If you already have a substantial inventory like that then sure, obviously they should be used up.
And I see how in the context of manufacturing, it's an intentional compromise to have that grinding step for one application (M100), because it gets you a whole other application (NEC). But that's a separate issue from development in general. I've never heard of any such thing as a finished design. There is a difference here I think between shipping a product and working on a design where the design itself is the product. With the tiny fab runs you can get now where an end user can order just 3 units for $6 total, there is much less special significance to a validated design. By that I just mean it doesn't cost anything to deviate and iterate. No ordering runs of 100. And the really robustly and rigorously validated design can still be there, blessed with a version number forever, so you don't lose it even while you deviate from it. -- bkw On Jan 10, 2017 10:32 AM, "Stephen Adolph" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > > >
