Slashdot Mirror


Turning an Arduino Project Into a Prototype

An anonymous reader writes: Those of us who fiddle with electronics are probably familiar with this scenario: you've just finished assembling a project using your Arduino/Raspberry Pi/whatever, and it works! You'd like to set it up for long-term use, but... it's just a mass of wires and LEDs and switches. Alexis Matelin has written up a brief but handy guide for turning that mess into a self-contained prototype. He goes from planning out your circuit to designing your schematic to making your board, then working on an enclosure and a battery holder. Matelin also links to a variety of resources for the individual steps involved. It's a straightforward guide written for amateurs. Those of you who have experience with building permanent micro-controller projects: what would you add?

107 comments

  1. Ben Heck by ClaraBow · · Score: 1

    Watch a few episodes of the Ben Heck Show. He does this kind of stuff all the time.

    1. Re:Ben Heck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over produced garbage. The information might be correct but the way the show is produced - fucking unwatchable.

  2. I like the that we have tech stories... by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know it's funny to complain that slashdot hasn't been posting news for nerds, but this isn't news at all.

    Please leave how-to guides on hackaday, make, and other such dedicated sites. Especially topics such specific would cater to only a very small subset of slashdot readership, and I say this as an electrical engineer.

    1. Re:I like the that we have tech stories... by wirefarm · · Score: 2

      "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters"
      Some of what they post falls under the latter category, not the former.
      Could it be that this article annoyed you *because* you're an electrical engineer?
      Doesn't matter I was happy to see his article this morning.

      --
      -- My Weblog.
    2. Re:I like the that we have tech stories... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I totally agree. I wish the only stories slashdot posted were stories that I personally find interesting. This other nonsense should be left to other sites that cater to other individuals.

    3. Re:I like the that we have tech stories... by itzly · · Score: 1

      If you target an audience that's too big, the actual audience becomes smaller.

    4. Re:I like the that we have tech stories... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you target an audience that's too big, the actual audience becomes smaller.

      And if you cater only to a narrow demographic, eventually you will hit it.

      This is a web site. A "publication" with an infinite number of pages.
      Posting a link to one story does not shove another out of the way. You don't even need to turn pages past material that you didn't want to read.

    5. Re:I like the that we have tech stories... by itzly · · Score: 2

      Posting a link to one story does not shove another out of the way.

      Yes, it does. Quite literally, in fact. There's only so much room on the front page.

    6. Re:I like the that we have tech stories... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      Combine that with the complete inability to look beyond the front page and you have an excellent point!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re:I like the that we have tech stories... by multimediavt · · Score: 1

      Posting a link to one story does not shove another out of the way.

      Yes, it does. Quite literally, in fact. There's only so much room on the front page.

      Yes, and like all idiots that think their preeminence takes precedent over everyone else's desires, only stories you're interested in should be on the front page. Heaven forbid you actually use the "Older" link at the bottom to see more. Just because it's older doesn't mean it didn't happen today or is of any less value. Most of the stuff on /. is old news by at least a few days, anyway!

    8. Re:I like the that we have tech stories... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      or, say, go through an RSS feed of all stories, so you only have to hit the page-down key to see more stories. none of that "position the mouse over the next page button" crap for me!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:I like the that we have tech stories... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. I wish the only stories slashdot posted were stories that I personally find interesting. This other nonsense should be left to other sites that cater to other individuals.

      You missed the point. It's not about interest. I do find this interest.

      It's about stories. Slashdot is a news aggregator. This isn't a news article of any type. It's a how-to guide. A DIY guide. It's for nerds, but not even remotely news in any way shape or form, and there are a multitude of sites dedicated to precisely that.

    10. Re:I like the that we have tech stories... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Just because it's older doesn't mean it didn't happen today

      This is slashdot. I don't think anything we see has happened today.

    11. Re:I like the that we have tech stories... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Guns don't kill people. I do. (Quote from Weird Al's movie, UHF, not a personal statement.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  3. Anti procrastination box by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Later I'll write to the author and try to explain to him why marketing an anti-procrastination device to procrastinators is a bad idea. Right after I finish

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  4. Board MFGR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try Oshpark http://oshpark.org $5.00/sq and gives you 3 boards. Takes about 2 wks but very high quality and they take Eagle CAD files directly.

    1. Re:Board MFGR by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      https://oshpark.com/

      We bring you high quality, lead free boards (ENIG finish), manufactured in the USA, and shipped for free to anywhere in the world.

      Can't beat that!

    2. Re:Board MFGR by Ronin441 · · Score: 1

      Definitely can beat that: Dirt Cheap Dirty Boards

      10 each 5x5cm PCBs $14. 10 each 10x10cm PCBs $25.

      For a fairly wide range of cases, that's cheaper than OSHPark. Not as high quality, mind, nor as fast.

    3. Re:Board MFGR by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Can't beat the shipping delays from the USA to Canada however. And they also have free shipping. For smaller boards, I still prefer oshpark.

  5. Make sure your project is ready for the real world by gsliepen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Make sure the silkscreen contains enough information so that populating the PCBs is as free from errors as possible.
    If you are using polarized components (diodes, electrolytic caps, etc.), it helps if all components are oriented in the same way.
    If not, make sure it is properly marked on the PCB.

    Even if the prototype works fine, spend some time hardening your project for possible problems. Add diodes to protect against accidental reverse polarity connections. Your final design will probably run for much longer than your prototype ever did, so make sure it doesn't get too hot, and that everything is well within the maximum ratings of the components. Not every power supply is the same, add a capacitor and/or line regulator to the input. Maybe some components can be put into a socket instead of directly soldered on board. LEDs are cheap, add some to provide diagnostics.
    Make it easy for an end-user to reprogram the Arduino/Rasperry/whatever.

