > > couple of pictures that show just what happens when somebody (me)
            > > doesn't double check the size of components.
            > >
            > > Before looking at the second image, take a look at this board layout.
            > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/46689581@N03/9130412439/
            > >
            > > Now, see if you can see what's wrong with this picture. There's more
            > > than one thing wrong with it, but this is all I needed to see, to
            > > realize that I had made a mistake:
            > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/46689581@N03/8009355036
            > >
            > >
            > I skip the nice color sketches and go with actual dimensions. Here's
            > part of a board we did a number of years ago with 0201 (0.02" x 0.01")
            > parts in the circled area. I designed the board with some restrictions
            > on the parts I could use (it could have been simpler), it's a 2048
            > channel VoIP board for a telephone central office.
            > http://interstellar.com/temp/Tiny_parts.png
            >
            > --
            > Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc. www.interstellar.com
            > tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
            > Skype: jerrydurand
            >

            The bad part is, that I programmed many of the components that I use,
            but I did not program the chips, somebody else had already done them. I
            now have every component that I use dimensioned correctly, and as close
            to looking like real world parts, as I could possibly make them.

            I have a few SMD components, and I have some 0603, and 0805 parts,
            which aren't too bad to work with. 0201 would probably drive me
            insane! I would have to upgrade all of my magnifiers to a vision
            system, to be able to work and test at that scale. Using BGA, I assume
            that you X-ray your boards?

            --
            MC Cason
            Associate Developer - Eagle3D, Created by Matthias Weißer
          • MC Cason
            Zooming in that picture... Do the traces around U37, and U38 just stop? or do they have a really tiny via on their end? ... -- MC Cason Associate Developer -
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 24, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Zooming in that picture... Do the traces around U37, and U38 just
              stop? or do they have a really tiny via on their end?



              On 06/24/2013 11:24 PM, MC Cason wrote:
              >
              > On 06/24/2013 11:03 PM, Jerry Durand wrote:
              > >
              > > On 06/24/2013 08:56 PM, MC Cason wrote:
              > > > Jerry,
              > > >
              > > > I have a really funny one that "I" did.
              > > >
              > > > Working on a design with Rick, I designed a set of boards, rendered
              > > > them in 3D, liked the results, and ordered a set of boards. I have a
              > > > couple of pictures that show just what happens when somebody (me)
              > > > doesn't double check the size of components.
              > > >
              > > > Before looking at the second image, take a look at this board layout.
              > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/46689581@N03/9130412439/
              > > >
              > > > Now, see if you can see what's wrong with this picture. There's more
              > > > than one thing wrong with it, but this is all I needed to see, to
              > > > realize that I had made a mistake:
              > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/46689581@N03/8009355036
              > > >
              > > >
              > > I skip the nice color sketches and go with actual dimensions. Here's
              > > part of a board we did a number of years ago with 0201 (0.02" x 0.01")
              > > parts in the circled area. I designed the board with some restrictions
              > > on the parts I could use (it could have been simpler), it's a 2048
              > > channel VoIP board for a telephone central office.
              > > http://interstellar.com/temp/Tiny_parts.png
              > >
              > > --
              > > Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc. www.interstellar.com
              > > tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
              > > Skype: jerrydurand
              > >
              >
              > The bad part is, that I programmed many of the components that I use,
              > but I did not program the chips, somebody else had already done them. I
              > now have every component that I use dimensioned correctly, and as close
              > to looking like real world parts, as I could possibly make them.
              >
              > I have a few SMD components, and I have some 0603, and 0805 parts,
              > which aren't too bad to work with. 0201 would probably drive me
              > insane! I would have to upgrade all of my magnifiers to a vision
              > system, to be able to work and test at that scale. Using BGA, I assume
              > that you X-ray your boards?
              >
              > --
              > MC Cason
              > Associate Developer - Eagle3D, Created by Matthias Weißer
              >




