Homebrew PCBs

I wonder if there's any feasibility to using some kind of a CNC setup to do 
wire-wrapping?  Any of you guys have any thoughts on this?

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Roy J. Tellason" 
<rtellason@b...> wrote:
> I wonder if there's any feasibility to using some kind of a CNC 
setup to do 
> wire-wrapping?  Any of you guys have any thoughts on this?


yeah....

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cnc-wirewrap_PCBs

Only kidding : )

Dave

--- "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason@...> wrote:
> I wonder if there's any feasibility to using some
> kind of a CNC setup to do 
> wire-wrapping?  Any of you guys have any thoughts on
> this?

The only model that I can think of would involve a
setup similar to a sewing machine (With a sewing
needle). It would use small gauge enamel covered wire:
The type used for magnetic windings. 

Wire wrapping is great for prototyping in conjunction
with bread boards, but that's about all it's good for.
It's much easier to etch than build and use the
Frankenstein I just described. 

IMHO: What a nightmare... 


Best



Marvin Dickens

 

=====
Registered Linux User No. 80253
If you use linux, get counted at: 
http://www.linuxcounter.org


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

On Tuesday 27 April 2004 11:54 pm, mpdickens wrote:
> --- "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason@...> wrote:
> > I wonder if there's any feasibility to using some kind of a CNC setup to
> > do wire-wrapping?  Any of you guys have any thoughts on this?

> The only model that I can think of would involve a setup similar to a sewing
> machine (With a sewing needle). It would use small gauge enamel covered
> wire: The type used for magnetic windings.

This reminds me of a "wiring pencil" that somebody (Vector?) came out with 
some years back.  You were supposed to be able to use this thing to sort of 
wrap wire around component leads and similar stuff,  and then solder right 
through the insulation.

Then there's the regular "wire-wrap pencil" that I think Radio Shack sold for 
a while (dunno if they still do).  That had a small spool on the top of the 
unit,  and a little slider with one of the positions being "cut",  I forget 
what the other one is labeled.  Maybe something working on that principle 
might be feasible,  though I'd rather go with more wire than with those 
little bitty spools that thing used.

> Wire wrapping is great for prototyping in conjunction with bread boards, but
> that's about all it's good for. It's much easier to etch than build and use
> the Frankenstein I just described.
>
> IMHO: What a nightmare...

I'd say that depends on what you're building.  For stuff involving odd 
packages and any nontrivial number of discrete components I'd be inclined to 
agree with you.  OTOH,  when you start talking about a lot of logic chips,  
or even some processors and other LSI,  etched boards start to require a lot 
of jumpers or you end up needing a multilayer board,  and I don't care to go 
there,  either.

I'm sure that it's possible,  as I've seen ads for companies that would do 
that sort of thing.  Whether it's feasible for a homebrew setup is another 
issue entirely,  though.  That's why I raised the question in the first 
place.  :-)

In a message dated 4/27/2004 8:53:46 PM Central Standard Time, 
rtellason@... writes:
I wonder if there's any feasibility to using some kind of a CNC setup to do 
wire-wrapping?  Any of you guys have any thoughts on this?
SOMEwhere, aeons ago, I saw a video of a "professional" WW machine going TO 
it.  It'd strip the end, wrap it at about 3000 RPM, move "least number of 
bends" to next pin, cut, strip, and wrap, and zip to next pin to do.  Musta done 3 
wires per second.  HORRIBLY-dangerous looking contraption!  But I now have NO 
clue who/what that was. 

BUT such a machine is kinda WAY out there in terms of complexity, etc.  If 
built so that such would work reasonably well, I am sure it'd cost at least a 
couple $thousand, NOT counting the computer!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

actually, I think that this could be done with what is emerging as a 
some what standard CNC PCB machine (3 axis basis plus "special" 
axises (axees?)) with a wrap gun attachment.  I see two problems that 
need solution: 

a) routing the wires. probably done by hand but you need to handle 
the issue of binding and wire build up.

b) ww socket tails (i.e. the wire posts you wrap on) are not terribly 
accurate in their position.  I've used em and its inevitible that 
they get bent a little.  Finding the post to slide the wire spinner 
onto would be tricky.  maybe just have a funnel on the wrap tool to 
guide the sleeve to the post.