  6. Nice little tutorial... by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wish I'd come across this earlier. I've been developing a Raspberry PI hat circuit over the last six weeks and it's been a steep learning curve since I'm not a circuit nerd. Doubtless all the circuit nerds here will find that article overly simplistic but I'm a code monkey and had to piece this together from a number of other tutorials over the last six weeks. The things I have to add is really only the observation that Eagle Cad is the most counterintuitive piece of software I have ever tried to use. I decided to do a schematic and convert it into a PCB using Eagle which worked well enough. However, I have used any number of circuit simulators (eventually selected a href="http://icircuitapp.com">iCircuit, nice simple and available for: OS X, iOS, Android and Windows) and the UI in all of them much worked pretty much the same way but it's like Eagle Cad's developers went out of their way to make the UI of their schematics editor different. That said, Eagle Cad works like a charm one you figure out how the UI works. The component libraries can also be pretty overwhelming. After a lot of searching I came across this PCB prototyping service. No generating Greber files, just hit the "Get Started Now." button, upload the Eagle CAD file and pay the man, $18 for three boards and free shipping, turnaround time is c.a. 3 weeks. I'm still waiting on the boards so I can't judge their quality but I loved the simplicity of their site and I really hope their work is as good as people say it is because the pain of figuring out how to generate Gerber files in Eagle is bound to be as counter intuitive and painful to learn as everything else with Eagle.

    1. Re:Nice little tutorial... by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with you - Eagle is downright obstructive. Maybe you can get used to it, plenty seem to, and that perhaps blinds them to how awkward it is for occasional, casual users. Even the dedicated Racal CAD minicomputer system we used in the 80s was a lot easier to use than Eagle, and that's saying something.

    2. Re:Nice little tutorial... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty much all the PCB CAD tools i've used are bad. KiCAD is just as bad if not worse than Eagle.
      It's like they're stuck in the late 90s.
      Mind you almost all the tools from hardware companies for their products are terribad. the older version of the xilinx tools for the spartan 3s (since they didnt make it work on their new tool) is bad. the PIC ide is bad.
      The only one i like is the one for the Cypress EZ-USB chips and thats only cos they used Eclipse.

    3. Re:Nice little tutorial... by hirschma · · Score: 1

      Eagle is pretty horrible.

      If you want to try something that's much easier and, frankly, sane, try Diptrace. Really nice software, totally Wine friendly, and there's a free version.

      Saving out Gerbers is trivially easy, too.

  7. Awesome! by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    We need more tutorials like this, people who can break larger projects into steps for amateurs to follow. Well it might be no big deal for an embedded engineer to take a breadboard arduino proto to PCB and bootload it over ethernet, it would be for someone just starting out, well done :-)

  8. Fritzing by worf_mo · · Score: 1

    Fritzing is an open-source hardware initiative. They offer a free software tool to layout professional PCBs (and PCBs can be ordered from within the software).

    1. Re:Fritzing by FranTaylor · · Score: 3, Informative

      fritzring is fun for simple stuff, but if you try to make a moderately complex board you will find that their parts libraries are pretty scant and you will end up spending a lot of time in the parts editor.

  9. My comments by Ronin441 · · Score: 3, Informative

    If your time is expensive and you will only be running a very small number of PCBs, consider using ExpressPCB's design tool, because it's easy to learn and it seamlessly connects to their board printing service. (Their service is expensive though, so this is only good if you're doing a few boards, and thus the labor you save will not be eaten up by the extra you pay per board.)

    Your perception of size on screen is very different to real life. Print a paper dummy of your board. Try to avoid components with pins any denser than SOIC or 0805.

    Consider putting a bridge rectifier just after your DC IN connector. Then the polarity of incoming power doesn't matter: the bridge rectifier sorts it out. (It costs you a small voltage drop, of course.) Or use a connector that's hard to get backwards, such as USB or USB micro.

    Tie the RESET pin to Vcc via a resistor. A floating RESET pin may lead to random resets. (I made a PIC board that reset when you brought your hand near it.)

    Make sure you put the crystal close to the CPU, and connect to it via short traces. Same with the two capacitors either side of the crystal.

    Your first draft will contain errors. Expect to have to trouble-shoot these.

    Tie any unused digital lines to places where you can populate LEDs for troubleshooting and diagnostic info.

    You'll need to include the six-pin programmer header: your CPUs will arrive blank, without the Arduino bootloader.

    When you receive your first blank board, first populate the bare minimum components needed to make the CPU run. Then connect to it from the Arduino software on your PC and burn the bootloader into it. (You'll need a programme.r) (If you've never burned a bootloader, re-burn the boot loader on your actual Arduino to make sure you have all the steps and setup correct.) Only once your CPU is running should you populate further components. This particularly applies if you're using the MOSI, MISO or SCK pins: once you connect these to other chips on your board (e.g. you're using them for SPI), you may be unable to burn the bootloader.

    1. Re:My comments by geoskd · · Score: 4, Informative

      If your time is expensive and you will only be running a very small number of PCBs, consider using ExpressPCB's design tool, because it's easy to learn and it seamlessly connects to their board printing service. (Their service is expensive though, so this is only good if you're doing a few boards, and thus the labor you save will not be eaten up by the extra you pay per board.)

      Do not use any of the express layout tools if you are handling a CPU. The layout will not work on the first try, and you will have to modify it. Doing this with a schematic is relatively straightforward, and spotting faults is easy. Doing the same from a layout is obscenely difficult and prone to failure. You want to use a schematic capture / PCB layout combination tool such as kicad, eagle or gEda to name a few. The ability to check your layout against a schematic is invaluable, and will save you huge amounts of time.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    2. Re:My comments by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      the same advice is used for other overloaded programming pins (such as tx/rx which is used for the inline 6pin 'arduino' programmer, or the 6pin 2x3 isp connector).

      you want to have a high-z buffer (or play the resistor trick, which I don't personally love) that you can detach your i/o devices from 'a bus' while you program the controller chip. then, when the controller runs, it can either enable the line buffers (ie, tri-state) or you could just have hard jumpers onboard, but that gets tiring after a while.

      point taken, though; think about the lifecycle of software update and if anything on the bus can be in the way of that, you'll have to have an approach that removes the devices at the right time.