              --
              MC Cason
              Associate Developer - Eagle3D, Created by Matthias Weißer
            • Jerry Durand
              ... My wife does the PC board CAD. She doesn t worry about graphic pretty of the parts, just accurate outlines and pin size/placement. That particular board
              Message 6 of 20 , Jun 24, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On 06/24/2013 09:24 PM, MC Cason wrote:
                >
                > The bad part is, that I programmed many of the components that I use,
                > but I did not program the chips, somebody else had already done them. I
                > now have every component that I use dimensioned correctly, and as close
                > to looking like real world parts, as I could possibly make them.
                >
                > I have a few SMD components, and I have some 0603, and 0805 parts,
                > which aren't too bad to work with. 0201 would probably drive me
                > insane! I would have to upgrade all of my magnifiers to a vision
                > system, to be able to work and test at that scale. Using BGA, I assume
                > that you X-ray your boards?
                >

                My wife does the PC board CAD. She doesn't worry about graphic pretty
                of the parts, just accurate outlines and pin size/placement. That
                particular board was 14 layers with I think 4 different drilling
                operations (two of them laser). The boards are x-rayed when we have to
                use BGA for customers, but for our own smaller stuff (without BGA, just
                QFN) we hand solder them here. 0402 is the smallest I'd like to hand
                solder but I have done 0201 a few times. 0603 is our standard part.

                One trick my wife learned long ago, don't use ANY standard library
                parts, there's almost always something wrong with them. She generally
                makes up a new library for each new board, only pulling parts from her
                other libraries if she can verify that they match current data sheets.

                At least I'm no longer probing bare wafers under a 1500 power microscope.

                --
                Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc. www.interstellar.com
                tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
                Skype: jerrydurand
              • Jerry Durand
                ... laser drilled micro via, only goes down one layer. The board was made of two multi-layer boards drilled and etched that were then bonded. Then single
                Message 7 of 20 , Jun 24, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 06/24/2013 09:36 PM, MC Cason wrote:
                  > Zooming in that picture... Do the traces around U37, and U38 just
                  > stop? or do they have a really tiny via on their end?
                  >
                  >
                  laser drilled micro via, only goes down one layer. The board was made
                  of two multi-layer boards drilled and etched that were then bonded.
                  Then single layer boards were bonded to the top and bottom, etched and
                  laser drilled down and plated. The whole thing was through-drilled and
                  plated.

                  --
                  Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc. www.interstellar.com
                  tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
                  Skype: jerrydurand
                • MC Cason
                  ... Now I understand the traces dead ending. I ve never dealt with anything that complicated. The last time I had to deal with multi layer PCBs was in the
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 24, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 06/24/2013 11:39 PM, Jerry Durand wrote:
                    >
                    > On 06/24/2013 09:24 PM, MC Cason wrote:
                    > >
                    > > The bad part is, that I programmed many of the components that I use,
                    > > but I did not program the chips, somebody else had already done them. I
                    > > now have every component that I use dimensioned correctly, and as close
                    > > to looking like real world parts, as I could possibly make them.
                    > >
                    > > I have a few SMD components, and I have some 0603, and 0805 parts,
                    > > which aren't too bad to work with. 0201 would probably drive me
                    > > insane! I would have to upgrade all of my magnifiers to a vision
                    > > system, to be able to work and test at that scale. Using BGA, I assume
                    > > that you X-ray your boards?
                    > >
                    >
                    > My wife does the PC board CAD. She doesn't worry about graphic pretty
                    > of the parts, just accurate outlines and pin size/placement. That
                    > particular board was 14 layers with I think 4 different drilling
                    > operations (two of them laser).
                    >

                    Now I understand the traces dead ending. I've never dealt with
                    anything that complicated. The last time I had to deal with multi layer
                    PCBs was in the mid 90's. Looking at that board, it looks like I was
                    lucky that I skipped the really extreme stuff.

