[sdiy] digital noise: protoboard vs solder breadboard

[Scott Gravenhorst]

I agree that they suck, but I do find them useful for
proof of concept for many circuits.  And perhaps I am
blessed or lucky to have ones that are not intermittent.
YMMV.  Honestly, I've never had one go intermittent.  I 
have seen noise problems, but only to the point of an 
elevated floor and not enough to kibash the proof of
design.  And I do finish out projects with solder that
prove themselves.  It's certainly wise to keep in mind
what they are and how they are made, understanding the
problems they introduce.  Sometimes, I will put 
particularly sensitive or tricky bits on stripboard and
run wires out to the protoboard to experiment with the
more unknown aspects of the project.  IMHO, they are
not perfect, but not useless either.  I find them to be
valuable in proof of concept about 95% or more of the time 
I build something _experimental_.  The last time I did this,
I was REALLY GLAD I did.  It was the René Schmitz 4069
VCO.  When I wired it on solderless, I discovered that
the PWM part did not work properly.  Instead of a solid
edge, there was a burst of pulses.  I was SURE this was
either a bad chip or the breadboard.  First I replaced
the chip.  Still there.  So I yanked it all out and put
it onto a different row.  STILL THERE.  After contacting
René, we discovered that the problem was a sensitivity
(of at least that mfr of the 4069) to the specific gates
being used.  René found that putting the gates in one
of two configurations would cause the problem to arise.
The circuit was correctly designed, but something was wierd
about the die perhaps.

I can tell you that this would have been VERY frustrating
to discover and resolve WITHOUT a solderless breadboard.

So, although I will not sing it's praises, I will not toss
it out either.  Rather, I will use it with the caution it 
deserves. 

harry <harrybissell at prodigy.net> wrote:
>Howdy Paul (et all)
>
>Paul Perry wrote:
>
>> At 10:04 AM 25/02/02 -0700, Kenneth Martinez wrote:
>>
>> >I'm gonna keep using the protoboards - they sure are convenient for
>> >quick experimenting - but I'll keep their limitations in mind.
>
>Yes... they are only good for prototyping BBD circuits where the
>degraded
>performance cannot be noticed   ;^)
>
>> For a violent & intemerate  (but possibly justified!) attack on
>> 'thoose plastic slabs'o'trouble' see Bob Pease's book,
>> "Troubleshooting Analog Circuits"
>
>I'm with Bob... the plastic proto baords basically suck. Had VERY bad
>experiences with them in College (when a potential product failed a demo
>because
>the proto board was intermittant... just when the customer showed to see
>it work!)
>
>>
>> Amusingly, he also attacks emulation software,
>
>I recall he was against BLIND obediance to simulation results... when
>they show absurd things. I don't trust them either but they are a good
>sanity check...
>
>
>> but i see the latest
>> reprint has a CD with ElectronicWorkbench demos of the example ckts!
>
>Cool.  Maybe he'll bring a laptop to the next bicycle trek ???
>
>H^) harry
>
>
>

=========================================================  
- Government: The other religion.
- The media's credibility should always be questioned.
- Lambs who lie down with lions are lunch.

-- Scott Gravenhorst | LegoManiac / Lego Trains / RIS 1.5
-- Linux Rex         | RedWebMail by RedStarWare
-- FatMan: home1.GTE.NET/res0658s/FatMan/index.html
-- NonFatMan: home1.GTE.NET/res0658s/electronics/index.html