Of course, this is kind of a moot point as WW appears to be 
dissapearing.  Guess those pesky SMDs dont wrap very well...

But this does bring up a kind of wild idea I've thought about during 
episodes of low blood sugar.  Why not just have a direct wire 
machine?  Stuff the components (TH, of course) into a predrilled 
board. Invert the board (securing the components somehow) and then a 
machine strips a wire, solders it to a lead, moves (er, routes the 
wire) to the next lead, cuts the wire (if terminal run), solders it 
to the lead and moves to the next lead.  There was a company in the 
70s (could still be around) called multiwire or some such that did 
this for fast turn prototypes. It was quite expensive but it produced 
some very complex boards fast.  If I remember correctly, the first 
intel 386 logic simulator (made out of random logic gates) was built 
with this technology.  I think fast turn PCB houses pretty much 
killed their business.

Hello Roy,

As a designer, builder and user of CNC machines for a couple decades 
now, I'd say it's a no-starter. For all the reasons the previous 
replies have stated...

Add to their replies my belief that the cost to do it reliably will 
be so far in excess of the other choices we have available. Like 
circuit milling, and TT. And quick turn board houses with reasonably 
decent pricing.

I'm sure it can be done. I'm told Bill Lear had one at his place in 
Reno (Stead AFB) doing it some many years ago (Like what Jan 
described.) I remember seeing a video. But I won't be pursuing it as 
a viable thing nowadays. 

Ballendo

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Roy J. Tellason" 
<rtellason@b...> wrote:
> I wonder if there's any feasibility to using some kind of a CNC 
setup to do 
> wire-wrapping?  Any of you guys have any thoughts on this?

On Wednesday 28 April 2004 12:45 am, JanRwl@... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/27/2004 8:53:46 PM Central Standard Time,
> rtellason@... writes:
> I wonder if there's any feasibility to using some kind of a CNC setup to do
> wire-wrapping?  Any of you guys have any thoughts on this?
> SOMEwhere, aeons ago, I saw a video of a "professional" WW machine going TO
> it.  It'd strip the end, wrap it at about 3000 RPM, move "least number of
> bends" to next pin, cut, strip, and wrap, and zip to next pin to do.  Musta
> done 3 wires per second.  HORRIBLY-dangerous looking contraption!  But I
> now have NO clue who/what that was.

You had to strip the wires yourself?  Yikes.  That's one of the more 
time-consuming portions of wire-wrapping...

> BUT such a machine is kinda WAY out there in terms of complexity, etc.  If
> built so that such would work reasonably well, I am sure it'd cost at least
> a couple $thousand, NOT counting the computer!

I don't count computers as additional expense,   Got plenty of boards and such 
around here,  I'm sure I could come up with something that would do the job 
if the rest of it were feasible.

The thing is,  people are talking about mechanical component placement in 
here.  If they're through-hole components,  then it's not *that* much more 
complicated,  is it?

On Wednesday 28 April 2004 01:38 am, Phil wrote:
> actually, I think that this could be done with what is emerging as a
> some what standard CNC PCB machine (3 axis basis plus "special"
> axises (axees?)) with a wrap gun attachment.  I see two problems that
> need solution:
>
> a) routing the wires. probably done by hand but you need to handle
> the issue of binding and wire build up.

I'm not real sure about how you'd handle this part.

> b) ww socket tails (i.e. the wire posts you wrap on) are not terribly
> accurate in their position.  I've used em and its inevitible that
> they get bent a little.  Finding the post to slide the wire spinner
> onto would be tricky.  maybe just have a funnel on the wrap tool to
> guide the sleeve to the post.

It couldn't be very big,  as close as those pins are to each other.  I guess 
that's why the ends of the pins are pointed...

> Of course, this is kind of a moot point as WW appears to be
> dissapearing.  Guess those pesky SMDs dont wrap very well...

Is it?  I can't say that I'm tracking things well enough to have seen that one 
way or the other.

> But this does bring up a kind of wild idea I've thought about during
> episodes of low blood sugar.  Why not just have a direct wire
> machine?  Stuff the components (TH, of course) into a predrilled
> board. Invert the board (securing the components somehow) 

Bending the wires will usually do that.

