Prop II packaging
Brian L
Posts: 60
I was just reading the Prop II wiki page and noticed that there is not going to be a DIP package for it. I understand that it's size would be too large to be practical for inclusion into most final product designs, but what about prototyping on a breadboard? How will the Prop II packages lend themselves to that? Unless my memory is failing me, I believe there have been some (nearly) candy bar sized DIP's on the market before. Wasn't the original Motorola 68000 sold in a rather large 68 pin DIP? A 40 acre breadboard is only about 30 bucks and easily has space to handle such a device, so why not?
But hopefully there is some other solution for prototyping using the packages that will be offered, and the "breadboard crisis" is only in my imagination. If I'm just dreaming up a non-existent problem here, then perhaps somebody could help straighten me out on it.
But hopefully there is some other solution for prototyping using the packages that will be offered, and the "breadboard crisis" is only in my imagination. If I'm just dreaming up a non-existent problem here, then perhaps somebody could help straighten me out on it.
Comments
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Post Edited (Paul Baker (Parallax)) : 1/3/2008 1:08:45 AM GMT
olimex.com/dev/maxq-h2000.html
olimex.com/dev/avr-h128.html
olimex.com/dev/msp-h449.html
OK thanks desilva.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
I assume you could do that in whatever size you wanted, couldn't you?
To save cost the user would use his own Prop Plug or Clip. The crystal and EEPROM would be in sockets so users could change them out for different speeds or more memory above what gets loaded at boot-up. Then user storage space is optional by buying another EEPROM. Even the voltage regulator, the reset button and the LED's on the current Prop Stick could be omitted to make this device really cheap, since carelessness and haste often cause a lot of burned up components on breadboards. Maybe you could even sell it without any crystal or EEPROM in the sockets. Or for that matter, maybe just omit the sockets and force the user to install his own crystal and EEPROM on the breadboard instead. Then it's just Prop II mounted on a chunk of circuit board to mimic the size and shape of a DIP.
I suppose you guys already thought of all this anyway, but in case you're undecided, count this as my vote in favor of a breadboard device. I think it would be a good seller, but only as a cheap thing, and not so full featured like the existing Prop Stick USB.
For hobby and home users it's ease of use as well as lowest cost desired, and lowest cost does not necessarily mean bare minimum on-board.
I have used lots of·68hcxx micros in PLCC packaging.
Prototyping can be done by using through hole PLCC sockets.
Harder to use on vero boards but ok on matrix pcbs.
·
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Don't get me wrong, because I like the ProtoBoards and I think they are a smoking good deal. I can already see myself buying quite a few of them, but I see them as the second step in most projects, and the breadboard version as step one. Just my personal preference. And what would really make it sweet would be if the stick version were just barely wide enough to allow the user to install the ProtoBoard Accessory kit on as an option. Or better yet, a separate carrier board just for the accessory kit that allows it to be plugged into a breadboard by itself. I already wish I had something like that for the stuff that's on my breadboard right now and was thinking of etching one of my own.
But obviously I'm not the person who'd have any idea if anyone else wants to pay the price for that kind of device, but I would.
Post Edited (Brian Whisler) : 1/3/2008 4:52:42 AM GMT
I've never understood why SpinStamp is $50 when a ProtoBoard is $20. Although I'd prefer a breadboard / stripboard compatible plug-in, at those prices it's a no brainer which to use. To me it makes the SpinStamp a product for no rhyme nor reason.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
I agree with Hippy that the Spin Stamp (and the Prop Stick) seem to have little reason to exist, but that's only because we already have the Prop 1 in a DIP package anyway. With Prop 2 there will not be that option, and therefore the potential for healthy sales of the colossal Prop Stick 2.
BTW: I don't think the boards deSilva linked to are breadboard friendly are they?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Cheers,
Simon
www.norfolkhelicopterclub.co.uk
You'll always have as many take-offs as landings, the trick is to be sure you can take-off again ;-)
BTW: I type as I'm thinking, so please don't take any offense at my writing style
Regards, David
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
The protoboard type board is also a must of course.
Graham
you said "No, the 40 Pin dip is one of the last species still availible."
But my question was based on your statement:
"...Those old huge dip packages are not availible by packaging houses anymore."
Does this mean that the current Propeller 40 pin DIP version is limited to current stock?
New comment:
If a DIP version of Prop-II is not possible (we can live with less I/O pins) then...
A carrier/break-out board is needed. But...