      other misc tips while I'm on the subject: its been mentioned to use silk screening and mark polarity (lytic caps, etc) but some pkgs like eagle tend to want to put the plus sign inside the cap's circle. once you populate that cap, the plus char is now hidden and you can't easily desk-check things. I always like to add another '+' char OUTSIDE the cap circle footprint so that even when the part is installed,I can still see the indexing mark. same with chips and diodes and everything else that has a footprint that might cover up an index mark.

      add lots of test points, even if its just an unfilled pcb via.

      add lots of diag leds and jumpers so you can change options or enable a debug mode via a simple jumper change.

      on any higher freq test points, have an eyelet that is a local ground neaby within a few mm distance, so you can use a spring clip probe instead of the 1" of alligator clip/lead that adds too much inductance for high freq grounding use.

      oh, this goes without saying but so many forget this: HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MOUNT THE BOARD? ie, add round screw holes on the 4 corners of the board. remember, it will be mounted somewhere. I see lots of boards (like the open-bench logic sniffer board; it has nearly no holes and mounting in a box is difficult) that forget about the holes. its one of those 'doh!' moments but lots of people seem to forget this simple thing.

      if a chip is hard to solder (fine pitch) consider making it a module that has its own chip carrier and follows .1" standard spacing. socket it so that if it blows you don't have to do serious board rework and can just replace the blown chip on a new carrier board. daughter boards are a great concept to follow.

      use tlv diodes to limit static on front panel buttons, or even use opto couplers. any outside world interface may also benefit from optos (I have a project where I'm allowing ttl serial i/o from a user to the board; and I'm using optos to allow 3.3v and 5v to mix but also no ground loops and no direct connection from control system to the controlled system). if you are using fast i/o, remember that most opto chips are slow and you want nanosecond speed, not microsecond, so pick a faster opto isolator chip (they are only a dollar or 2 more, at most).

      also, avoid all parts from ebay, especially china. goes without saying, but they are all likely fakes or factory rejects or even used parts that were manually removed! buy from mouser, digikey, jameco, etc. even stuff that 'should not matter' like IC sockets will be surprisingly low quality and even things you think 'should be ok' will break on you if you buy ebay china parts. its tempting, but never use that kind of part if you are building something for someone else or if you need it to last. some of us have 2 bins of parts: the junkers that are 'just for us' and for informal testing; and the parts bin from trusted sources that you will use for real builds.

      and if you do send a job to china to have your thing built, never give them all the plans. divide it up so that no one place has your whole design. make it so that you can have 'diag code' loaded for the manuf testing guys, but load your own code here (in your own country). its true about china theft, so know that going in. if you break up the project into a few different boards or modules and don't give the same work to all your sub-contract vendors, you will retain more ownership of the project over time, that way.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:My comments by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Do not use any of the express layout tools if you are handling a CPU.

      This is 100% untrue. These are modern, system-on-chip designs. Many of them are 100% self contained and they will fire up and run with just power applied. The only external circuitry required in many circumstances is a quartz crystal and its tuning capacitors. Even these are only required in applications where the SOC's internal RC oscillator is not accurate enough. You do need to use care in laying out the crystal, but SOC manufacturers issue application notes detailing the requirements necessary for reliable operation.

    4. Re:My comments by FranTaylor · · Score: 2

      avoid all parts from ebay, especially china. goes without saying, but they are all likely fakes or factory rejects or even used parts that were manually removed!

      this is true for semiconductor devices. but for switches, connectors, crimp pins, etc. you are just wasting your money. the connectors you get for super cheap on ebay are 100% indistinguishable from the ones at mouser that cost 10x more.

    5. Re:My comments by itzly · · Score: 1

      One time I got a bunch of boards made in China that specified a Molex part. They substituted it with a Chinese replica that fitted quite poorly to the original Molex mating part. I guess they were 90% indistinguishable.

    6. Re:My comments by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      They substituted it with a Chinese replica that fitted quite poorly to the original Molex mating part.

      you are making the probably incorrect assumption that that connector was supposed to mate with a molex connector. there is probably a proper mate that you did not purchase

    7. Re:My comments by itzly · · Score: 1

      No, my BOM listed the proper Molex part number. They mounted a lookalike. Superficially looking, it was the same, but the measurements were a little off. I unsoldered one, and when viewed side by side with the specified Molex you could see the difference.

    8. Re:My comments by sjames · · Score: 1

      Since he specified a Molex part, it seems reasonable that it was supposed to be a part that is meant to mate with a Molex connector, don't you think? What he actually got instead was clearly not what was ordered if it was meant to mate with anything else.

    9. Re:My comments by Ronin441 · · Score: 1

      ExpressPCB comes with a schematic tool nowadays: ExpressSCH.

      I agree that doing a schematic first is definitely a smart thing: the pin assignments on the CPU don't make any sort of sense that was evident to me, and the mapping between Arduino pins and CPU pins is similarly nonsensical. Doing a schematic gives you a much better chance of getting it all straight on your first try. (That's certainly the way I've done it.)

    10. Re:My comments by Ronin441 · · Score: 1

      TXD/RXD aren't used as part of the 6-pin header: it's +, -, MISO, MOSI, SCK, RESET.

      Once you've burned the bootloader using the 6-pin header, of course, you can switch to using USB or serial to program from the Arduino environment. And yes, if you're using serial to send down a new version of the code once every five minutes during development and you're also using that same serial port in your application, then moving jumpers around to redirect the serial could get old fast. I'm thinking you only need to do this on RXD -- if TXD goes out from your board to several places, I don't see that causing any problems.

      Capacitor polarity: if I fear I've mounted one wrong, I flip the board: pin 1 (i.e. positive) is a square pad.

      Mounting holes: good point!

      Incidentally, the correct number of mounting points is three, because three points define a plane. If your enclosure flexes, and you have more than three screws holding your board down, then your board has to flex with it. If you have exactly three, then the board remains flat (though not necessarily level) when the enclosure flexes.

      I agree with what you say about optoisolators. I'm using a 4N35, but you must bias the base of the optotransistor by tying it to ground with a 10kOhm resistor or so: without this the slew rate (and therefore the bit rate) is appalling.

  10. 2 things by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't make a PCB for one project, I'd use a perf. board. You also don't need a stencil for SMT boards. I just got done soldering up ten prototype boards at work that had all SMT parts on them down to 0602. I used a microscope and a soldering iron.