                    > The boards are x-rayed when we have to
                    > use BGA for customers, but for our own smaller stuff (without BGA, just
                    > QFN) we hand solder them here. 0402 is the smallest I'd like to hand
                    > solder but I have done 0201 a few times. 0603 is our standard part.
                    >

                    I can deal with things as small as 0603, if I have my magnification
                    where I can see clearly. Anything smaller is a pain.

                    >
                    > One trick my wife learned long ago, don't use ANY standard library
                    > parts, there's almost always something wrong with them. She generally
                    > makes up a new library for each new board, only pulling parts from her
                    > other libraries if she can verify that they match current data sheets.
                    >

                    After that debacle, that's exactly what I do now. Not working in the
                    electronics field in many years, caused a lot of rust to set in :)

                    >
                    > At least I'm no longer probing bare wafers under a 1500 power microscope.
                    >

                    I hated doing that. Luckily where I worked, we had a really nice
                    vision system, that would clearly zoom in on a 30 mil area, and fill up
                    a (10"?) CRT. That worked for most of what we did, but not for
                    everything. I can still remember having to polish stripper feet under a
                    microscope, because the scratches had to be incredibly small, and they
                    could not cross completely across a vacuum port wall.

                    One of the machines that I maintained, and the one that needed the
                    most work, was a CNC sandblaster, that cut precision holes through a
                    silicon wafer. We had a tight tolerance on holes, so it had to be
                    adjusted constantly.

                    --
                    MC Cason
                    Associate Developer - Eagle3D, Created by Matthias Weißer
                  • Curt Wuollet
                    You guys have it easy, lot s of the boards I did were done with tape and rubylith on a large scale then photoreduced. A cad screen is much easier on the eyes
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jun 25, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      You guys have it easy, lot's of the boards I did were done with tape and rubylith on a large scale then photoreduced. A cad screen is much easier on the eyes than working on a light table. And I had to take the ICs apart before probing them or doing voltage contrast on the SEM. CDC had their own little chip factory. I must say that cad has made it a lot easier and much less error prone making boards. It's nice to just submit gerbers and get boards back. It was a really big deal getting boards before.


                      Regards

                      cww

                      On 06/25/2013 12:26 AM, MC Cason wrote:
                       

                      On 06/24/2013 11:39 PM, Jerry Durand wrote:
                      >
                      > On 06/24/2013 09:24 PM, MC Cason wrote:
                      > >
                      > > The bad part is, that I programmed many of the components that I use,
                      > > but I did not program the chips, somebody else had already done them. I
                      > > now have every component that I use dimensioned correctly, and as close
                      > > to looking like real world parts, as I could possibly make them.
                      > >
                      > > I have a few SMD components, and I have some 0603, and 0805 parts,
                      > > which aren't too bad to work with. 0201 would probably drive me
                      > > insane! I would have to upgrade all of my magnifiers to a vision
                      > > system, to be able to work and test at that scale. Using BGA, I assume
                      > > that you X-ray your boards?
                      > >
                      >
                      > My wife does the PC board CAD. She doesn't worry about graphic pretty
                      > of the parts, just accurate outlines and pin size/placement. That
                      > particular board was 14 layers with I think 4 different drilling
                      > operations (two of them laser).
                      >

                      Now I understand the traces dead ending. I've never dealt with
                      anything that complicated. The last time I had to deal with multi layer
                      PCBs was in the mid 90's. Looking at that board, it looks like I was
                      lucky that I skipped the really extreme stuff.

                      > The boards are x-rayed when we have to
                      > use BGA for customers, but for our own smaller stuff (without BGA, just
                      > QFN) we hand solder them here. 0402 is the smallest I'd like to hand
                      > solder but I have done 0201 a few times. 0603 is our standard part.
                      >

                      I can deal with things as small as 0603, if I have my magnification
                      where I can see clearly. Anything smaller is a pain.

