There is language like this (expressed from a Linear Tech data sheet):
"The xxxAC is guaranteed to meet specified performance from 0°C to 70°C, and it is designed, characterized and expected to meet specified performance from 40°C to 85°C but is not tested or QA sampled at these temperatures. The ...."
It comes down to statistics, which is like experience, but more rigorous. There is a big step from design to guarantee. If it is expected to perform, but not guaranteed, then it is up to the OEM or end user to test and retest under the expected conditions, batch after batch, and if it comes up short, then there may be a lot of boards that have to be reworked without recourse. If it never comes up short, confidence in the vendor and the product is +1.
There is language like this (expressed from a Linear Tech data sheet):
"The xxxAC is guaranteed to meet specified performance from 0°C to 70°C, and it is designed, characterized and expected to meet specified performance from –40°C to 85°C but is not tested or QA sampled at these temperatures. The ...."
Or this, from Atmel data sheets :
TA = -40°C to 85°C
Parameter Condition Min - Max. ClkCPU CPU clock frequency
VCC = 1.6V 0 - 12 MHz
VCC = 1.8V 0 - 12 MHz
VCC = 2.7V 0 - 32 MHz
VCC = 3.6V 0 - 32 MHz
and this spec includes a polygon, with a slope of 22.22MHz/V between 1.8 and 2.7V
and this from another Atmel Data sheet
TA = -40°C to 85°C
Oscillator Frequency VDD = 2.4V to 5.5V 0 - 20 MHz
Oscillator Frequency VDD = 4.5V to 5.5V 0 - 25 MHz
and another one says this
– In Standard Mode:
• 40 MHz (Vcc 2.7V to 5.5V, both Internal and external code execution)
• 60 MHz (Vcc 4.5V to 5.5V and Internal Code execution only)
– In X2 mode (6 Clocks/machine cycle)
• 20 MHz (Vcc 2.7V to 5.5V, both Internal and external code execution)
• 30 MHz (Vcc 4.5V to 5.5V and Internal Code execution only)
We are in the process of developing a small Propeller development board as an alternative
Ken, surely you jest. ANOTHER @#$%^&*ING DEVELOPMENT BOARD?????????
Parallax already flogs many, many, many development boards, enough for almost every tinkerer. And if that isn't enough development boards to satisfy world and dog, there are more available from third parties. How many Propeller development boards does the planet need?
The Spin Stamp is unashamedly (and uniquely) a productionboard chip. Just pop the Spin Stamp onto a PCB and all the hard stuff is done in that little 24 DIL module; just add I/O stuff to taste. Use PropClip to program, close the box, and the job is done.
Its also the physically smallest Propellor implementaion, handy when you need just 3 or 4 I/O in a small package. Not all applications need all 32 I/O.
I have just had an email from Ken Gracey stating that they will continue manufacturing these.
Phew...
Thank you Ken.
I second that emotion, and the thanks to Ken et al. I don't use the Spin Stamp in any kind of volume, but they are unreplacable from the current catalogue.
I do worry though that the product hasn't reappeared on the website yet............ Just have to have faith I guess..
the SS was a very usefull COB .. It too the guess work out of the EEPROM and Xtal . and Presentd a nice package to many users . the prop stick was OK but I dont need the FTDI chip . it is a few $ not used for end product use,.
what I want to see is a Shim!
takes a DIP Prop and under it is the EEPROM and the Xtal , and a Reg to take in 5V Very much like a Dip socket
the end user provides the Prop .
EG 10 USD per board .
as soon as I can get some SW at OIT to use to do PCBs Il make a few for in House use .
Peter, regarding the shim concept, my M44D40+ board can do that with the addition of one of my PowerTwigs. Gives you a full Propeller circuit plus 5v and 3.3v supplies. There are more details of the DIP kit setup on post #8 of this thread.
Peter, regarding the shim concept, my M44D40+ board can do that with the addition of one of my PowerTwigs. Gives you a full Propeller circuit plus 5v and 3.3v supplies. There are more details of the DIP kit setup on post #8 of this thread.
You'll see Andrew's M44D40+ and power twig in many of my propeller breadboard projects (e.g. my propeller Theremin). Phil's PropStick looks useful for similar tasks, and even includes an RS232 interface.