> and then a machine strips a wire, solders it to a lead, moves (er, routes
> the wire) to the next lead, cuts the wire (if terminal run), solders it
> to the lead and moves to the next lead.  There was a company in the
> 70s (could still be around) called multiwire or some such that did
> this for fast turn prototypes. It was quite expensive but it produced
> some very complex boards fast.  If I remember correctly, the first
> intel 386 logic simulator (made out of random logic gates) was built
> with this technology.  I think fast turn PCB houses pretty much
> killed their business.

I can't imagine anybody prototyping a 386 chip with random logic gates...!

Sounds like such a machine would be possible,  but you'd need to have the 
feeding of wire,  stripping,  soldering,  and so forth all working right.  I 
guess we could lump most of this stuff under the heading of "automated 
assembly",  which seems like a pretty good topic to me.  Even if we don't go 
with your suggestion or with wire-wrap,  something useful may come out of 
this...

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Roy J. Tellason" 
<rtellason@b...> wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 April 2004 01:38 am, Phil wrote:
...
>                             If I remember correctly, the first
> > intel 386 logic simulator (made out of random logic gates) was 
built
> > with this technology.  I think fast turn PCB houses pretty much
> > killed their business.
> 
> I can't imagine anybody prototyping a 386 chip with random logic 
gates...!


Given huge design time and 12 week turn around from tape-out to first 
silicon they wanted to make sure the design was correct - errors 
could set the product availablity by 6 months or more.  This was 
before the availability of sophisticated simulations and copious 
cheap CPU cycles. And, it was far more complex than any chip ever 
buil before.  As it turned out, it was a big waste of money.

Roy J. Tellason wrote:
> I wonder if there's any feasibility to using some kind of a CNC setup to do 
> wire-wrapping?  Any of you guys have any thoughts on this?

This was done by an australian company to a high degree of
sophistication. The wiring was pressed into epoxy about 1.6mm thick.
Reliability problems were a killer;)

Actually I believe that the patent holders, Gardner Denver / Cooper Industries did produce an automated wire wrap machine years ago.  

Was used to WW backplanes for big iron mainframe computer. 

Having been in the computer business since 1976 I do recall one of the early now long gone micro manufacture that did an S-100 or ??  backplane with automated wirewrap.

Hugh

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Phil 
  To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:38 AM
  Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: wire-wrap


  actually, I think that this could be done with what is emerging as a 
  some what standard CNC PCB machine (3 axis basis plus "special" 
  axises (axees?)) with a wrap gun attachment.  I see two problems that 
  need solution: 

  a) routing the wires. probably done by hand but you need to handle 
  the issue of binding and wire build up.

  b) ww socket tails (i.e. the wire posts you wrap on) are not terribly 
  accurate in their position.  I've used em and its inevitible that 
  they get bent a little.  Finding the post to slide the wire spinner 
  onto would be tricky.  maybe just have a funnel on the wrap tool to 
  guide the sleeve to the post.

  Of course, this is kind of a moot point as WW appears to be 
  dissapearing.  Guess those pesky SMDs dont wrap very well...

  But this does bring up a kind of wild idea I've thought about during 
  episodes of low blood sugar.  Why not just have a direct wire 
  machine?  Stuff the components (TH, of course) into a predrilled 
  board. Invert the board (securing the components somehow) and then a 
  machine strips a wire, solders it to a lead, moves (er, routes the 
  wire) to the next lead, cuts the wire (if terminal run), solders it 
  to the lead and moves to the next lead.  There was a company in the 
  70s (could still be around) called multiwire or some such that did 
  this for fast turn prototypes. It was quite expensive but it produced 
  some very complex boards fast.  If I remember correctly, the first 
  intel 386 logic simulator (made out of random logic gates) was built 
  with this technology.  I think fast turn PCB houses pretty much 
  killed their business.





  Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Roy,

I think it would be MUCH harder to make a homemade through hole pick 
and place! (To the degree that I won't even be trying...)

Ballendo

In Homebrew_PCBs, "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason@b...> wrote:

>The thing is,  people are talking about mechanical component 
>placement in here.  If they're through-hole components,  then it's 
>not *that* much more complicated,  is it?