                      >
                      > One trick my wife learned long ago, don't use ANY standard library
                      > parts, there's almost always something wrong with them. She generally
                      > makes up a new library for each new board, only pulling parts from her
                      > other libraries if she can verify that they match current data sheets.
                      >

                      After that debacle, that's exactly what I do now. Not working in the
                      electronics field in many years, caused a lot of rust to set in :)

                      >
                      > At least I'm no longer probing bare wafers under a 1500 power microscope.
                      >

                      I hated doing that. Luckily where I worked, we had a really nice
                      vision system, that would clearly zoom in on a 30 mil area, and fill up
                      a (10"?) CRT. That worked for most of what we did, but not for
                      everything. I can still remember having to polish stripper feet under a
                      microscope, because the scratches had to be incredibly small, and they
                      could not cross completely across a vacuum port wall.

                      One of the machines that I maintained, and the one that needed the
                      most work, was a CNC sandblaster, that cut precision holes through a
                      silicon wafer. We had a tight tolerance on holes, so it had to be
                      adjusted constantly.

                      --
                      MC Cason
                      Associate Developer - Eagle3D, Created by Matthias Weißer


                    • Jerry Durand
                      ... I remember the mechanical marvel that was the ruby camera we had for making ICs, that was one big camera. Then we got a CAD system, took up two rooms and
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jun 25, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 06/25/2013 08:17 PM, Curt Wuollet wrote:
                        You guys have it easy, lot's of the boards I did were done with tape and rubylith on a large scale then photoreduced. A cad screen is much easier on the eyes than working on a light table. And I had to take the ICs apart before probing them or doing voltage contrast on the SEM. CDC had their own little chip factory. I must say that cad has made it a lot easier and much less error prone making boards. It's nice to just submit gerbers and get boards back. It was a really big deal getting boards before.


                        Regards

                        cww

                        I remember the mechanical marvel that was the ruby camera we had for making ICs, that was one big camera.

                        Then we got a CAD system, took up two rooms and the pen plotter was another mechanical marvel.  I believe it was a 5 foot x 10 foot bed, used pressure-fed pens that were on an auto changer, and could take a day or two to make a plot.  The lead screws were the flap drivers off a Boeing aircraft and that thing could slide that I-beam pen holder from one end to the other amazingly fast.

                        I got to design and wire up a rig so it could be left unattended, the operator could call in for status.  CalComp was impressed.  I also made a custom driver for the CAD system so it could use screens larger than a napkin.
                        -- 
                        Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc.  www.interstellar.com
                        tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
                        Skype:  jerrydurand
                      • philr_77378
                        submit gerbers    What s that? Phil R ________________________________ From: Jerry Durand To: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com Sent:
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jun 25, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          "submit gerbers"   What's that?
                          Phil R


                          From: Jerry Durand <jdurand@...>
                          To: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:26 PM
                          Subject: Re: [mill_drill] double check your drawings!

                           
                          On 06/25/2013 08:17 PM, Curt Wuollet wrote:
                          You guys have it easy, lot's of the boards I did were done with tape and rubylith on a large scale then photoreduced. A cad screen is much easier on the eyes than working on a light table. And I had to take the ICs apart before probing them or doing voltage contrast on the SEM. CDC had their own little chip factory. I must say that cad has made it a lot easier and much less error prone making boards. It's nice to just submit gerbers and get boards back. It was a really big deal getting boards before.


                          Regards

                          cww

                          I remember the mechanical marvel that was the ruby camera we had for making ICs, that was one big camera.

                          Then we got a CAD system, took up two rooms and the pen plotter was another mechanical marvel.  I believe it was a 5 foot x 10 foot bed, used pressure-fed pens that were on an auto changer, and could take a day or two to make a plot.  The lead screws were the flap drivers off a Boeing aircraft and that thing could slide that I-beam pen holder from one end to the other amazingly fast.

                          I got to design and wire up a rig so it could be left unattended, the operator could call in for status.  CalComp was impressed.  I also made a custom driver for the CAD system so it could use screens larger than a napkin.
                          -- 
                          Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc.  www.interstellar.com
                          tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
                          Skype:  jerrydurand


                        • Jerry Durand
                          g-code files like any CNC machine uses. In this case they operate a plotter to make a film negative that s used to etch the boards. ... -- Jerry Durand,
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jun 25, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            g-code files like any CNC machine uses.  In this case they operate a plotter to make a film negative that's used to etch the boards.