Peter, regarding the shim concept, my M44D40+ board can do that with the addition of one of my PowerTwigs. Gives you a full Propeller circuit plus 5v and 3.3v supplies. There are more details of the DIP kit setup on post #8 of this thread.
That is a nice little module for use on a breadboard. Since you have the EEPROM in a DIP socket it looks like you could easily use one of my bank switch adapters to install an extra chip so you could have a couple different programs loaded in it and just switch between them
First of all I would like to apologize for the abrupt discontinuation of the SpinStamp, and that our customers felt the rug was pulled out from under them. We sincerely apologize for the dropped communication and inconvenience caused to our customers. We will be sure to not make this mistake in the future and have modified our internal EOL process as a result.
That being said, we will still be discontinuing the SpinStamp to make way for an improved version which would be more useful to a wider audience. When the idea for the SpinStamp was conceived, it was to provide a means for current BASIC Stamp customers to switch to the Propeller using their existing development boards. Seven years later, we have evolved and released products such as the PE Kit, Propeller BOE and QuickStart, which offer more straight-forward options for getting started with the Propeller. As such, we want to see the SpinStamp evolve into a more robust development board.
In short, we do not want to make yet another development board, but recognize the value and market need of a smaller sized board. Here is what we're thinking:
Change pin connections plated through-hole. This will allow customers to solder female or male headers, or connect directly to the pads.
Change resonator to 5 MHz crystal to remain consistent with other board offerings.
Grow board length by 0.4" to move the regulator to the top of the board (easier for manufacturing). Keep the package size at a 24 pin DIP, width does not change.
Add access to 3.3V in the upper-left pins
Before this change occurs, however, we are offering a last-time buy of the SpinStamp in its current incarnation. If you would like to purchase boards made on this final build, please contact Jim Carey at jcarey@parallax.com. Build quantity will depend on interest.
I'd like to apologize again for the way we handled this discontinuation, and hope you see the value of the updated design. If any of you have any suggestions for this new board, please let us know.
Thanks for the post, but I'm not sure such a corporate mea culpa is necessary when things happen the way Ken explained in post #15. When you go to do another build and find out, "Oh Smile! We can't get that component anymore!" what can you do? It's kinda hard under those circumstances to give an advance heads-up that there won't be any further product. Nonetheless, it's nice that Parallax is providing its customers an LTB option. The SpinStamp is a good product. Although it will be missed, it's replacement does sound intriguing!
[*]Grow board length by 0.4" to move the regulator to the top of the board (easier for manufacturing). Keep the package size at a 24 pin DIP, width does not change.
This seems to contradict - a Grow board length by 0.4" (which sounds a lot) cannot Keep the package size at a 24 pin DIP, as it is already that size.
When the idea for the SpinStamp was conceived, it was to provide a means for current BASIC Stamp customers to switch to the Propeller using their existing development boards.
Yeah, but did anyone really ever do that? They would get as far as the data sheet and see (with original bolding) "The Spin Stamp module is not intended to be a direct drop-in replacement for any BASIC Stamp module and there are some important points to consider before purchasing the Spin Stamp.". And the love afair would have died right at that point. Thus only designers who could get past that warning (perhaps those who aren't users of BASIC stamp modules) would fall for the elegance of a 24 pin microcontroller that did it all.
If "we're thinking", then the replacement board (whatever it ends up being) isn't close to being ready to ship. If we're collecting numbers for a last run on Spin Stamps then they're not ready to ship either. So a gap in the availability of a small microcontroller board is pretty much guaranteed. Of months. And despite the hype surrounding the Spin Stamp 2 from WBA consulting, that doesn't appears ready to go either. Although its pysically bigger it has some features that make it very well worth considering for some projects. Especially noteworthy are the switching regulators, with generous output, so the entire power supply for many compatible designs is just done. And a pretty agressive price! But it isn't really a DL outline, though trading that space for conventional power supply might be a good trade-off.
But the really important thing about the Spin Stamp is size. It's small. It fits in physically small projects. Ok, so its small size makes it hard to manufacture. But the price reflects that; for example the Quickstart board has more stuff on it, but costs less. If size is unimportant then heck, get a Quickstart, flip it over, and have it mate with a dual header on the mainboard. A somewhat ugly, but cheap and reproducible solution. There are plenty of physically bigger options than the Spin Stamp.