Typically these break-out boards need pins. For Parallax to solder these pins on the boards increases cost in a big way, better to let the end-user do it. So Parallax may supply a carrier/break-out board with no pins, only holes, but this presents another problem:
Where to get the pins? Plus the pins should be "friendly" with both plug-proto-boards and standard DIP sockets, not an easy thing to do. Standard 0.1" headers (square wire-wrap type) damage plug proto-boards and cannot plug into PCB DIP sockets. Soldering the pins individually is an obstacle for the end-user unless they're on a header. This should be obvious - hence the physical form-factor like PropStick and even BS2. But what we need is the chip ONLY on a DIP break-out board (yes with reduced I/O pins) where the end-user solders a header on the break-out board (so Parallax doesn't have to) that is both plug-proto-board and DIP socket friendly. The break-out board with Propeller-II and end-user solderable pin headers should cost 10-20% more than the SMT Prop-II chip alone. let's not forget that shipping a break-out board with user solderable headers makes the end-product "shippable" in a flat-pack, no bent pins. Parallax may want to talk to a company that specializes in pin-out solutions at www.mil-max.com.
Oh yes - one more thing: The pin header solution for the break-out board ideally should have square pins, not round. This will prevent alienation of wire-wrap users. Square pins (or at-least not round pins) are required for wire-wrap as the wire "bites" into the pin when wrapped, hence requiring an oblique edge. If you must go with a round pin then wire-wrap users can solder the wraps, but this is not ideal as one of the great reasons for using wire-wrap is that you can unwrap/change connections during development.
Regards,
David
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Drone : I like your idea too. As to Paul's comment "...Those old huge dip packages are not availible by packaging houses anymore." I think he was replying to my earlier comment about the really gigantic ones with nearly 70 pins, like the early Moto 68000's. But I agree that a 40 pin DIP of Prop 2 might be a very good idea since the extra IO pins is something many people will not want, considering all the other reasons why people would be attracted to Prop 2 even if they don't need all that IO.
Post Edited (Brian Whisler) : 1/4/2008 5:08:46 PM GMT
Drone, no. As I told Brian, it is too early to start debating what we will or won't do for the next chip's development boards.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
A third party might be intersted in offering a kit for this purpose as well if there is sufficient market demand.
Running a ribbon jumper from a Proto Board to your breadboard is also a good idea as long as you don't try to do really high frequency stuff like delta/sigma A/D conversion.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
The more I know, the more I know I don't know.· Is this what they call Wisdom?
I basically flip a coin to decide whether to buy Propellers on DIP's or Proto Boards. Both are nicely priced.
Easy:
http://www.schmartboard.com/
They have a nice license policy, and they have experience with Parallax, and they give prizes out for new designs.
I'm looking forward to RadioShack offering an "Easy Bake" style product (2009?). And if you have never had the joy of working through a microscope... this might be the time to experiment[noparse]:)[/noparse]
Someone will offer a really slick solution and will make a few bucks in the process. Many people want a DIP style product... it will be there, someone will do it.
Rich
The QFP package, for instance, has its legs go off in four directions while breadboards only run in two. In a 32 pin version that would mean a few soldered-on jumper wires but a lot of chips that have QFP of 40 or fewer legs also have dip versions. Mostly its the 64+ leg versions you need a board for. Not that there isn't good reason for this as a 64 or 100 pin breadboard friendly adapter would be very large.
·
About the pricing on SchmartBoard... pricing is always an issue. How much value you get for the price and what you need to do are the real stickers.
I would expect a Schmartboard with a PropII on it to be very attractively priced[noparse]:)[/noparse] I'm guessing about 2-3X a proto board... but maybe less.
Rich
I agree. Anyone with just a few skills could be rolling their own Propeller DIP-Modules for the Propeller Chip now and the same is almost certainly true for the Prop II to come.
The question though is whether it's economically viable to do so ?
I cannot produce a ProtoBoard offering cheaper than a Parallax ProtoBoard nor a DIP Module cheaper than a ProtoBoard either, which is why I, and I expect others, tend to look to Parallax ( or third parties ) for economies of scale and volume they can deliver which others cannot.
This is particularly critical in the hobby market outside the US. In the UK we face 60% markup on Propeller product or buying direct from the US with very high shipping costs. Unless costs can be brought down I fear the Propeller will see limited take-up and be a niche product in the UK much as the BasicStamp was.
Technological issues can be overcome by anyone, resolving the economic issues is going to necessitate the participation and help of Parallax.
The 'Unique Selling Point' of the Propeller which could carry it over the hurdle of cost is its composite video capability. Unfortunately its PAL output, while entirely usable, isn't of a quality which could sell the Propeller by itself. Resolve that and I would expect to see its popularity in the UK increase.
Adoption of the Propeller requires a critical mass which will lead to a cascade of acceptance, use of it and popularity. IMO, both cost and useful/usable format currently stand in the way of attaining that critical mass in the UK.