Hi Mike, Regarding the NEC REX version, I found on ebay a part that I could never identify, but had the perfect characteristics. I bought enough for 50 modules. I can describe the pin header as
* very low profile plastic carrier, (that needs to be trimmed to fit around the flash chip) * round pins for engaging the socket * thicker round pins for soldering to REX the end result is a REX that fits right down tight onto the socket in the 8201/8300. typical machine pin headers have a carrier that is too thick, I found. I could be wrong. Those Batten and Allen edge pins are also a good solution, but the need to be trimmed to length, carefully. I've never bought any of those nor have I made a PCB that uses them to date. Steve On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Mike Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, I think we already discussed that 'sliced-through-the-holes' OptROM > edge treatment (as well as the Facebook issue ;-) last summer... > > @ Steve: > Did you end up getting some of those Batten and Allen edge pins that D'Asaro > uses, or are you using something else for the NEC etc.? > > m > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Adolph" <[email protected]> > To: "Model 100 Discussion" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:32 AM > Subject: Re: [M100] REX second source > > >> Brian - keeping it short - I am aware that, with current PCB shops, >> there is an easier way to go. I have inventory of existing designs, >> and the existing design is validated. Grinding the PCBs is simple >> enough, and I don't personally think it is worth a board spin when I >> have 100 or so PCBs around. NEC versions don't need to be ground, but >> they need very specific header pins to be soldered in place. >> >> >> ..Steve >> >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Brian White <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Steve, when you say you have to grind the boards, do you mean you grind the >>> long sides down to cut the 28 large through holes in half? >>> >>> That right there is a great example of what I mean by letting the >>> community/users help improve the design. >>> If the cad file were up in a git repo, or just publicized anywhere any how, >>> it doesn't have to be github, I could have told you since more than a year >>> ago, that you can get those manufactured with the holes already cut in half. >>> That's one of those whole pain in the neck steps 90% erased already, just >>> from someone else telling you something they discovered and now you can >>> incorporate it. >>> >>> You can specify the outside dimension to go right through the holes, and the >>> router will do it, and leave just the right final outside dimension, with >>> all those holes cut in half for you. That's how the figtronix boards come. >>> >>> When I build a figtronix board, all I have to do is barely sand it a little >>> just to knock down the "rat bites" (breakaway tabs), and sometimes clean off >>> these tiny little copper flags that hang off the side of some holes, left >>> behind by the way the router cuts through the through hole plating. >>> >>> But that only takes a takes a few seconds one minute and the tools are just >>> a sheet of sand paper on a flat surface. I use a cheap wood cutting board. >>> Couple swipes and it's good to go. >>> >>> pics >>> https://goo.gl/photos/i4DX5LEywTTSevQs6 >>> >>> That's what I mean by you're working too hard and worrying about things you >>> don't have to worry about. I don't know how to help with 50 different things >>> abouyt the design, but I know that one thing. Somone else knows one other >>> thing, etc, etc. >>> >>> And, even though this is already better than having to grind all that board >>> down, I bet it can still get even better. >>> I *think* (I don't know), but I think you can also specify where the >>> rat-bites go, within limits. So I think it's also possible with a board this >>> small to make it only have 2 rat bites on the ends and have perfectly clean >>> contacts all down the long edges. Or you might be able to make it put 4 >>> total rat bites, but with 2 on each end and none on the sides. And then you >>> can reduce the long dimension *slightly* to allow the board to fit in the >>> socket without even cleaning up the board to sand down the rat bites flat. >>> Could just break 'em off and go. No sanding at all. That's the kind of thing >>> I would research and figure out just for my own satisfaction, and then when >>> I have figured out how one does that, I'd tell you, or I'd do a submit >>> request to submit changes to the cad files. Just like if I do figure that >>> out, I'd tell FigTroniX and then the figtronix board gets that much better >>> to use. >>> >>> That's a lot of labor and manual steps totally eliminated from the final >>> design just from having users