So, what is the official, unequivocal, best way to prototype circuitry; pcb, vero, prefab boards, or breadboard only?
>Hint: you're wrong
> not enough flaming on this board
And that's how we like it faggot. If you weren't such a faggot you would understand that each proto method has its own specialty and purpose, and there is no one "right" way to prototype a circuit. It depends on the circuit type, voltages involved, all sorts of shit. Go be a faggot somewhere else.
> Hint: >>>/b/
Now, I made custom PCB, event for prototipying. I put a lot of spare footprint and testpoints :
- no cabling errors :
- clean design
- good CEM, although not optimized
- can be tweaked easily
- on next iteration, you already have a base version of pcb and include some improvement
- not the cheapest way, but lot of time spared ! (there are lot of cheap manufacturer for hobbyists).
If you are building RF stuff none of the above.
>Horses for courses.
> he has no idea RF gear is built like this for a reason
> he thinks he is clever
Aren't you cute.
i know what RF is and why it's built like this in the 50, you dweeb. Everything you use nowadays has some portion of RF and it's usually shielded, not bodged like a spaghetti.
Now stroke your neckbeard and go try looking hip somewhere else, or just go shoot yourself right through your fedora.
OK. Fine for a one-off project. But the thread asked about prototyping. Which implies that the design will eventually go into production. Good luck with dead bug techniques.
RF designs are incredibly sensitive to layout. So a point-to-point prototype that works just fine may not work at all when converted to PCBs with machine stuffed components. So it pays to do the extra work for an RF design to go ahead and do a 'production' layout.
Even digital stuff may 'work' in a production configuration. But part of development is doing EMI testing (emmisions and susceptibility) and moving traces aound means going back and doing that testing all over again. And unless you have an in-house lab, that can be expensive to contract out.
Prototyping is a one off, proof of concept. If you wanted a production prototype then you could go and get a board fabricated.
My engineering lecturer told me stories about the good old days of antenna design. They'd roll a ball bearing around the receiver and test it. Then peen in a little dent when the ball found a place that provided better tuning, go back and test it again to fine tune it. He called it an art more than anything.
>1936 called. They want their wiring back.
In 1936 there were no PCBs. Everything was soldered between terminal strips, tube sockets, switch lugs, etc. They then ran insulated wired to connect all the dots. Some of that wire was *shudder* cloth insulated.
I don't use boards. They 2D planes are overrated.
I have fond memories and a drawer full of alligator clips.
I had one of those when growing up. I learned nothing at all from them except how to not follow instructions. I think I got a buzzer to work one time. Though I was like 5yo at the time.
I usually go straight for soldering on prototype board.
single pads using component leads as traces.
i also love 3 hole island type boards.
once every blue moon i break out this old trainer my office was gonna throw out.
pretty useful for prototyping for my modular synth project, having voltage sources and an oscillator with sqr/tri/sin waves.
I'd like to get more into pcb design, but i never feel i get to the point of 100% completion of something, granting a complete pcb.
do you sketch out a design and order it without prototyping?
If you're making a complex SMD circuits this is a good skill to learn. Challenging but the only way I've managed to get some stuff done when working with micros and don't want the unreliability of plug-in wires coming loose.
ha i am the (re)uploader of that video, if you want more check out a website called electronics lives mfg, by chan. (http://elm-chan.org/)
Also, that is isolated wire because it has a layer of enamel on it, it is 0.16 or 0.2 dia UEW.
To isolate the chips from the holes he uses kapton tape, which is electrically isolating and heat resistant.
What is the name of this technique? There was a thread about this sort of thing on /diy/ like a month after /diy/ was made. I can't for the life of me remember the name though, but there was lots of it on the internet and a whole culture based around tightly fitting parts into the smallest spaces without using PCBs or in somecases not even using wiring. One person had this square block that looked like a Borg ship.
One of the names for that technique is "ugly construction", so complaining about its ugliness is kinda pointless.
He's calling you a troll because, like it was already mentioned, it's a popular technique in RF for a reason.
>people care about a circuit being "ugly"
If you wanted to make something pretty for the sake of being pretty why don't you get some paint brushes? I can appreciate very neat layout and good soldering skills, but 1) a manufactured PCB is going to be more "perfect" every time and 2) except for few cases (like RF circuits) layout and "neatness" means fuck all as far as the actual function of the circuit is concerned. Electrical devices are housed in opaque cases unless you're some kind of sperglord, so why do people talk shit about untidy circuits?
Or pencil and paper if I am feeling lazy and want to triple check everything again.
Do you consider yourself an artist? Or do you just have terminal autism?
There's nothing wrong with wanting to create an aesthetically pleasing circuit board. Just don't expect everyone to want to do the same when it has nothing to do with the actual function of the board.
Not that anon but I prefer well organized circuit design and code because it makes it easier to find problems when they occur, or when it's the most crucial, when you're about to send it off to production and you need to be sure everything checks out. Good layout helps with any circuit that has oscillation even if it's to a tiny degree.