If Parallax can't see their way to continuing the Spin Stamp pretty much as is, I can't see why making the replacement closer in size to the PropStick is particularly smart. The only thing really wrong with the PropStick is it's price, which is well out of whack compared to other implementations. For example, the aforementioned Quickstart is half the price for more bits on a bigger board. But other than price, if size isn't an issue, the PropStick is a good tool. So if it really is goodbye to the Spin Stamp, then please just fix the price of the PropStick.
Hi David,
I wish I could have worded it that way, well written mate.
Our Aussie distributor has been talking with Parallax, and they are going to do another run of spin stamps.
The Parallax store now says 'last time buy opportunity'.
The word I had last week was that the new board will fit in place of a spin stamp, but will be slightly longer.
I supplied a photo of our board, where we only have about 4mm of room at each end of the spin stamp due to header plugs, and Parallax indicated that the replacement would still fit.
Regarding changing the connections, won't this cause potential problems because header pins, at least the common square 0.1" will require larger hole diameters on the intended layout, which in turn may require larger pads restricting runs between these pads? Also, I personally don't like putting these large pins into my breadboards, and so avoid using them as such.
First of all I would like to apologize for the abrupt discontinuation of the SpinStamp, and that our customers felt the rug was pulled out from under them. We sincerely apologize for the dropped communication and inconvenience caused to our customers. We will be sure to not make this mistake in the future and have modified our internal EOL process as a result.
That being said, we will still be discontinuing the SpinStamp to make way for an improved version which would be more useful to a wider audience. When the idea for the SpinStamp was conceived, it was to provide a means for current BASIC Stamp customers to switch to the Propeller using their existing development boards. Seven years later, we have evolved and released products such as the PE Kit, Propeller BOE and QuickStart, which offer more straight-forward options for getting started with the Propeller. As such, we want to see the SpinStamp evolve into a more robust development board.
In short, we do not want to make yet another development board, but recognize the value and market need of a smaller sized board. Here is what we're thinking:
Change pin connections plated through-hole. This will allow customers to solder female or male headers, or connect directly to the pads.
Change resonator to 5 MHz crystal to remain consistent with other board offerings.
Grow board length by 0.4" to move the regulator to the top of the board (easier for manufacturing). Keep the package size at a 24 pin DIP, width does not change.
Add access to 3.3V in the upper-left pins
Before this change occurs, however, we are offering a last-time buy of the SpinStamp in its current incarnation. If you would like to purchase boards made on this final build, please contact Jim Carey at jcarey@parallax.com. Build quantity will depend on interest.
I'd like to apologize again for the way we handled this discontinuation, and hope you see the value of the updated design. If any of you have any suggestions for this new board, please let us know.
Regarding changing the connections, won't this cause potential problems because header pins, at least the common square 0.1" will require larger hole diameters on the intended layout, which in turn may require larger pads restricting runs between these pads? Also, I personally don't like putting these large pins into my breadboards, and so avoid using them as such.
Frank
You can use machine pin headers instead of the square pins. They are easier on the breadboard and can be used in DIP sockets. I usually don't like installing the standard .100" headers with square pins into a socket. Once that is done it can only be used for those. If you ever want to go back to a regular chip or a module with machine pins then you usually need to replace the socket since the square pins stretch out and deform the socket pins. You can't use them in a machined pin socket either. That is why I prefer spending a little extra for the machine pin headers for this type of application.
While I have moved over from the Basic Stamp to the Propeller, there are times and designs of some of my circuits which need a lower pin count device. The SpinStamp has just enough I/O for some of my designs and is in dip form.
I will check with the Australian supplier for a few extra ones to have as back up.
Comments
"The xxxAC is guaranteed to meet specified performance from 0°C to 70°C, and it is designed, characterized and expected to meet specified performance from 40°C to 85°C but is not tested or QA sampled at these temperatures. The ...."
It comes down to statistics, which is like experience, but more rigorous. There is a big step from design to guarantee. If it is expected to perform, but not guaranteed, then it is up to the OEM or end user to test and retest under the expected conditions, batch after batch, and if it comes up short, then there may be a lot of boards that have to be reworked without recourse. If it never comes up short, confidence in the vendor and the product is +1.