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:09:05 -0000, ballendo <ballendo@...> wrote:

> Roy,
>
> I think it would be MUCH harder to make a homemade through hole pick
> and place! (To the degree that I won't even be trying...)
>
> Ballendo

I agree, I have no clue how the industrial machines manage to get the legs 
in the holes.
I further see no reason why one should try such a thing.
If you can make a pick and place you can go smd and have the added benefit 
of automatic soldering.
(yes i am aware this is possible too with throuhhole).

For i smd machine i would suggest using reeled parts, but maybe not really 
using the reels.
just make an area at the side with little pegs holding the strips cut from 
a reel, flat, straight.
then remove the plastic cover. the machine needs to know where to take the 
part from and where to place
it. you only cut strips of the length you will need from your reels.

I think it would be much harder to make a sufficient number of "roll and 
peel of the plastic cover"
pickup stations. I also think one can live without automatic placement of 
the special parts
which you don't have on reels, maybe you could make a few "plase part 
against that fixed edge by hand"
pickup stations.


It would be a help if the machine could precisely place all resistors and 
capacitors, maybe diodes
and transistors too... because that is what you normally have in 
machine-friendly reels.


I don't think the hardware would be that much of a problem, you need a 
rotating vacuum holder of course.
(maybe one could replace the shaft of a stepper by a tube, or drill a hole 
through it - this
way the work needed for this part would be minimal. a flexible hose to the 
top with a "rotating" connector
and ready.

What i really wonder about is how it is possible to generate the needed 
files.
I do not think this could be done automated from a layout file.
this is the reason why i most likely will never attempt such a machine.
It seems to make no sense for one-offs or only a few boards.

ST

Just checked the "how do you get a pick and place file" question.
Asked the orcad help and it says go to "create component report" and you 
get
a file like that:


REF DES    VALUE            PACKAGE          
FOOTPRINT                      X LOC      Y LOC      ROTATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C1         1N               C_ELECT          
CYL/D.175/LS.100/.031           -63.50 mm  29.21 mm  90
C2         15P              C                
CYL/D.175/LS.100/.031           -33.02 mm  38.10 mm  180
C3         15P              C                
CYL/D.175/LS.100/.031           -33.02 mm  43.18 mm  180
D1         1N4617           1N4617           
AX/.400X.100/.031               -36.83 mm  22.86 mm  90

So that seems not the problem.
You can change a part origin in the library.

Still - preparing the file, and especially preparing the components in a 
"machine friendly" way
will most likely take you longer than just putting them where you want 
them.
You would need to tell the machine where which part is located, and then 
add a "fetch part" line
before each "place part" line.
But converting the above file to the "dop part" seems not the hardest 
thing to do.

ST

Russell,

Do you remember the name of that company? I remember once seeing 
something like that at Nepcon, or PcbWest...

Thank you in advance,

Ballendo

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@n...> 
wrote:
> Roy J. Tellason wrote:
> > I wonder if there's any feasibility to using some kind of a CNC 
setup to do 

> > wire-wrapping?  Any of you guys have any thoughts on this?
> 
> This was done by an australian company to a high degree of
> sophistication. The wiring was pressed into epoxy about 1.6mm thick.
> Reliability problems were a killer;)

>In Homebrew_PCBs, Stefan Trethan <stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:
>What i really wonder about is how it is possible to generate the 
>needed files.
>I do not think this could be done automated from a layout file.
>this is the reason why i most likely will never attempt such a 
>machine. It seems to make no sense for one-offs or only a few boards.

Stefan,

PLEASE have a look at the ULP's used with Eagle. They ALREADY have 
one for pick and place... (And if you're using OrCAD, I'd bet--with 
every assurance of winning-- that you have access to making pick and 
place files too...)

> PLEASE have a look at the ULP's used with Eagle. They ALREADY have
> one for pick and place... (And if you're using OrCAD, I'd bet--with
> every assurance of winning-- that you have access to making pick and
> place files too...)
>
>


I did exactly that and you are correct...
Could not find the eagle ULP, was not sure if it exists, i will try again.
A later post shows that orcad is just fine.