That being said
>to each their own I say
Boy, that is close, those were not the terms used, but those are used in the methods employed. The closest thing I can fine that looks like that stuff I saw a few years ago are BEAM robotics using dead bug/point-to-point style.
>Not that anon but I prefer well organized circuit design and code because it makes it easier to find problems when they occur, or when it's the most crucial, when you're about to send it off to production and you need to be sure everything checks out. Good layout helps with any circuit that has oscillation even if it's to a tiny degree.
Sure it has its advantages, but those are not applicable at here because this applies to RF circuits in particular. (i.e. post >>926335) You want as little parasitics as possible which leads to the ugly build style. Also, prototypes dont need to be super neet, that is why they are prototypes, so you dont waste a lot of time on petty stuff such as layouts. If you are good enough to design a circuit, you most certainly are smart enough to find a bug in a less then ideal/not so neatly laid out prototype.
Ofcourse actual PCBs are a different thing, but not applicable here IMHO.
>the point was efficiency is key.
>organization =/= neatness. A well organized circuit can still look like shit.
Some people use PCB as a prototyping format, but I was referring to circuits in general.
When I say well organized I don't mean everything lined up and all the components in line. I meant, that typically, a well organized circuit, and what sometimes occurs as a byproduct, a neat one, but organization will greatly aid bug checking. Especially when you're someone like me who has dyslexia or some shit similar where high density/fuckery circuits start to mix together.
>to each their own I say
But for prototyping it doesn't matter, as long as it gets the job done amirite? This is /diy/ afterall. The land of "Gettter dun".
I say all of this because you would think that organization would come naturally to a circuit right? You don't generally see resistors for a preamp all the way next to the final power stage, but you'd be surprised by how much autism I've had to deal with when error checking similar things for other people.
hey RF dudes, i could use your help.
i bought a few gigaHz VCO's on a whim some time ago,thinking I'd try to make a jammer.
pretty much just need to amplify the signal and run it to an antenna (wifi antenna probably)
200mW should be fine.
how do i amplify in the 2GHz range without losing it to parasitics and having an amplifier fast enough?
never worked with much over 20Mhz so i don't know how bad it is.
the control voltage to sweep the range shouldn't be a problem for me, just the amplification.
I have also heard of this being called "skeleton" construction. Searching googles for "electronics skeleton construction" leads to at least one blog where the guy thinks it's called "3D" circuit construction.....
Only people who don't know shit about electronics or have never designed more than just a led and resistor circuit taking the full of a eurocard speak of 'ugly' circuit layout/methods. Circuits work or don't work, and HF does not work when you have kilometers of wire between the components. If you complain about ugly circuits, then go fucking paint flowers or something. Also in electronics one of the most important rules is: If it's small and ugly and it works it's better than when it's big and beautiful and it works, the designer of the latter better goes working at mcdonalds or victoria's secret than any electronics engineering.
TLDR: you'll never be taken seriously in electronics if you complain about ugly looking devices that are small and work exactly the way they're supposed to.
I thought I was the only one that did this, people even called me a hoarder but they do come in handy all the time.
Beats stripping bits of wire every time you need a link.
>I had one of those when growing up. I learned nothing at all from them except how to not follow instructions. I think I got a buzzer to work one time.
They're all sorts of fun with an oscilloscope.
I had a similar experience with mine when I was a kid, but I dug it up after I soldered together a $20 oscilloscope kit from China (DSO 138), and I've been really enjoying it.
I recently fixed a cordless drill battery charger with one of the clipped leads I saved.
The soldered-in fuse in it was blown so badly that I couldn't read its markings on the fuse itself or on the board under it, which was charred.
I pulled the fues out and jumpered it with a lead.
I know that's not good policy, but I'm pretty sure it only blew in the first place because I tried to run the drill with the battery charger plugged in one time when I was impatient with charging it. The instructions say not to do that.
>I pulled the fues out and jumpered it with a lead.
>I know that's not good policy, but I'm pretty sure it only blew in the first place because I tried to run the drill with the battery charger plugged in one time when I was impatient with charging it. The instructions say not to do that.
I smell a darwin award
Eh... the charger works fine. How often do power sources or battery chargers blow a fuse when you're not doing something stupid with them?
I stuck a label on it to remind me that there's no fuse in it, and keep an eye on it while it's charging. I only rarely use the drill.
If this is "Darwin Award" level to you, are you just continuously freaking out when you browse /diy/?
I think it's quite a dick move to build a cordless drill with a charger that you plug into the drill rather than the battery, which blows a fuse when you run it plugged in, and design it so it's practically impossible to replace the fuse (there was no visual indication that the charger wasn't working, I had to cut the power supply open with a dremel tool, the fuse was soldered in and unlabeled).
A note buried in the instruction manual to not run the drill while plugged in is hardly adequate. It's like they wanted people to buy extra chargers.