Or this, from Atmel data sheets :
TA = -40°C to 85°C
Parameter Condition Min - Max. ClkCPU CPU clock frequency
VCC = 1.6V 0 - 12 MHz
VCC = 1.8V 0 - 12 MHz
VCC = 2.7V 0 - 32 MHz
VCC = 3.6V 0 - 32 MHz
and this spec includes a polygon, with a slope of 22.22MHz/V between 1.8 and 2.7V
and this from another Atmel Data sheet
TA = -40°C to 85°C
Oscillator Frequency VDD = 2.4V to 5.5V 0 - 20 MHz
Oscillator Frequency VDD = 4.5V to 5.5V 0 - 25 MHz
and another one says this
– In Standard Mode:
• 40 MHz (Vcc 2.7V to 5.5V, both Internal and external code execution)
• 60 MHz (Vcc 4.5V to 5.5V and Internal Code execution only)
– In X2 mode (6 Clocks/machine cycle)
• 20 MHz (Vcc 2.7V to 5.5V, both Internal and external code execution)
• 30 MHz (Vcc 4.5V to 5.5V and Internal Code execution only)
Ken, surely you jest. ANOTHER @#$%^&*ING DEVELOPMENT BOARD?????????
Parallax already flogs many, many, many development boards, enough for almost every tinkerer. And if that isn't enough development boards to satisfy world and dog, there are more available from third parties. How many Propeller development boards does the planet need?
The Spin Stamp is unashamedly (and uniquely) a production board chip. Just pop the Spin Stamp onto a PCB and all the hard stuff is done in that little 24 DIL module; just add I/O stuff to taste. Use PropClip to program, close the box, and the job is done.
Its also the physically smallest Propellor implementaion, handy when you need just 3 or 4 I/O in a small package. Not all applications need all 32 I/O.
I second that emotion, and the thanks to Ken et al. I don't use the Spin Stamp in any kind of volume, but they are unreplacable from the current catalogue.
I do worry though that the product hasn't reappeared on the website yet............ Just have to have faith I guess..
what I want to see is a Shim!
takes a DIP Prop and under it is the EEPROM and the Xtal , and a Reg to take in 5V Very much like a Dip socket
the end user provides the Prop .
EG 10 USD per board .
as soon as I can get some SW at OIT to use to do PCBs Il make a few for in House use .
You'll see Andrew's M44D40+ and power twig in many of my propeller breadboard projects (e.g. my propeller Theremin). Phil's PropStick looks useful for similar tasks, and even includes an RS232 interface.
That is a nice little module for use on a breadboard. Since you have the EEPROM in a DIP socket it looks like you could easily use one of my bank switch adapters to install an extra chip so you could have a couple different programs loaded in it and just switch between them
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?126798-NEW-EEPROM-expansion-%28bank-switch-adapter%29
First of all I would like to apologize for the abrupt discontinuation of the SpinStamp, and that our customers felt the rug was pulled out from under them. We sincerely apologize for the dropped communication and inconvenience caused to our customers. We will be sure to not make this mistake in the future and have modified our internal EOL process as a result.
That being said, we will still be discontinuing the SpinStamp to make way for an improved version which would be more useful to a wider audience. When the idea for the SpinStamp was conceived, it was to provide a means for current BASIC Stamp customers to switch to the Propeller using their existing development boards. Seven years later, we have evolved and released products such as the PE Kit, Propeller BOE and QuickStart, which offer more straight-forward options for getting started with the Propeller. As such, we want to see the SpinStamp evolve into a more robust development board.
In short, we do not want to make yet another development board, but recognize the value and market need of a smaller sized board. Here is what we're thinking:
- Change pin connections plated through-hole. This will allow customers to solder female or male headers, or connect directly to the pads.
- Change resonator to 5 MHz crystal to remain consistent with other board offerings.
- Grow board length by 0.4" to move the regulator to the top of the board (easier for manufacturing). Keep the package size at a 24 pin DIP, width does not change.
- Add access to 3.3V in the upper-left pins
Before this change occurs, however, we are offering a last-time buy of the SpinStamp in its current incarnation. If you would like to purchase boards made on this final build, please contact Jim Carey at jcarey@parallax.com. Build quantity will depend on interest.I'd like to apologize again for the way we handled this discontinuation, and hope you see the value of the updated design. If any of you have any suggestions for this new board, please let us know.