                            On 06/25/2013 08:50 PM, philr_77378@... wrote:
                            "submit gerbers"   What's that?
                            Phil R


                            -- 
                            Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc.  www.interstellar.com
                            tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
                            Skype:  jerrydurand
                          • Vern
                            I had to do mine with a etch-a-sketch, a sharpie and a pie plate full of ferric nitrate on a Bunsen burner. I had to build my ic s from discrete devices,
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jun 25, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                               I had to do mine with a etch-a-sketch, a sharpie and a pie plate full of ferric nitrate on a Bunsen burner.   I had to build my ic's from discrete devices, chicken toe nails and super glue...  Then test it all with a light bulb and a vacuum tube theremin.  So there.  ;)

                              Sent from my iPhone

                              On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:17 PM, Curt Wuollet <wideopen1@...> wrote:

                              You guys have it easy, lot's of the boards I did were done with tape and rubylith on a large scale then photoreduced. A cad screen is much easier on the eyes than working on a light table. And I had to take the ICs apart before probing them or doing voltage contrast on the SEM. CDC had their own little chip factory. I must say that cad has made it a lot easier and much less error prone making boards. It's nice to just submit gerbers and get boards back. It was a really big deal getting boards before.


                              Regards

                              cww

                              On 06/25/2013 12:26 AM, MC Cason wrote:
                               

                              On 06/24/2013 11:39 PM, Jerry Durand wrote:
                              >
                              > On 06/24/2013 09:24 PM, MC Cason wrote:
                              > >
                              > > The bad part is, that I programmed many of the components that I use,
                              > > but I did not program the chips, somebody else had already done them. I
                              > > now have every component that I use dimensioned correctly, and as close
                              > > to looking like real world parts, as I could possibly make them.
                              > >
                              > > I have a few SMD components, and I have some 0603, and 0805 parts,
                              > > which aren't too bad to work with. 0201 would probably drive me
                              > > insane! I would have to upgrade all of my magnifiers to a vision
                              > > system, to be able to work and test at that scale. Using BGA, I assume
                              > > that you X-ray your boards?
                              > >
                              >
                              > My wife does the PC board CAD. She doesn't worry about graphic pretty
                              > of the parts, just accurate outlines and pin size/placement. That
                              > particular board was 14 layers with I think 4 different drilling
                              > operations (two of them laser).
                              >

                              Now I understand the traces dead ending. I've never dealt with
                              anything that complicated. The last time I had to deal with multi layer
                              PCBs was in the mid 90's. Looking at that board, it looks like I was
                              lucky that I skipped the really extreme stuff.

                              > The boards are x-rayed when we have to
                              > use BGA for customers, but for our own smaller stuff (without BGA, just
                              > QFN) we hand solder them here. 0402 is the smallest I'd like to hand
                              > solder but I have done 0201 a few times. 0603 is our standard part.
                              >

                              I can deal with things as small as 0603, if I have my magnification
                              where I can see clearly. Anything smaller is a pain.

                              >
                              > One trick my wife learned long ago, don't use ANY standard library
                              > parts, there's almost always something wrong with them. She generally
                              > makes up a new library for each new board, only pulling parts from her
                              > other libraries if she can verify that they match current data sheets.
                              >

                              After that debacle, that's exactly what I do now. Not working in the
                              electronics field in many years, caused a lot of rust to set in :)

                              >
                              > At least I'm no longer probing bare wafers under a 1500 power microscope.
                              >

                              I hated doing that. Luckily where I worked, we had a really nice
                              vision system, that would clearly zoom in on a 30 mil area, and fill up
                              a (10"?) CRT. That worked for most of what we did, but not for
                              everything. I can still remember having to polish stripper feet under a
                              microscope, because the scratches had to be incredibly small, and they
                              could not cross completely across a vacuum port wall.

