Yes, saving space. That's exactly why most of the things I've built in
the last few years have been using small knobs. Not because I like
fiddling with tiny knobs, but just because I've run out of space.
Something I forgot to mention about the scanner (but will add a note
on my website) is that there's little point in using the 3 headers to
connect the rotary switch to the PCB if using the "all in one"
implementation because it requires an additional wire between the PCB
and rotary switch that is not on any of the headers. I originally had
the 3 headers on my PCB but was able to remove them (without
destroying them) when I realized this. So save yourself the hassle and
expense of those 3 headers.
On 21-Apr-09, at 8:33 PM, wjhall11 wrote:
> Well - that may be, but Your 3U version certainly saves space. And
> that's something we're running out of. I think there are advantages
> to both. Really, the motivation for our version was to get the
> jacks across the bottom and so their control knobs above them.
> We're using the smaller, PKES60B1/4 ALCO knobs for the nine input
> controls, after all.
>
> An advantage to this layout is also that most of the knobs and jakcs
> and LEDs line up horizontally on the standard MOTM grid. If one
> increased the panel to 5U, you could get them to align vertically
> with other modules as well... but that seems silly to us. In my
> experience, its horizontal alignment that has the greatest visual
> impact.
>
> But also thank you for correcting our design - we've altered it now
> to accommodate the 1-1/2" diameter of the switch with its solder
> lugs by moving it down and to the right side. On our diagram, that
> 1-1/2" is represented now by a dotted line. And we made the
> corrections you very graciously pointed out to the switches, etc.
>
> I can't figure out how to attach the drawing to this posting...
>
> I'll mess around with it a bit.
>
> Thanks Scott J!
>
> Bill (and Will)