I hope you have read the "place cutoff stips of reels to one side of the 
cnc, hold by pegs"
thing. i think it is a good idea, what do you think?.

I do no longer think the pick and place file is impossible, it is slightly 
more
difficult than paste dispensing (because you have to fetch the parts)
but it is not undoable.


ST

D@^# I typed a lot of replies this evening!

>In Homebrew_PCBs, Stefan Trethan <stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:
> 
> I did exactly that and you are correct...
> A later post shows that orcad is just fine.

Yep. saw that.

>I hope you have read the "place cutoff stips of reels to one side of 
>the cnc, hold by pegs" thing. i think it is a good idea, what do you 
>think?.

A good idea to use the less than full reels? Definitely. We are a 
hobby and small shop group, after all. But I'll use the machine to 
index even these short tapes, so the pickup point is the same for 
each part at a given "tape slot". Something perhaps non-obvious to a 
new cnc user is that the machine can do things in unusual ways. For 
instance, motion can be programmed to "press a button" before trying 
to pick up the part. The button can be ANYWHERE that ANY part of the 
machine can reach... So you might not "press it" with the z axis, but 
perhaps simply be moving the machine gantry to a certain place. This 
movement hits the switch to index the tape/reel. You could also use 
the needle of the vacuum pickup itself and an optical switch, firing 
a "one shot" in your macro... or in external hardware... Lotta ways 
to "skin this cat"...   

>I do no longer think the pick and place file is impossible, it is 
>slightly more difficult than paste dispensing (because you have to 
>fetch the parts)but it is not undoable.

Exactly. Doing it is pretty easy. Doing it WELL is quite a bit 
tougher... And solder paste dispensing is EASY by comparison. 


Ballendo

> A good idea to use the less than full reels? Definitely. We are a
> hobby and small shop group, after all. But I'll use the machine to
> index even these short tapes, so the pickup point is the same for
> each part at a given "tape slot". Something perhaps non-obvious to a
> new cnc user is that the machine can do things in unusual ways. For
> instance, motion can be programmed to "press a button" before trying
> to pick up the part. The button can be ANYWHERE that ANY part of the
> machine can reach... So you might not "press it" with the z axis, but
> perhaps simply be moving the machine gantry to a certain place. This
> movement hits the switch to index the tape/reel. You could also use
> the needle of the vacuum pickup itself and an optical switch, firing
> a "one shot" in your macro... or in external hardware... Lotta ways
> to "skin this cat"...

"indexing" means you are going to move the strips, right?
I wonder how you plan to peel off the tape, i think it is definitely WAY 
harder
to do this than fixed, "static" pickup bays.
I would simply peel the tape off the whole length.
Of course the file must look different, the part is on another position 
each time.
But i do not think it is impossible, or any harder than moving the strips.
You can drill the holes for the "pegs" which hold the strips with the CNC, 
thus make sure
everything is dead on spot and parallel.

ST

ballendo wrote:
> Russell,
> 
> Do you remember the name of that company? I remember once seeing 
> something like that at Nepcon, or PcbWest...

It sounded vaguely like pcbwest. The boards were made for gear
at my last job, before i even worked there.

> Thank you in advance,
> 
> Ballendo
> 
> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@n...> 
> wrote:
> 
>>Roy J. Tellason wrote:
>>
>>>I wonder if there's any feasibility to using some kind of a CNC 
> 
> setup to do 
> 
>>>wire-wrapping?  Any of you guys have any thoughts on this?
>>
>>This was done by an australian company to a high degree of
>>sophistication. The wiring was pressed into epoxy about 1.6mm thick.
>>Reliability problems were a killer;)
>

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Trethan 
<stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:09:05 -0000, ballendo <ballendo@y...> wrote:
> 
> > Roy,
> >
> > I think it would be MUCH harder to make a homemade through hole 
pick
> > and place! (To the degree that I won't even be trying...)
> >
> > Ballendo
> 
> I agree, I have no clue how the industrial machines manage to get 
the legs 
> in the holes.


In my search for a shop to do small runs of assembling boards, I 
found one that detailed how they did P-n-P.

First, forget thru-holes.  no reason.  SMT caps and resistors are non-
polarity (most anyway) so that is a non-issue.