    1. Re:2 things by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't make a PCB for one project, I'd use a perf. board.

      Not so good for modern low-power chips with low-power crystal oscillator designs. Your prototype will have serious reliability issues if you don't adhere to the manufacturer's guidelines for use of ground planes and layout.

      If you really want to do this, you can get "mini system" boards that have the processor and the crystal circuitry. You can easily mount one of these on a perf board.

    2. Re:2 things by itzly · · Score: 1

      Or you could use a canned crystal oscillator instead. These are quite fool proof.

      Or pick a controller that doesn't need a crystal. Modern controllers have factory calibrated internal oscillators good enough to run a UART port. I even saw one that could run USB without a crystal.

    3. Re:2 things by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Or you could use a canned crystal oscillator instead. These are quite fool proof.

      except when their duty cycle or rise time is not compatible with the SOC

      except when the oscillator costs more than the SOC (look up parts costs! you will be shocked at what oscillators cost)

      I even saw one that could run USB without a crystal.

      this is not due to an "accurate" rc oscillator, this is because the USB host generates a pulse of precise duration and the USB device can calibrate its oscillator to the pulse duration.

    4. Re:2 things by itzly · · Score: 1

      except when their duty cycle or rise time is not compatible with the SOC

      Very hypothetical problems.

      except when the oscillator costs more than the SOC (look up parts costs! you will be shocked at what oscillators cost)

      I know they cost more, but for low volume, that's usually not a big deal. If you use a DIP type, you can even put a socket on the board, and borrow oscillators from another project.

      this is not due to an "accurate" rc oscillator, this is because the USB host generates a pulse of precise duration and the USB device can calibrate its oscillator to the pulse duration.

      For the purpose we're talking about, the RC oscillator is accurate. Whether they achieve this by design, or by continuous calibration isn't really relevant for most people.

    5. Re:2 things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "down to 0602[sic]"

      LOL, those are gigantic parts if you meant 0603.

    6. Re:2 things by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      >Very hypothetical problems.

      you still need to carefully read the specs for all of the parts involved, even simple parts can have complex requirements for reliable operation.

    7. Re:2 things by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      if you are working with MSP430 or STM32L series ultra-low power processors, an external oscillator will consume more power than your entire processor

    8. Re:2 things by itzly · · Score: 1

      you still need to carefully read the specs for all of the parts involved

      That's even more the case for crystals.

      an external oscillator will consume more power than your entire processor

      If that's important, then don't use it, obviously.

  11. Re:Make sure your project is ready for the real wo by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    It's not a bad idea to put holes or pads for despiking capacitors all over the board, at least one per chip in your design. They should be connected as close as possible between the power and ground supply leads for the chips. These may not all need to be populated in the final design, but having them there will make it easier to add capacitors if they end up being needed to clean up the power distribution and prevent hardware glitches when the device is operating.

    It's not a bad idea to explore around the power supply rails on the prototype circuit with a scope looking for glitches and noise induced into the circuit by rapidly changing digital signals into and out of the active parts of your circuit.

  12. CPU by geoskd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The original article talked about laying out your design with a microprocessor. Several things should be noted:

    First, don't roll your own PCB with a microcontroller on it unless you know what you're doing. This is an involved process and not for newbies. You will need expensive lab equipment to debug even the simplest problems, and it is best to sidestep the problem if at all possible. Consider instead simply incorporating an arduino / Pi / Beaglebone into the actual product and do it that way instead. If the margins are low enough to make this impractical, and you don't have any experience designing microcontroller systems, then I would humbly suggest you are out of your depth, and the profit margins are probably too low for you to make money selling your product.

    Second, take a serious look at your design tools. there are plenty of free tools out there that do an excellent job. Eagle and gEda come to mind. Both are free, and both will handle just about any job that an amateur is trying to accomplish. Eagle is primarily windows, and gEda is Linux only. The key part is that you want to design your system as a schematic, then export to the PCB layout. That way the tools will automatically check your PCB layout for errors such as short circuits, disconnected circuit, and a whole host of other problems that the free prototype tools don't handle. Put another way, if you get lucky on your first shot and the layout is perfect, then any tool will do. If you make a tiny mistake somewhere in your layout, then the expressPCB, etc tools will not catch it and your boards will not work. The schematic capture tools will catch the fault, and will save you massive amounts of trouble.

    Be prepared for new debugging tools. Debugging a problem with the arduino or Pi is something you probably already know how to do. Debugging an embedded microcontroller is a whole other world. Even if the hardware is 100%, debugging software is trickier. Do your homework and be prepared for a radical departure from what you’re used to.

    --
    I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    1. Re:CPU by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      First, don't roll your own PCB with a microcontroller on it unless you know what you're doing. T

      Modern processors are systems -on chip. Just about all of the external wiring is low frequency. The only high frequency signals emerging from the SOC are the connections for the quartz crystal. If you download and follow the manufacturer's guidelines for crystal layout you will be good.

    2. Re:CPU by itzly · · Score: 1

      First, don't roll your own PCB with a microcontroller on it unless you know what you're doing. This is an involved process and not for newbies

      It's pretty easy, actually, if you follow a few simple guidelines. Put a bypass cap on the power leads, and put the crystal close to the CPU (if you need a crystal). Check the datasheet for other helpful advice. Often there will be a minimum schematic shown. Look at schematics of existing boards to see what they do.

    3. Re:CPU by bitrex · · Score: 1

      The original article talked about laying out your design with a microprocessor. Several things should be noted:

      First, don't roll your own PCB with a microcontroller on it unless you know what you're doing. This is an involved process and not for newbies. You will need expensive lab equipment to debug even the simplest problems, and it is best to sidestep the problem if at all possible. Consider instead simply incorporating an arduino / Pi / Beaglebone into the actual product and do it that way instead. If the margins are low enough to make this impractical, and you don't have any experience designing microcontroller systems, then I would humbly suggest you are out of your depth, and the profit margins are probably too low for you to make money selling your product.

      Yeah, just about none of that is true.