be able to contribute. You don't have to have >>> it all perfect, you just get it up there and let everyone who has an >>> interest in it help make it better over time. >>> >>> -- >>> bkw >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Doug Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Steve, >>>> >>>> I agree that transferring would be work. I feel that separating the >>>> hardware and software may be the path forward, especially if the hardware >>>> design is proven. >>>> >>>> My clocks use a 240mm square PCB that I source from Pcbcart. Experience >>>> has shown that they are cheaper than OSH part for volume. I normally order >>>> boards as 60 to 100 units at a time to take advantage of volume discounts. >>>> Same for parts, I have oearnt that volume discounts make sense in small >>>> scale manufacturing. >>>> >>>> After surface reflow, all of my boards go through a test and firmware >>>> loading jig. I published the design for one of the jigs on >>>> Instructables.com >>>> >>>> http://www.instructables.com/id/A-Programming-Jig-for-our-DougsWordClockcom-DeskC/ >>>> this radicaly simplifies the firmware load. I am confident that I could >>>> devel op something to do the CPLD load as well. >>>> >>>> From the perspective of manufacturing capacity, my workshop has >>>> microscopes and logic analysers and grinders etc etc.. but it woud be >>>> worthwhile figuring out how to modify the design so that there was no need >>>> to rip spacers from wood, or grind boards and remove as many manual >>>> handling >>>> steps as possible. >>>> >>>> Doug >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10 January 2017 12:52:26 pm AEDT, Stephen Adolph <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Doug, thanks for your note - read on...let's discuss. >>>>> >>>>> I'd be happy to put the board files on Oshpark, and place the >>>>> software, firmware, test applications in a git, but that isn't enough. >>>>> One needs to install the firmware and test the hardware afterwards.. >>>>> and that assumes you can assemble a REX in the first place. Plus you >>>>> need test jigs to do all that. Feasible, but a significant investment >>>>> in time and learning. >>>>> >>>>> The biggest issues I see- >>>>> >>>>> * fine pitch soldering >>>>> * grinding the PCBs down so that they can be plugged >>>>> * sourcing spacers - I slab cedar strips using my table saw.... 0.050 >>>>> inches >>>>> * firmware - it is stable now, but in general you must understand >>>>> RTL,VHDL and CPLD programming >>>>> * REX software is quite complicated. it gets right in to the OS via 4 >>>>> separate hooks and significantly affects boot up. it can be a real >>>>> challenge to debug. >>>>> * Keeping ahead of changes and how they work in all 5 supported models >>>>> is a bit of work also. One needs to have hardware examples of all 5 >>>>> models to do the testing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The equipment I rely on in general includes >>>>> >>>>> 1) a bench grinder/sander >>>>> 2) a 15x binocular microscope >>>>> 3) a Tek scope >>>>> 4) a logic analyzer >>>>> 5) my hardware jig(s) for installing firmware and testing the hardware >>>>> (M100, PC8201 variant) >>>>> 6) xilinx CPLD toolset (easy to get but you have to learn to compile >>>>> and install CPLD code >>>>> 7) a basic weller temp controlled iron + solder paste in a syringe >>>>> >>>>> If there were zero design changes, here are the steps to assemble a >>>>> working REX. >>>>> >>>>> 1) assemble REX - grind PCB, hand solder CPLD, Flash, power supply, >>>>> clean. >>>>> 2) install firmware - using Xilinx tools and known good firmware >>>>> binary, install binary image into CPLD. REX mounted in test jig. >>>>> There are 3 firmware versions. M100, T200, NEC. >>>>> 3) test REX - run stand alone test software on appropriate Model T / >>>>> rework failed units. >>>>> 4) install application >>>>> 5) final test >>>>> >>>>> Further development of REX is more involved obviously. Maybe at this >>>>> point future development is limited to software only, and it may be >>>>> safe to assume the hardware and firmware are fixed. >>>>> >>>>> Anyhow, as I said, it is feasible to transfer this to someone, but I >>>>> feel like it is a fair bit of work to transfer as well! >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:26 PM, John R. Hogerhuis <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the only fundamental problem right now is availability, since >>>>>> Steve >>>>>> has been busy with real life. Rex is not something you can just git >>>>>> clone >>>>>> and make. Part of it could be, of course. >>>>>> >>>>>> Component ordering, fabrication, assembly, test, order taking, shipping >>>>>> is >>>>>> the current issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- John. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >>> >>> >>