Cheers,
Jessica
Thanks for the post, but I'm not sure such a corporate mea culpa is necessary when things happen the way Ken explained in post #15. When you go to do another build and find out, "Oh Smile! We can't get that component anymore!" what can you do? It's kinda hard under those circumstances to give an advance heads-up that there won't be any further product. Nonetheless, it's nice that Parallax is providing its customers an LTB option. The SpinStamp is a good product. Although it will be missed, it's replacement does sound intriguing!
-Phil
This seems to contradict - a Grow board length by 0.4" (which sounds a lot) cannot Keep the package size at a 24 pin DIP, as it is already that size.
If you do make a new variant, it might pay to keep an eye on this one
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?143318-Feedback-for-new-35-Propeller-Mini-Module-design
and make sure your PCB is physically compatible, so customers can use either (provisional on their circuit, of course).
The Propeller-Mini-Module is a superset, with extended features, so customers could want to use both/either.
ie Good to avoid would be a Parallex Board overhanging at a different place from the Propeller-Mini-Module !!
Hmmm... some confusion there...
Yeah, but did anyone really ever do that? They would get as far as the data sheet and see (with original bolding) "The Spin Stamp module is not intended to be a direct drop-in replacement for any BASIC Stamp module and there are some important points to consider before purchasing the Spin Stamp.". And the love afair would have died right at that point. Thus only designers who could get past that warning (perhaps those who aren't users of BASIC stamp modules) would fall for the elegance of a 24 pin microcontroller that did it all.
If "we're thinking", then the replacement board (whatever it ends up being) isn't close to being ready to ship. If we're collecting numbers for a last run on Spin Stamps then they're not ready to ship either. So a gap in the availability of a small microcontroller board is pretty much guaranteed. Of months. And despite the hype surrounding the Spin Stamp 2 from WBA consulting, that doesn't appears ready to go either. Although its pysically bigger it has some features that make it very well worth considering for some projects. Especially noteworthy are the switching regulators, with generous output, so the entire power supply for many compatible designs is just done. And a pretty agressive price! But it isn't really a DL outline, though trading that space for conventional power supply might be a good trade-off.
But the really important thing about the Spin Stamp is size. It's small. It fits in physically small projects. Ok, so its small size makes it hard to manufacture. But the price reflects that; for example the Quickstart board has more stuff on it, but costs less. If size is unimportant then heck, get a Quickstart, flip it over, and have it mate with a dual header on the mainboard. A somewhat ugly, but cheap and reproducible solution. There are plenty of physically bigger options than the Spin Stamp.
If Parallax can't see their way to continuing the Spin Stamp pretty much as is, I can't see why making the replacement closer in size to the PropStick is particularly smart. The only thing really wrong with the PropStick is it's price, which is well out of whack compared to other implementations. For example, the aforementioned Quickstart is half the price for more bits on a bigger board. But other than price, if size isn't an issue, the PropStick is a good tool. So if it really is goodbye to the Spin Stamp, then please just fix the price of the PropStick.
Customers are not "feeling" the rug from being pulled out from under them; the rug has actually been pulled. There is a difference.
I wish I could have worded it that way, well written mate.
Our Aussie distributor has been talking with Parallax, and they are going to do another run of spin stamps.
The Parallax store now says 'last time buy opportunity'.
The word I had last week was that the new board will fit in place of a spin stamp, but will be slightly longer.
I supplied a photo of our board, where we only have about 4mm of room at each end of the spin stamp due to header plugs, and Parallax indicated that the replacement would still fit.
So we will see how it goes.
Cheers,
Chris
Simple curiosity.
Frank
You can use machine pin headers instead of the square pins. They are easier on the breadboard and can be used in DIP sockets. I usually don't like installing the standard .100" headers with square pins into a socket. Once that is done it can only be used for those. If you ever want to go back to a regular chip or a module with machine pins then you usually need to replace the socket since the square pins stretch out and deform the socket pins. You can't use them in a machined pin socket either. That is why I prefer spending a little extra for the machine pin headers for this type of application.
Robert
I will check with the Australian supplier for a few extra ones to have as back up.