    4. Re:CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying the PCB design of (say) the raspberry pi is trivial?
      Or saying that incorporating an arduino/pi/whatever in the product is a bad idea?

    5. Re:CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Just put a $3 Arduino Nano on your PCB and save yourself many headaches.

    6. Re:CPU by itzly · · Score: 1

      Are you implying the PCB design of (say) the raspberry pi is trivial?

      No, raspberry pi is quite complicated. An Atmel AVR based design is trivial.

    7. Re:CPU by sjames · · Score: 1

      First, don't roll your own PCB with a microcontroller on it unless you know what you're doing.

      With parts like AVR, it's become nearly stupid simple. All the fiddly bits you are talking about are on the chip now. In some cases where you can use the internal clock, you really only need power and a reset connection (just a pull-up and a momentary switch will do, add a cap to be really clean about it).

    8. Re:CPU by geoskd · · Score: 1

      With parts like AVR, it's become nearly stupid simple. All the fiddly bits you are talking about are on the chip now. In some cases where you can use the internal clock, you really only need power and a reset connection (just a pull-up and a momentary switch will do, add a cap to be really clean about it).

      That is exactly what I’m talking about. For someone with design experience, figuring out why it didn't work will be immediately obvious, or even more likely, it will work the first time because we know what the gotchas are. For an amateur, it is overwhelmingly likely they will get bit by a gotcha, or something even simpler like crossing two traces. If you are trying to debug a system with two crossed traces, its going to be a real pain when it involves a CPU, because you have to figure out what’s wrong: is it your software? is it a bad chip? is it the PCB? If you had a schematic, there are thousands of places to post questions where people will help, and if you had the schematic in the first place, you wouldn't have a crossed trace in the first place. If all you have is a PCB layout, nobody is going to help you dig through it to figure out why it doesn't work. Its the little things that make a real mess out of these types of projects. Simple things like needing a debounce on your switches, or needing a bypass cap on a chip, or trying to pull half an amp out of a 20mA pin. These things will all be very obvious from a schematic, but will be anything but, if all you have is a layout. Even more importantly, if you have a working prototype involving a pre-existing micro-controller (Arduino / Pi, etc.), then why mess with it. Work your design around it instead. Once you include the cost of making PCB in low volumes, you will be talking about an expensive product. If the cost of a Pi A/B or an arduino is going to break your price point, then you are very likely making the wrong product altogether.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    9. Re:CPU by geoskd · · Score: 1

      It's pretty easy, actually, if you follow a few simple guidelines.

      It depends entirely on the complexity of the design and the microcontroller chosen. If you pick something like an AVR, then it will be simpler, but will not handle very many IO, and will be severely firmware limited. If it is a very simple project, it might work the first time or it might not. If it is a very simple project, it is also very unlikely to be commercially viable, as someone bigger will already be in that space and not want you there. If it is complex enough to warrant high margins (enough to support an up-start player in the market, or a new market), then you're better off putting the arduino / pi to it because you already have the working design. Just PCB up your parts of the circuit and you have a viable product. Once you have some money coming in, hire an engineer to cheap it up for you.

      I'll offer you a challenge: If you think it is easy to make circuits based around micro controllers, I challenge you to guarantee debugging assistance to anyone who takes your advice and builds a uC based PCB design. I on the other hand, want nothing to do with anyone who rolls their own without knowing what they are doing, because they are going to find messed up ways to make it not work. They will assume everything works the way it does on the Arduino / Pi, and if they even read the processor documentation (all 100+ pages of it), they are unlikely to understand everything they need to know anyway. Further, they now have to learn an embedded programming environment and figure out how to get their program onto the device itself, which is non-trivial if the only experience you have is with the arduino / pi which both have a bootloader. In summary, for you and me its simple. For the average person playing with an arduino / pi, it is likely to be anything but.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    10. Re:CPU by geoskd · · Score: 1

      No, raspberry pi is quite complicated. An Atmel AVR based design is trivial.

      Oh really? How do you get your software onto it? Remember to explain for a person who's only experience is downloading an SD card image and booting his Pi into Raspbian...

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    11. Re:CPU by geoskd · · Score: 1

      If you download and follow the manufacturer's guidelines for crystal layout you will be good.

      If you're even using a crystal at all, you're doing something wrong. You would be far better served using a uC that has an internal clock. The external crystal just adds complexity and cost that are unneeded. The only applications that would require an external crystal are projects that a newbie has no business anywhere near, especially without any actual PCB experience.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    12. Re:CPU by sjames · · Score: 1

      Most of those issues will be a problem for ANY circuit, not just one with a CPU. There are plenty of schematics and diagrams of a bare AVR on a board to crib from if it isn't obvious enough. Fully agreed that it makes sense to prototype the circuit on a breadboard first, but again, that applies to anything, not just a CPU.

      If you will need to make a shield for your project, the board is a sunk cost. However, you did mention an important threshold. Unless I was going to make thousands, A Pi based project would probably be better off on a shield anyway regardless of skill. If production is over a few hundred, a custom run with the un-needed parts left out might make sense. It is, after all open-source hardware.

      An Arduino project is quite another matter. It's simple enough that it's almost a toss-up between taking the open files and modifying them for a custom run vs doing a custom board from scratch.

    13. Re:CPU by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you're even using a crystal at all, you're doing something wrong.

      What an absolutely backwards thinking statement. There are a multitude of applications available to beginners which require crystals, and at the frequencies we're talking about these applications even work on a breadboard. Crystals are in no way shape or form even remotely out of range for a beginner to use.

    14. Re:CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are trying to debug a system with two crossed traces, its going to be a real pain when it involves a CPU

      This is going to be a real pain regardless, and such a problem is not helped by having "expensive debugging equipment" but involves the same debugging and design issues any circuit would. If anything, it is far easier to debug such things on a cpu project, because you can always try changing outputs and seeing what happens, unlike analog circuit issues where you might have no idea where some surious frequency is coming from and no way to change the circuit without a soldering iron.