Anyway, they had one machine with 16 reels that pulled parts to 
another reel that was for the board.  In other words, they made their 
own single reel for a board and then the board stuffing machine only 
had to deal with one source of all chips.

Dave



Dave

Stefan,

What you're suggesting CAN work. It just comes back to your original 
concern. Because it will now take a LOT of extra programming to 
account for the "moving" location of the "same" component. MUCH 
harder to deal with IMO. 

A bigger concern IMO, is that by doing it this way you have severely 
limited the capability/expandability of the machine.

Since you are using discrete locations, you can only have as many as 
your machine travel allows. The more SMD parts you have, the less 
room for the board itself! By "solving" the indexing "problem", you 
can have the parts COUNT of a given SMD footprint entirely variable. 
whether your strip is 5 or 500 parts, it takes up the same SMALL 
space in your machine work area... If you have a board with 20 caps, 
you've used up 20 caps worth--in tape length, not part length!-- of 
machine travel.

My way, I'll use perhaps 2 caps worth. (and you have to reload 
your "tray" for each board. not a problem at first, but after awhile 
it'll get old. I'll just use a longer tape and make more boards...

My way it's parts TYPES which use up my space. Your way it's NUMBER 
of parts using up your space. Looked at that way, it should be easy 
to see that its worthwhile to do the indexing...

Ballendo

P.S. I DO have "static" pickup bays. They just have a tape which 
indexes underneath them... Peeling off the thin plastic cover is not 
hard. It's just part of the index to the next part position.

Funny though, In electronics I thought we wanted to avoid static 
pickup<G> Which DOES bring up the concern about grounding the vac 
pickup needle, as the air moving through it can make a pretty good 
electrostatic machine. Wimhurst or van de graff anyone?<G>  

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Trethan 
<stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:
> "indexing" means you are going to move the strips, right?
> I wonder how you plan to peel off the tape, i think it is 
definitely WAY harder to do this than fixed, "static" pickup bays.
> I would simply peel the tape off the whole length.
> Of course the file must look different, the part is on another 
position 
> each time.
> But i do not think it is impossible, or any harder than moving the 
strips.
> You can drill the holes for the "pegs" which hold the strips with 
the CNC, 

> thus make sure
> everything is dead on spot and parallel.
> 
> ST

Hello,

Yep. Called tape reel part sequencing. You can order reels pre-
sequenced for your boards from the larger distributors.

Ballendo 


--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Mucha" <dave_mucha@y...> 
wrote:
> Anyway, they had one machine with 16 reels that pulled parts to 
> another reel that was for the board.  In other words, they made 
their 
> own single reel for a board and then the board stuffing machine 
only 

> had to deal with one source of all chips.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> Dave

> First, forget thru-holes.  no reason.  SMT caps and resistors are non-
> polarity (most anyway) so that is a non-issue.

agreed.

>
> Anyway, they had one machine with 16 reels that pulled parts to
> another reel that was for the board.  In other words, they made their
> own single reel for a board and then the board stuffing machine only
> had to deal with one source of all chips.
>
> Dave
>

Hmm how did they manage to fit different-size chips on one reel?
Anyway, seems to complicated for me.
I think my approach with the "small strips" is not too bad, it would be 
fairly quick
to "stick up" new strips on the holding pegs.
A thing to consider is how the software is going to be told where which 
part is deposited.
This must be fairly easy otherwise you will never do it for only one board.

No matter what, it is definitely a thing for me to consider, but not put 
any effort in.

I will first build a simple drilling machine, then add a paste dispenser,
then maybe add a pick and place if i still want.
It is goo to know the option is there because now i will most likely make 
one axis a bit
longer than initially planned to allow for some parts space.

ST

On Wednesday 28 April 2004 11:46 pm, Hugh Prescott wrote:
> Actually I believe that the patent holders, Gardner Denver / Cooper
> Industries did produce an automated wire wrap machine years ago.
>
> Was used to WW backplanes for big iron mainframe computer.
>
> Having been in the computer business since 1976 I do recall one of the
> early now long gone micro manufacture that did an S-100 or ??  backplane
> with automated wirewrap.

Got more than one S100 box here,  and it would rather surprise me if one of 
those backplanes got wire-wrapped,  they're that straightforward.  Some of 
the plug-in boards,  on the other hand...

