New Breadboard Question/Feedback
Cluso99
Posts: 18,069
I am working on a prototyping board and am wondering whether to keep the prototyping section free of tracks (as the Propeller Proto Board does) or link some of the tracks together (similar to the solderless modules).
Adjacent to each pin (horizontally) are a number of available pads.
Each available pad is represented by "o" and the IC (prop) pin is represented by "x", horizontal track connections "-" and vertical track connections "|"
The verticals would normally be used for power/ground but are not committed to this.
Unconnected pads example...
For those of you who have built prototypes, which version do you prefer and why?
Adjacent to each pin (horizontally) are a number of available pads.
Each available pad is represented by "o" and the IC (prop) pin is represented by "x", horizontal track connections "-" and vertical track connections "|"
The verticals would normally be used for power/ground but are not committed to this.
Unconnected pads example...
o o o o o o o o-x o o o o o o o o-x o o o o o o o o-xConnected pads example...
| |
o-o-o o o o-o-o-x
| |
o-o-o o o o-o-o-x
| |
o-o-o o o o-o-o-x
| |
For those of you who have built prototypes, which version do you prefer and why?
Comments
Jeff
Duane J
I mostly use not connected as that give more possibility's
But if no tracks, they can be added easily when needed.
I think I'd prefer no tracks as it give the most flexibility for component placement.
It's almost impossible to find all the good prototyping stuff that used to be on the market.
One of the handier tricks was strips of metal with holes matching the .1" centers.
And, of course, the all the myriad pins that could be poked through those holes.
These days there is hardly anything available for hand-built prototypes.
That's a neat idea.. tempted to do a small run of these with a Quickstart connector just to try it myself.
Thanks for the link. I used similar boards many years ago for prototyping. They were very nice to work with and made for excellent prototypes and "one off" boards. Unfortunately they disappeared from the marketplace after a couple of years. Nice to see something similar again.
The SparkFun boards are somewhat different from the ones I used in that the pads are connected in both X and Y directions on both sides The ones I used had the pads connected in strips going in the X direction on one side and the Y direction on the other, and were not plated through.
Cutting all those connections can be tedious so a rotary tool with a cutting wheel would be a much better tool than an exacto knife for building a circuit.
The fully connected proto board looks like too much of a good thing.
| | x-o o-o o o o-o o-x | | x-o o-o o o o-o o-x | | x-o o-o o o o-o o-x | | x-o o-o o o o-o o-x | | x-o o-o o o o-o o-x | |This way I have not need to cut traces but it is much easier to connect components including dip.
As an alternative for my prototypes I use veroboards.
Massimo
Neat idea. interlinked by like a 12mil path so it's easy to cut. Cool idea
I was going to fill with a ground plane. This would make cutting perhaps a little more difficult to see??
The sparkfun protoboard seems to have too many connections requiring cutting to be really useful - yes a dremel makes it easier but then thats another requirement for the user.
I generally like ground planes, but for a proto area I don't like them.
I've been cutting traces on my latest project using a Quickstart protoboard and I've ended up cutting so many that it would have been easier to get plain Protoboard and start with that instead.
Also, please leave as many extra pads around the edges .100" spacing where people can add connectors. I've found that lacking in many boards and sometimes there is wasted space instead. In some cases I've run out of room for connectors.
Robert