      If you had a schematic, there are thousands of places to post questions where people will help, and if you had the schematic in the first place, you wouldn't have a crossed trace in the first place

      Which is why nearly all layout software lets you import a schematic, and the first step to doing layout on all but the most trivial of boards is to make a schematic. Plenty of tutorials on PCB layout include these very steps too.

      Once you include the cost of making PCB in low volumes, you will be talking about an expensive product.

      I've had hobby projects with pcb orders as small as $10, total, not per board (usually minimum is 3 or 5 boards depending on place).

      If the cost of a Pi A/B or an arduino is going to break your price point, then you are very likely making the wrong product altogether.

      If all you need is stock arduino board, then you're right. If you want to add a bunch of extra circuitry, then you can save time and/or money depending on how many other shields you need, how much other layout and custom circuitry you're doing for each. And in my experience, the primary motivation is to get things in a smaller space or lower power usage once you know exactly what you need, not because it will save you a dollar or two on what amounts to cheap parts either way.

      Plus you complain about how are you supposed to diagnosis problems when you make a mistake on a layout... which turns out to be much harder to diagnosis when you make a rats nest trying to get a project onto a perfboard. With a little bit of practice, you can actually end up spending less time doing layout and soldering to a board than you would have spent debugging a problem in a board without layout or schematics.

    15. Re:CPU by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Connect a $15 ISP programmer to 6 pins.
      Buy AVRs with the Arduino bootloader pre-installed.
      Buy any USB AVRs which all come with bootloaders pre-installed.
      Pop the AVR out of your Arduino and into your application board.

      I tutored Team Project I at university. We literally had every student designing PCBs and programming AVRs in their first year and not a single person had issues with it, even the really dumb rejects of the class managed to get something running, they just couldn't code to save themselves.

    16. Re:CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sounds like the gp is nervous that this maker movement is going to make him less employable.

    17. Re:CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is a very simple project, it might work the first time or it might not. If it is a very simple project, it is also very unlikely to be commercially viable, as someone bigger will already be in that space and not want you there. If it is complex enough to warrant high margins (enough to support an up-start player in the market, or a new market), then you're better off putting the arduino / pi to it because you already have the working design.

      Someone bigger might be a problem if you device is both simple and solves a really common problem, but there are still a lot of markets for one man shops producing niche products. And I've seen problems in that case with projects that used just whole Arduino setups within, because some target markets will recognize it as then refuse to pay much for it.

    18. Re:CPU by geoskd · · Score: 1

      I tutored Team Project I at university. We literally had every student designing PCBs and programming AVRs in their first year and not a single person had issues with it, even the really dumb rejects of the class managed to get something running, they just couldn't code to save themselves.

      You were teaching a class who's entire point was to learn how to do such a thing. Theres a world of difference between that and someone with literally no background in circuits at all, or complete self taught.

      The solutions you listed above would be zero help to someone with no background in embedded processors.

      Connect a $15 ISP programmer to 6 pins.

      What programmer? what 6 pins? where is it documented? google search for ISP programmer get me lots of link to website developer jobs, but not much in the embedded world. Remember, these people dont know jack about embedded systems. Its simple for you, not them.

      Buy AVRs with the Arduino bootloader pre-installed.

      Where would you buy them? mouser? digikey? what are they called. Again there isn't even enough there to google search for. An amateur might even know what a bootloader is, but how does one get them "preinstalled"?

      Buy any USB AVRs which all come with bootloaders pre-installed.

      So now you expect them to layout a USB circuit on a PCB? I thought you said this was a simple task?

      Pop the AVR out of your Arduino and into your application board.

      So once again, they are buying an arduino for every product they sell, my way was easier from a manufacturability standpoint.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    19. Re:CPU by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Crystals are in no way shape or form even remotely out of range for a beginner to use.

      Crystals are almost entirely unnecessary. Lower frequency crystals can be completely ignored with the right choice of processor. The only other place you might need them would be specialty applications like DTMF decoding, but even there, the right processor can handle it sans crystal.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    20. Re:CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is like you're trying on purpose to fail...

      where is it documented?

      Both chip data sheets and an extra document on how to program a given chips usually include a nice big diagram of exactly what four lines (plus power and ground) need to be connected to a standard programmer. The ones I've seen even explicitly show how to avoid mistakes, like what to do if you want to use the same pins for stuff other than programming, where you can't stick extra resistors, capacitors or diodes, etc.

      This is also not counting all of the various tutorials, including ones on how to build your own programmer for a couple dollars (although you can buy them really cheap now too), documentation that comes with the programmer too that gives examples, etc., including plenty of pictures. If you can't figure out something as simple as plugging something into specific lines on a mcu, then you're never going to figure out how to even use a premade mcu board.

      Where would you buy them?

      The same shops that sell hobby kits and stuff targetted toward people just getting started out, including tutorials and pages explaining how to use your own chip when you want to move on beyond a pre-made board.

      So now you expect them to layout a USB circuit on a PCB?

      It is a simple as connecting three pins to a connector, plus ground. It doesn't get any simpler than that, and it doesn't require any extra circuitry or much care as it is a low speed connection. Seriously, you think this is not a simple task? I've had summer work study students layout boards for a microcontroller with a usb connection as their second layout ever, and despite no formal training they haven't had problems with this.

      So once again, they are buying an arduino for every product they sell, my way was easier from a manufacturability standpoint.

      It is a suggestion appropriate to prototyping something. If you are going to the point of producing numbers of things, then you need to learn a bit more or risk spending more time and/or money, which is true for just about everything...

      I general use summer work study students to do PCB layout for slower circuits because they're labor is cheap, and they pick it up pretty quick. These aren't engineering students usually too, so you can't argue that they are getting special formal education in the subject. Most of them don't even have to be spoon fed specific tutorials and links, and are actual able to answer questions using the internet... just like the stuff you posed as insurmountable obstacles here I was able to find answers and even auto-suggestions for.

    21. Re:CPU by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Unless you have any kind of application that requires any kind of critical timing, or you actually want to run an AVR at even remotely above half its rated speed.

      Yep beginner projects like making a clock without an external RTC, flashing or multiplexing LEDs, or god forbid you do something as amazing as connect it to USB which is a built in feature of many microcontrollers these days which they can't do with the horrendously inaccurate internal RC oscillator.

