Smartsockets board design
>> Are we talking about making more? I might be interested in someSurface mount components are a lot easier than you might think to hand
>> more, but I too would like to see them complete if you are planning on
>> using surfacemount components, as I have no way to build such a board.
assemble. The hardest part is not losing the components. :)
Really fine pitch IC's are probably a bit hard, but DIP IC's dont need
the "bend-to-fit, insert, bend again to hold while you turn over, solder,
cut, pickup cut leads" process that through-hole discretes do anyway, so I'd
stay with a DIP for the Micro and SMD for the discretes. no Board flipping
with components falling out for SMD's either.
A pair of tweezers, a magnifying lamp (if you arent short-sighted - I am, so I
can see them fine) and you're away. Give it a go sometime, I use SMD
discretes for all my prototype's constructed on donut board now - it makes
assembly so much faster and neater.
Another idea *if* you are doing a board redesign - maybe run some wide
edge-connector style tracks to each edge of the board with the data-in,
data-out lines flipped appropriately so if you are mounting the boards all
next to each other (most likely), then you can just bridge links (perhaps the
cut-off through-hole leads - ;) ) from one board to the other to link them
together and then you dont need to spend ages making all the inter-board
Multiplexing probably isnt worthwhile with the cost of the micros being so
- A redesign using SMD will reduce the partcount a bit.
Use driver IC's (high voltage ULN2003 version)
These contain 7 drivers. So 2x 16 pin IC's and one transistor will do the
I'm not sure if "base-resistors" are needed. If so, there's SMD-Arrays for
But it may cost a bit more and won't be a lot less work.
The end result may even be the same size as through-hole components.
All in all, some work and questionable improvement.
Still, I would be willing to make a redesign.
>-- Oorspronkelijk bericht --
>From: "Chris" <fixitsan@...>
>Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 07:58:52 -0000
>Subject: [smartsockets] Another type of socket , doubles, quads,(was) Re:Is
>anyone interested ....
>--- In email@example.com, Owen Rubin <orubin@...> wrote:
>> Per my previous request for getting boards made, one user in this
>> post that he was getting more made and people who wanted them could
>> Are we talking about making more? I might be interested in some
>more, but I
>> too would like to see them complete if you are planning on using
>> mount components, as I have no way to build such a board. If normal
>> component type, then a board and a programmed PIC should be
>> some of us are not so handy programming the pics, and I agree, a
>> stuffed board tested, and a complete kit would make great eBay
>> I am happy to set up auctions for if someone builds enough.
>The issue I have is that construction of a socket was taking me over
>30 minutes per socket when making batches of ten. The demand doesn't
>seem to be high enough to warrant construction costs. One board house
>quoted me a price for making and stuffing boards which would have
>made them slightly more expensive than the prices I charged, but not
>by much , if I ordered fifty.
>Another way to make them more cost effective is to make boards which
>drive more than one tube. The next easiest would be a 2-tube socket,
>with one larger microcontroller driving both tubes. Alternatively a 4-
>tube display would also be more cost effective.
>The units could be made to work exactly the same as single sockets so
>singles, doubles and quads could probably be mixed together in any
>combination. It would mean quite a serious re-write of software but
>thats the part I really enjoy. I suspect I could make these dispalys
>multiplexed, which would reduce parts count.
>An issue with multiplexing is that some of the effects are processor
>intensive and it may not be possible to get the smoothest
>transitions, but a double could be made with one controller, direct
>drive which negates that issue.
>This is something I need to do some work on, but I am wondering if
>anyone had any interest in this idea because most people are making
>two, four and six tube displays and therefore there seems to be a
>logic in making sockets for even numbers of tubes.
>I'ld be interested to hear anyone's thoughts.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Brett Paulin <yahoogroups@...>
>>>Thanks for the input over SMD components, I really must get myself to
do something about it. I think i just use through hole because it is
still readily available, but would like to try some SMD before it
becomes compulsory !
> Another idea *if* you are doing a board redesign - maybe run some
> edge-connector style tracks to each edge of the board with the data-in,
> data-out lines flipped appropriately so if you are mounting theboards all
> next to each other (most likely), then you can just bridge links(perhaps the
> cut-off through-hole leads - ;) ) from one board to the other tolink them
> together and then you dont need to spend ages making all the inter-board
> connector cables.Edge connectors on the side ? Great idea !
I guess I would need to make the tracks across the board which join
the edges larger than normal if somebody wanted to make a very large
array of them and hoped to pass all signals and voltages through
every edge connector ?
What would be the best track size here ? ' As large as can be made to
fit in the space allowed ' I suppose ?