[OT] Small rant of my own:
I don't recall seeing ANY screwholes on any MOTM module, and I have a
few. My Wiard Joystick on the other hand...I may have misread this
post, and if I have I apologize. It is entirely possible to put Wiard
modules behind an MOTM faceplate without screwholes, so the reason we
don't see Wiard modules in MOTM format must be something else.
Mike
--- In
ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "Grant Richter"
<grichter@...> wrote:
>
> First, no offense to Chris for an excellent question.
>
> Don't talk to me about "no screw holes in the faceplate" that is why
you don't see Wiard
> modules in MOTM format. That idea is insulting to any designer.
>
> Spend your time thinking about MUSIC, forget the g∗dd∗mn screwholes,
get some therapy
> for your out of control OCD behavior, how many times do you wash
your hands a
> day?????????????????? (loud hissing of steam escaping from ears).
>
> I apologize for the rant, silly limitations really annoy me.
>
> There is no advantage to ANY panel mounted components being in hard
copper on the PC
> board.
>
> What if someone wants to use it for controlling dimmer packs for a
hobby theater?
> Then the board would be bench top mounted horizontally and the pots
would be slide
> pots. It could support both 0-10 volt packs and the MIDI controlled
ones.
>
> What about using it to control servo laser scanners for a laserium
light show? (those are
> voltage outputs to current drivers)
>
> What if all the pots are force sensing resistors built into a
dancers suit?
>
> What about if it is used for squib control to light the "Burning
Man" on fire when
> Interstellar Overdrive reaches the climax?
>
> OK, those are meant to be humorous examples, but also practical
applications.
>
> I don't see an anvantage favoring any mounting position or
potentiometer type, spacing or
> placement. I would just use the Wiard pigtail pot assembly method.
That is each pot,
> switch or whatever has a dedicated 0.100 KK connector. You can
always solder directly to
> the PC pads and skip the connectors.
>
> I would use the extra space for as much perf board area as possible
for hanging more
> experimenters chips, sensors, high current servo drivers etc.
>
> We will have holes in the right spots for that MOTM metal bracket
thingy. Can sombody
> tell me what that spacing and hole size is?
>
> A 4 x 6 board will fit in a Frac-Rac. Is 6-7 inches too deep for
MOTM and Doepfer racks?
>
>
>
>
> --- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, xamboldt <xamboldt@>
wrote:
> >
> > Or... if pots aren't PCB-mounted, what panel components should be?
> > MIDI Jacks? DIN? LEDs? We've already heard that DIN might not be
> > something everyone would want...
> >
> > Would there be room for 4 pots and MIDI I/O?
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> > On Mar 10, 2006, at 3:10 PM, xamboldt wrote:
> >
> > > Can of worms warning!
> > >
> > > Should the PCB be laid out so as to allow PCB-mounted pots for
> > > perhaps 4 or 6 of the controls? Different front panel formats could
> > > be allowed for by simply doing point-to-point wiring instead of PCB
> > > mounting the pots. The difficulty comes in deciding which format
> > > would be used to dictate the spacing of holes for the PCB-mounted
> > > pots. Both Blacet and MOTM have standards we could appropriate for
> > > PCB-mounted pots. The CVS' pots (as spelled out by Grant) are
grouped
> > > in functional units of 4, and that is the typical max vertical
> > > allowance of pots on an MOTM panel. Blacet has up to 6 maximum, but
> > > plenty of designs have fewer pots.
> > >
> > > I guess someone had to bring it up.... :)
> > >
> > > -Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think we can use the Metalbox style 1900H knobs and Alpha pots
> > > > for Frac-Rac.
> > > > The jack spacing should accept either Switchcraft (Blacet) or
> > > > 16PJ135 (Wiard) jacks.
> > > > The 16PJ135 jacks wire up very neatly because of the ground tangs
> > > > being in-line.
> > > > The knurled nuts are designed to be assembled with fingernails, so
> > > > that is one less tool
> > > > you need.
> > >
> >
>