DIY standards II

[Rory McDonald]

I am mostly a kit builder but I am trying to learn the workings of this
stuff as I go along- I would be more than willing to buy the PCB for some of
the circuits offered on this list.  I dont usually need step by step
directions (they are nice sometimes) but I would rather put components on a
PCB than to point-to-point  everything. Then I could modify it from there
ptp if I want. I know real techs dont need PCB, but there are those of us
who are still trying to understand and build projects who would rather not
put everything on a breadboard. Just my 2 cents...
-Rory M.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Harry Bissell [SMTP:harrybissell at netscape.net]
> Sent:	Saturday, April 03, 1999 10:15 AM
> To:	jhaible at primus-online.de
> Cc:	synth-diy at mailhost.bpa.nl
> Subject:	DIY standards II
> 
> Harry Bissell writes: "voluntary" standards. 
> 
> JH. I'm quite comfortable with vectorboard and push-pin terminals. Half of
> my modular was built that way. The drawback is that it is precisely what
> you mentiioned "one-off". It takes as much time to build a second one as
> the first. And for a "newbie" its out of the question.
> 
> I considered using a standard single-sided copper "proto-board" from some
> company like "Mouser" or "MCM" or even once upon a time "Radio (gag)
> Shcak". With common Bus connections and "three per pad" they let you do a
> pretty good job. But documentation takes longer than it takes for me to
> layout a PCB. (I'm quick...) And again, a newbie can't follow easily. Both
> point to point and "semi" point to point are hard to troubleshoot unless
> you have a lot of practice.
> 
> I have no commercial aspirations... but if I get a schematic from a list
> member (or one of mine) I can knock out a board at lunchtime or after
> hours at work, with no qurstions of "what project is that" and I can't do
> that with veroboard. Likewise, at home its easier to jump on the computer
> than get into a soldering project. 
> 
> What I'm suggesting is that the DIYers don't spin their wheels. Some of us
> excell at design, some debug, some at documentation and archiving, and
> some just at moral support and asking questions that stimulate research.
> "Standards" should be rejected the moment thay stifle the creative
> engines. But I'll make up some PCB's (designs and maybe even order
> some...)if people are interested. I just want to know how peol;pe like to
> mount them. (parallel to the panel, perpendicular to the panel, 3x5,
> 1.75"x 17.25" etc.)
> 
> Keep those cards and letters comming folks. When the thread ends I'll
> write a summary of the comments.   :-) harry
> 
> jh <jhaible at primus-online.de> wrote:
> Bureaucracy is the end of all creativity ...
> Standards can be as well. I've seen the pro's and con's of introducing
> standards in a big company, and I feel that sometimes the pro's outweight
> the con's, but not *that* much. But standards for a distributed community
> of
> DIY builders ? No way.
> I don't even have a standard for my own stuff I've built over the years.
> I set myseld standards for a limited peroid, like building that JH-3
> synth,
> or building 19" modules. Just to find that little table top boxes or
> stomp boxes can have their benefits, too, and that I wanted a whole
> new synth with a patch matrix rather than 1/4" jacks. Or the JH-4:
> Intended to hold 4 modules at the width of a 5 octave keyboard.
> What now ? Just one module finished. Thought about building a
> MS-20 clone to fit into that standard. Better than 19" at least.
> 
> As for PCB layout - it was this list which convinced me to give up
> making layouts. And I had a quite advanced technique to design
> very dense single sided layouts, as the people who got the JH-4
> filter stuff might have seen. But what is it good for one-offs ?
> Yes, it's good for sharing the designs, but then it takes a lot of
> time to create it,and I might be able to share 5 designs without
> pcbs in the same time. What would you prefer ?
> I highly recommend using veroboards, and mounting the components
> as you would on a printed board, i.e. no bunch of loose wires, but
> make the connections at the bottom as if it were copper tracks.
> Takes a little longer than a "wild" veroboard, but much faster than
> making a pcb layout.
> 
> If you have fun making good layouts, it's a good thing of course.
> I recently was given a pcb from Jörgen that was a pleasure
> to look at, densely populated to get max functions on minimum 
> space. Very nice. 
> 
> But what good would it be to make a pcb
> layout that is much larger that one could build on a veroboard ?
> With nothing more than straight copper connections between 
> components that are loosely spread across a large board ?
> 
> What I mean is if you have making multiple modules in mind
> (like Gene's famous ASM), or even something commercial,
> go for an optimized layout (and forget about anybody's standards).
> But if you only build for yourself and share the design, don't
> waste your energy and time.
> 
> JH.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
> http://webmail.netscape.com.