      You'll need a crystal for any of the above applications. But sure if you're flashing an LED on and off at some rough approximation at once Hz then there's no need for a crystal, but if you think that's the kind of thing "beginners" are doing then you've got some reading to do.

    22. Re:CPU by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You were teaching a class who's entire point was to learn how to do such a thing. Theres a world of difference between that and someone with literally no background in circuits at all, or complete self taught.

      The solutions you listed above would be zero help to someone with no background in embedded processors.

      Oh horse crap. If someone is capable of hooking up a basic led and resistor, and capable of churning out C++ and setting up the Arduino IDE then it is absolutely trivial for them to hook up 6 wires to a breadboard and run a command on their computer to flash a microcontroller. Just how dumb do you think the average tinkerer is? I've seen accountants do this with nothing more than a fleeting interest in electronics.

      What programmer? what 6 pins? where is it documented? google search for ISP programmer get me lots of link to website developer jobs, but not much in the embedded world. Remember, these people dont know jack about embedded systems. Its simple for you, not them.

      Ok given your search results I retract my statement. Some people are intellectually challenged.
      For the record the first 4 results on "ISP Programmer"
      1. Wikipedia entry on ISP with not 1, not 2, but 3 pictures showing the pinout for AVR microcontrollers. Yes 3 pictures on the first entry on the first search. It's amazing that you couldn't figure this out.
      2. This is even better. The second entry is a link to a tutorial on Arduino.cc on how to use and Arduino to program AVRs. We're actually talking about the application that you said is too hard for people to do, which I said requires a minimal amount of hardware, and the tutorial shows you how to do it with no hardware, complete with pictures on how the wiring is done (not even a schematic a breadboard picture), a tutorial which does the very thing we're talking about from the very site people are most likely to use if they play with arduinos. You just can't make this shit up.
      3. A link to adafruit's blog with a list of cheap ISP programmers and how to use them.
      4. A link to Atmel's Application note on AVRs.

      Where would you buy them? mouser? digikey? what are they called. Again there isn't even enough there to google search for. An amateur might even know what a bootloader is, but how does one get them "preinstalled"?

      Have you tried http://www.arduino.cc/ and then clicking on buy? 4euro + VAT for the exact chip in the Arduino UNO preloaded with the bootloader right from the source.

      So now you expect them to layout a USB circuit on a PCB? I thought you said this was a simple task?

      Sure. We're discussing an article that is discussing laying out a PCB. If they can layout a circuit board then they can get USB working. The tight specs and tolerances on USB matter a bit on high speed USB2.0 applications but the vast majority of people are going to do something trivially basic like load the LUFA libraries out of the box and click go, or load V-USB. Incidentally a how-to with pictures on how to get V-USB working is the first hit on Google for "AVR USB".

      So once again, they are buying an arduino for every product they sell, my way was easier from a manufacturability standpoint.

      Nope just the microcontroller, right from the Arduino website with everything preloaded.

    23. Re:CPU by vyvepe · · Score: 1
      A lot of controllers require a crystal if you want to use them only as a low or at most full speed USB device.

      Did you want to tell that people should not try to build something which would be able to do a low speed USB connection?

      But it is true there are controllers which do not need a crystal for USB.

    24. Re:CPU by geoskd · · Score: 1

      So now you expect them to layout a USB circuit on a PCB? It is a simple as connecting three pins to a connector, plus ground. It doesn't get any simpler than that, and it doesn't require any extra circuitry or much care as it is a low speed connection.

      It is definitely not that simple. As with most things, it depends what version youre working with. USB 1.0,1.1, sure you can do whatever, but you wont get much throughput. USB 2.0, you have about a 50-50 chance of handling full speed operation unless you use impedance controlled traces and make damn sure they are the right length, etc. USB 3.0 is an extremely high speed connection, and without extreme care, it simply wont work. A newbie is as likely as not to try to use whatever the chip can sustain (2.0 bare minimum these days) without knowing the headache they're in for.

      It is a suggestion appropriate to prototyping something. If you are going to the point of producing numbers of things, then you need to learn a bit more or risk spending more time and/or money, which is true for just about everything...

      I have worked for two startups, one that uses the Raspberry Pi (various models) in all of their products, and one that uses the BBB. Both are doing quite well. The first has 50M in gross annual revenue, and the other just got its first wholesale order for 1000 units at $2000 per unit. I get paid good money to come in and get customers products the rest of the way to market, and when I give them the options matrix, they almost invariably choose to save the development time and get the product into mass-pro right away. The idea is simple, once they have revenue, they can chase the pennies. Put another way, if their unit will cost an extra $20 by using a Pi vs embedded, and they expect to sell 1000 units per year, saving that expense better cost less than $20,000. Any given product in todays market is as likely as not to last about a year before a new version / competitor shows up. Any startup that thinks they are going to sell something with a microcontroller in it in large quantities in years 1-5 is dreaming, and are going to be very disillusioned when reality hits... High volume low margin products are not conducive to startup companies. They can try to fudge the numbers as much as they like, but when push comes to shove they get steamrollered.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  13. rable rable by jasonridesabike · · Score: 0

    rable rable rable slashdot rable rable complain rable news.

    1. Re:rable rable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hamburgler, is that you?

  14. Re:Make sure your project is ready for the real wo by itzly · · Score: 1

    It's not a bad idea to put holes or pads for despiking capacitors all over the board, at least one per chip in your design.

    I always do one capacitor per power supply lead. And they always get populated. Unless you make high volume (thousands), there's no sense in optimizing.

  15. Re:Make sure your project is ready for the real wo by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

    It's not a bad idea to put holes or pads for despiking capacitors all over the board, at least one per chip in your design.

    read the documentation carefully for your system on chip. sometimes the best practice is a little more involved than that. some of the more complex ones have internal dc-dc converters that require external capacitors, they need extra care in layout.

  16. TO-220 regulator? by bitrex · · Score: 1

    Why did he use that ridiculously oversized LM7805 in the TO-220 package for the final project? A 78L05 in a TO-92 would have been plenty for such a small project. IIRC it's what's used on the Arduino board itself.

