I've had the experience of giving away the design of a product because it simply was'nt in the cards for me to service demand.
(In the Early Holocene there was no open-source...) 30 years on, that product is still being sold - I smile every time I see a new catalog, or a reference in the literature. On 1/10/17, Brian White <[email protected]> wrote: > I wouldn't think of denying those points, when operating in that context. > > That's what I meant about shipping a product. > > And thank you immensely of course! > > Do you want to sell any of those unpopulated pcbs? > > -- > bkw > > On Jan 10, 2017 2:58 PM, "Stephen Adolph" <[email protected]> wrote: > > The boards are not the same between NEC and M100/T102/T200. Layout > and schematic are substantially different. > When I designed the original REX in 2007, the board shops that I was > using were not able to deal with plated vias straddling the edge of > the board. > > To you a hardened design/product may have no value. To the people who > have purchased REX, I think it is really really important. Supporting > the base of users, and knowing what they have, is important to > understand the defects and potential fixes. I have purposely limited > the churn in the hardware design. > > I have posted my design files for REX - the original. Go ahead and > use the files to build or to modify, but they come with no warranty > from me. > Anyone who builds their own REX is on their own. It is a different > model, and one that comes with no guarantee of outcome. I'm cool with > that. Go nuts. > > Steve > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Brian White <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >>> > >>> > >
