The Shield Concept...how successful is it?
Too_Many_Tools
Posts: 765
Coming back to electronics after being gone for awhile, I see that the "shield concept" is now popular to sidestep the problems with PC board fabrications...so in your personal experience how well has it worked for you?
Comments
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php/148592-Are-Seeed-Studio-Shields-compatible-with-BASIC-Stamp-2?p=1190441&viewfull=1#post1190441
I had thought that it was some type of ATX specification that had evolved during my absence from the electronics field.
QUOTE=erco;1191832]The shield is strictly an Arduino form factor. IMO it works for that crowd in that it's all modular and plug & play. Simple & quick to connect and it looks tidy, no ribbon cables or spaghetti wiring, although I suspect it might not be the most flexible option overall. I've barely used my Arduino, but I did just receive this cheap motor shield, so if it rocks my world I'll let you know.
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php/148592-Are-Seeed-Studio-Shields-compatible-with-BASIC-Stamp-2?p=1190441&viewfull=1#post1190441[/QUOTE]
If someone want's to sell me a "shield" or adapter board for some new fangled, microscopic SMT chip that I can tack onto my strip board I'm very happy.
Meanwhile, as chips got smaller and smaller a whole industry has grown up supplying chips mounted on little boards such that normal people could solder them into their projects. Check out Adafruit or GadgetGangster etc.
In the old days we would call them something boring like "modules" or "adapters" but it seems now a days any old stupid word will do.
Guess you have been gone for a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATX
BTW, I dislike the name shield. I also happen to dislike the name Arduino, too, but who am I to deride such things?
Hey call me boring but "modules" or "adapters" work for me.
FWIW...not a lot has changed in electronics from what I can see.
That can be good or bad depending on your viewpoint.
We didn't have the Propeller ten years ago, now we do. Life is good.
Uniformity sems to be a great idea...as long as everyone wants the same thing.
The minute you want to change...the form factor is a straitjacket.
And I should add that I think the Parallax implementation is well done.
Yes, but as you will find out, there are a bunch of very helpful people around here. A lot of information sharing going on. No question is stupid.
We do joke around sometimes, so you will have to get used to the humor that comes from all around the world, so some gets lost in the translation.
Not sure if I said this before , welcome to the forums!
Device breadboarding is really difficult with so many different connectors and power needs. and shields are a step in the right direction.
The good:
they're a start at standardizing device connectors
they provide power along with signal pins
they stack to some degree
The bad:
they aren't all that standard. There are slight variations in shield design
they don't provide +12 or +/- 15 volts, used by a lot of analog circuits
some shields don't stack, which limits how multiple shields can be combined
I'd rather use a parallel backplane for connecting devices, like the old computers used.
In that way nothing has changed since 1970 something.
Don't worry about it, fire up the soldering iron and weld stuff together.
As for multi-core MCUs, I don't see that there have been so many. The Propeller is one, the chips from XMOS are another. People mention the GreenArray devices from time to time but that's going nowhere. Certainly the Propeller offers a uniquely easy to use multi-core solution.
My beef is that I can't get tubes so easily anymore...
Nothin' wrong with that. At least I have THAT one memorized.
Tubes...12AX7 are about all I have left. I have heaters, but they all work on 120VAC. Got plenty of 6.3VAC xformers though.
We need a project that uses a Prop and one or more 12AX7's...
C.W.
Analog has a number of very unique needs...and from experience mixing analog and digital usually means problems noisewise.
I can see advantages for a uniform standard for boards...power and addressing/data are all digital needs.
No single standard will meet the requirements of all digital or analog applications alone, never mind both. IMHO S100 was one of the better attempts in the digital arena at the time since it provided +5 and +-12V power. Industrial automation, building automation, instrumentation, SCADA systems, computers, and networking all have their own unique needs.
IMHO clean 3.3 or 5 volts is enough for a lot of analog work now days. There are some VERY nice single supply rail to rail op-amps now. At the higher end the OPA2350 is one of my favorites. Though if SOIC doesn't scare you, the OPA2365 is better in every way. Something like a LMC6482 would be a better 741 replacement. And if you like power consumption golf, the MCP6041 is a favorite.
Lawson
-Phil
Very true, but lets not be too harsh with the folks my kids dubbed "technotwits" when they were much younger.
We have Gadget Gangster that provides a line of good boards to add to a Propeller mother board. And the Propeller QuickStart board has a set of daughter board options as well. There are times that modularity is very appealing. You just have to know what you are doing with it and why.
There are ways to have it not be a complete straight jacket if one is creative. But in generally locks in who you buy from... so you better like your suppliers prices, supporting info, quality control, and design ability. A lot of them fall short in one or more of those ares.
The Propeller even comes in motherboards with 2 or more Propellers on one board for more ambitious projects.
Maybe on your side of the pond, Heater. But here in the states I can find pretty much what I want.
:thumb:
...now, the cost is a different story!
...now THAT is a thing of beauty!!!
:thumb:
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.000000000000000000000000000009
In my opinion, it is a case of potato versus potatoe...different names for the same item...driven by marketing.
The biggest concern for a competitor like Parallax would be to be able to easily utilize any shields that are developed by 3rd parties.
That ease of use would be a major design decision that can determine whether a Parallax or Arduino branded processor is selected for the product.
FWIW...it is a known fact that designers under pressing deadlines choose processors for commercial products they are comfortable with...and their comfort zone is usually set up by playing with the processor on their free time aka home projects. A classic case of this is the choice of Intel over Motorola technology in the development of the very sucessful IBM PC platform...at that time the Motorola tech was superior but the Intel tech better known to the designers due to previous exposure in home based/built CP/M systems. Knowing this, any company worth its salt gives free samples and info to engineers and educators to "seed" those who will design the next product line. I consider Parallax to be excellent in terms of this effort and would count it as a big plus when I was deciding what to design into a new product line.