                              One of the machines that I maintained, and the one that needed the
                              most work, was a CNC sandblaster, that cut precision holes through a
                              silicon wafer. We had a tight tolerance on holes, so it had to be
                              adjusted constantly.

                              --
                              MC Cason
                              Associate Developer - Eagle3D, Created by Matthias Weißer


                            • MC Cason
                              ... Sounds like me, when I was in college. Pencil and paper, rub-on pads, a Sharpie, and hot Ferric Chloride in a glass dish, ICs were already fairly cheap,
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jun 25, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 06/25/2013 11:24 PM, Vern wrote:
                                > I had to do mine with a etch-a-sketch, a sharpie and a pie plate full
                                > of ferric nitrate on a Bunsen burner. I had to build my ic's from
                                > discrete devices, chicken toe nails and super glue... Then test it
                                > all with a light bulb and a vacuum tube theremin. So there. ;)
                                >
                                > Sent from my iPhone
                                >

                                Sounds like me, when I was in college.

                                Pencil and paper, rub-on pads, a Sharpie, and hot Ferric Chloride in
                                a glass dish, ICs were already fairly cheap, 555's aplenty, as well as
                                logic gates. I never got into vacuum tubes, they were pretty much
                                history by then...

                                Designing on a Etch-a-Sketch... HMM, I'll have to try that some
                                time. It may freak out my eldest granddaughter though.

                                --
                                MC Cason
                                Associate Developer - Eagle3D, Created by Matthias Weißer
                              • Vern
                                Oops, yes I mistyped... Ferric nitrate will etch silver... Not sure if it acts on copper. My high school electronics instructor was analog-oriented, and tubes
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jun 26, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Oops, yes I mistyped... Ferric nitrate will etch silver... Not sure if it acts on copper.

                                  My high school electronics instructor was analog-oriented, and tubes were still available, though rapidly being phased out of many low power, consumer electronics. Even though the pocket calculator was all the rage, we were still taught to use a slide-rule. Sadly perhaps, I still know more about the physics of vacuum tubes ( or valves ) , than I do the bipolar NPN/PNP.

                                  I admit the etch-a-sketch was a stretch... Might be worth the try, just to see her reaction. ;)

                                  -V

                                  Sent from my iPhone

                                  On Jun 25, 2013, at 9:56 PM, MC Cason <farmerboy1967@...> wrote:

                                  > On 06/25/2013 11:24 PM, Vern wrote:
                                  >> I had to do mine with a etch-a-sketch, a sharpie and a pie plate full
                                  >> of ferric nitrate on a Bunsen burner. I had to build my ic's from
                                  >> discrete devices, chicken toe nails and super glue... Then test it
                                  >> all with a light bulb and a vacuum tube theremin. So there. ;)
                                  >>
                                  >> Sent from my iPhone
                                  >
                                  > Sounds like me, when I was in college.
                                  >
                                  > Pencil and paper, rub-on pads, a Sharpie, and hot Ferric Chloride in
                                  > a glass dish, ICs were already fairly cheap, 555's aplenty, as well as
                                  > logic gates. I never got into vacuum tubes, they were pretty much
                                  > history by then...
                                  >
                                  > Designing on a Etch-a-Sketch... HMM, I'll have to try that some
                                  > time. It may freak out my eldest granddaughter though.
                                  >
                                  > --
                                  > MC Cason
                                  > Associate Developer - Eagle3D, Created by Matthias Weißer
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ------------------------------------
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Curt Wuollet
                                  Photoplotter files. At one time these drove an actual light plotter, now it s virtualized. Regards cww
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jun 26, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Photoplotter files. At one time these drove an actual light plotter, now it's virtualized.