Do you happen to remember what mfr. it was?

> Since you are using discrete locations, you can only have as many as
> your machine travel allows.

That is all nice and true.
But for me it seems a reliable indexing mechanism with a sufficient number 
of bays
is so much work it is not worthwile.
You can hardly make a complete indexing mechanism the size only one part 
on a strip consumes
and you often will need less than 10 parts, mabe even only 1.
You can place a impressive number of smd parts on half a A4 page and 
nobody prevents me
 from making the axis 20cm longer than needed for the boards.

I find it much simpler and surely will try it first, if i come to trying 
it after
completing the other stuff.


I understand it is no good for series production, as each board would 
require reload,
or entering/calculating new parts position. With indexing you only repeat 
the exactly same
thing ever and ever again.

It's just my demands are not that high and i have enough other problems to 
solve
before even thinking about indexing...

ST

On Thursday 29 April 2004 05:09 am, ballendo wrote:
> Roy,
>
> I think it would be MUCH harder to make a homemade through hole pick
> and place! (To the degree that I won't even be trying...)

Yeah,  it'd be a real challenge all right.  Not that I'd even know where to 
start!	:-)

> Ballendo
>
> In Homebrew_PCBs, "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason@b...> wrote:
> >The thing is,  people are talking about mechanical component
> >placement in here.  If they're through-hole components,  then it's
> >not *that* much more complicated,  is it?
>
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

On Thursday 29 April 2004 09:39 am, Dave Mucha wrote:

> Anyway, they had one machine with 16 reels that pulled parts to
> another reel that was for the board.  In other words, they made their
> own single reel for a board and then the board stuffing machine only
> had to deal with one source of all chips.

The one time I got to visit an actual manufacturing facility not far from 
here,  that was how they did it.  They had one machine with a bunch of reels 
on it (I think 8),  which pulled different parts to put on to one reel,  and 
that one was used,  with the required parts in proper sequence,  on the 
machine that did the actual P&P.  That last one was pretty awesome to 
watch...!

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Trethan 
<stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:
> 
> > PLEASE have a look at the ULP's used with Eagle. They ALREADY have
> > one for pick and place... (And if you're using OrCAD, I'd bet--
with
> > every assurance of winning-- that you have access to making pick 
and
> > place files too...)
> >
> >
> 
> 
> I did exactly that and you are correct...
> Could not find the eagle ULP, was not sure if it exists, i will try 
again.

look for smt-coordinate.ulp

> look for smt-coordinate.ulp


Your search - smt-coordinate.ulp - did not match any documents.

smd-coordinates.ulp finds 5 or so, but nothing useable.

thanks

ST

yes, coordinates.  sorry for the typo.  its in the base eagle install.

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Trethan 
<stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:

> 
> > look for smt-coordinate.ulp
> 
> 
> Your search - smt-coordinate.ulp - did not match any documents.
> 
> smd-coordinates.ulp finds 5 or so, but nothing useable.
> 
> thanks
> 
> ST

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:54 AM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] wire-wrap


> I wonder if there's any feasibility to using some kind of a CNC setup to
do
> wire-wrapping?  Any of you guys have any thoughts on this?

CNC machines used to be made for wire-wrapping. It's not used very much now.
I last used it about 15 years ago.

Leon
--
Leon Heller, G1HSM
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller

"least number of
> bends" to next pin, cut, strip, and wrap, and zip to next pin to do.
Musta done 3
> wires per second.  HORRIBLY-dangerous looking contraption!  But I now have
NO
> clue who/what that was.
>
> BUT such a machine is kinda WAY out there in terms of complexity, etc.  If
> built so that such would work reasonably well, I am sure it'd cost at
least a
> couple $thousand, NOT counting the computer!
>
I would tend to think around 10-100 times that, and yes, I've seen those
too. Really cool, but I don't think any one uses wire wrap anymore.

The old Texas Instrument 48 channel seismic recorders were all wire wrap.
Something like 250 wire wrapped plug in boards. Simulataneous sampling up to
200Hz, and stored on mag tape on a real cool reel to reel tape deck with
spinning tape heads like on a VCR.

Ron