                                    Regards

                                    cww


                                    On 06/25/2013 10:50 PM, philr_77378@... wrote:
                                     
                                    "submit gerbers"   What's that?
                                    Phil R


                                    From: Jerry Durand <jdurand@...>
                                    To: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:26 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [mill_drill] double check your drawings!

                                     
                                    On 06/25/2013 08:17 PM, Curt Wuollet wrote:
                                    You guys have it easy, lot's of the boards I did were done with tape and rubylith on a large scale then photoreduced. A cad screen is much easier on the eyes than working on a light table. And I had to take the ICs apart before probing them or doing voltage contrast on the SEM. CDC had their own little chip factory. I must say that cad has made it a lot easier and much less error prone making boards. It's nice to just submit gerbers and get boards back. It was a really big deal getting boards before.


                                    Regards

                                    cww

                                    I remember the mechanical marvel that was the ruby camera we had for making ICs, that was one big camera.

                                    Then we got a CAD system, took up two rooms and the pen plotter was another mechanical marvel.  I believe it was a 5 foot x 10 foot bed, used pressure-fed pens that were on an auto changer, and could take a day or two to make a plot.  The lead screws were the flap drivers off a Boeing aircraft and that thing could slide that I-beam pen holder from one end to the other amazingly fast.

                                    I got to design and wire up a rig so it could be left unattended, the operator could call in for status.  CalComp was impressed.  I also made a custom driver for the CAD system so it could use screens larger than a napkin.
                                    -- 
                                    Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc.  www.interstellar.com
                                    tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
                                    Skype:  jerrydurand



                                  • Curt Wuollet
                                    They still design with tubes, there are very few 50,000 watt IC s. Regards cww ... They still design with tubes, there are very few 50,000 watt IC s. Regards
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jun 26, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      They still design with tubes, there are very few 50,000 watt IC's.

                                      Regards

                                      cww


                                      On 06/25/2013 11:56 PM, MC Cason wrote:
                                       

                                      On 06/25/2013 11:24 PM, Vern wrote:
                                      > I had to do mine with a etch-a-sketch, a sharpie and a pie plate full
                                      > of ferric nitrate on a Bunsen burner. I had to build my ic's from
                                      > discrete devices, chicken toe nails and super glue... Then test it
                                      > all with a light bulb and a vacuum tube theremin. So there. ;)
                                      >
                                      > Sent from my iPhone
                                      >

                                      Sounds like me, when I was in college.

                                      Pencil and paper, rub-on pads, a Sharpie, and hot Ferric Chloride in
                                      a glass dish, ICs were already fairly cheap, 555's aplenty, as well as
                                      logic gates. I never got into vacuum tubes, they were pretty much
                                      history by then...

                                      Designing on a Etch-a-Sketch... HMM, I'll have to try that some
                                      time. It may freak out my eldest granddaughter though.

                                      --
                                      MC Cason
                                      Associate Developer - Eagle3D, Created by Matthias Weißer


                                    • urrossum@att.net
                                      ... And at the other end of the power spectrum, there are still some splinter areas that are enamored of tubes. I don t really get the tube hi-fi thing; it
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jun 27, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > They still design with tubes, there are very few 50,000 watt IC's.

                                        And at the other end of the power spectrum, there are still some splinter areas that are enamored of tubes. I don't really "get" the tube hi-fi thing; it seems to me that anything other than precise, linear amplification (possibly with tone controls/equalization) is essentially distortion, regardless of how musical it may be.

                                        However, in the actual music production context, that distortion can be quite useful. Enough so, in fact, that I'm now designing a couple of "boutique" tube pre-amps for the guitar and harmonica markets. I've learned a lot about the way tubes work over the last few weeks, and although I could probably model with reasonable accuracy the distortion of a starved-plate class-A stage using a DSP, it's just a lot easier to use the real thing. There's of course a certain cachet to doing it this way as well, and for the quantities I'm looking at there's still enough new-old-stock to make small production runs viable.

                                        Don't get me started on the (non-)merits of "hand-wiring", though...
                                        ~~
                                        Mark Moulding
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.