    1. Re:TO-220 regulator? by itzly · · Score: 1

      Maybe to allow for higher input voltage.

    2. Re:TO-220 regulator? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Derating is a good reason although I tend to avoid the 78L05 simply because its quiescent current is high compared to its output current. The 7805 is not much more expensive than a 78L05.

    3. Re:TO-220 regulator? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      He probably had them on hand and they both cost roughly the same amount as a 78L05. Plus this is a prototype.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  17. Re:Make sure your project is ready for the real wo by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

    Not every power supply is the same, add a capacitor and/or line regulator to the input.

    And don't be stingy with decoupling caps.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  18. circuitboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the old days a hobbyist could make his own through hole circuit boards.While prototyping is possible in surface mount ,permanent circuit boards remain very difficult to create. I appreciate the many circuit board services but they will never be a better alternative than do it yourself circuit boards created from raw material. In my opinion we need to recover the lost ability. If only I knew of a place were a lot of engineers hang out I would go there and ask them to try to invent the tools we need. If only radio shack could help us!

    But seriously, I keep hearing of new technology but I don't see anything available yet.I recently wasted a whole 4x6 blank pcb trying to make a small board.

    1. Re:circuitboards by geoskd · · Score: 1

      While prototyping is possible in surface mount ,permanent circuit boards remain very difficult to create. I appreciate the many circuit board services but they will never be a better alternative than do it yourself circuit boards created from raw material. In my opinion we need to recover the lost ability. If only I knew of a place were a lot of engineers hang out I would go there and ask them to try to invent the tools we need. If only radio shack could help us!

      Even through hole PCBs were a pain to DIY. If you have a little money to spend, and are insisteant on DIY, get a PCB mill. I think Adafruit has one. I know of a few online stencil houses that will make one for you for about $40. Better yet, just suck it up and solder the protoboards by hand. I use a headmount magnifier and lamp for the 0402s. Most people can handle 0603s and bigger without a magnifying glass. If you're talking production boards, you can get a square meter PCB and assembly for about $5,000. For a typical design that'll be 100-200 boards for $5,000. If your product cant handle a $50 PCB cost, it either shouldn't need a PCB in the first place, or the business model is doomed to failure (or both).

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    2. Re:circuitboards by makapuf · · Score: 1

      I'm making an open DIY game console which is sold around $50. I solder them myself with 0603, based on custom made PCBs (in Asia unfortunately) for a few $ each. Soldering SMD PCB by hand is definitely doable (there are nice tuts on youtube, by example Dave Jones ones). Of course my "products" need a PCB, but they're far from needing a $50 PCB apiece (with no components).

    3. Re:circuitboards by Henry+Dorsett+Case · · Score: 1

      Even for a professional having a DIY circuit board ability would be a great benefit. Allowing engineers to test their PCB before having many produced and to go through many design variations before deciding on a final product. Where are all the engineers when you need them? Are there even any corporate insiders with trade secrets to share?

    4. Re:circuitboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the old days a hobbyist could make his own through hole circuit boards.. ... In my opinion we need to recover the lost ability

      What the heck are you talking about? All of the old methods of making your own boards are still within easy reach. Etching supplies, trace stencils, photosensitive (or pre-treated boards) are all still available from both hobby shops and electronical component shops. This isn't a lost art, there are a bazillion tutorials still around how to do all of this.

      While prototyping is possible in surface mount ,permanent circuit boards remain very difficult to create

      The only difference between through-hole and surface mount is the former takes an extra step of drilling holes. Between the size, sometimes cost, and the extra work involved, I prefer SMD for projects whenever possible if making my own boards. There is no difference between a prototype SMD and a permanent board considering you're going to be soldering it either way.

      I appreciate the many circuit board services but they will never be a better alternative than do it yourself circuit boards created from raw material.

      DIY boards have always sucked compared to what you can get from board services, because anything you can do, they can do, if not better. Plus they have more options too. Most diy skill solder masks, because it is a pain to do (but still possible), and skip silkscreens. DIY multi-layer boards tend to be bulkier and more wasteful than boardhouses setup to make them. And that is all stuff you can get with cheap, prototype packages.

      The only reason people are making their own boards less often, is because professionally made boards have become so much cheaper, and they're so much better, the only reason to do it yourself is because you have an aversion to layout software or because you need really quick turn around.

    5. Re:circuitboards by Henry+Dorsett+Case · · Score: 1

      I have tried all but the photosensitive boards. I have heard good reviews of that method but I don't see the point because my etching results have been unreliable. Doesn't everyone need a quick turnaround these days? I was hoping for TIPS AND ADVICE but maybe I was expecting too much. My comments here reduce to one sentence. There must be a better way.

    6. Re:circuitboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was hoping for TIPS AND ADVICE but maybe I was expecting too much.

      If you made the AC comment above, then it looks like you haven't even tried looking for resources instead of just asking. There is no need to rewrite tips and advice here that exist many times over already online. Have you tried searching for your particular issue and why the board failed? Did you not etch evenly, did it take too long, did it eat away traces you want? Guides already address those common issues.

      Doesn't everyone need a quick turnaround these days?

      For weekend projects, there is no need worry that it will take a work week to get a board because I will be busy with other things. I only make my own boards when I need something within a couple of hours, instead of a the minimum ~2 days it can take to get one from a boardhouse, e.g. for an up coming event. This is much rarer than say at the work place where they are more likely to have deadlines (and in which case they resort to etching boards using the same stuff I use at home and can get for $10 in supplies online...).

      In the old days a hobbyist could make his own through hole circuit boards... There must be a better way.

      Etching is how it has been done for several decades. You can't both complain it was better in the past, then complain you don't like how it was done in the past.

    7. Re:circuitboards by Henry+Dorsett+Case · · Score: 1

      Why are you being so critical? I can give you a through hole board in a few hours but an smd board is much harder. Like I said I scrapped a blank board recently. Throwing money at a problem is not a skill I value. Your comments don't contain any information.

    8. Re:circuitboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Etching boards is a lot like installing modern Linux, in that if you use something common, just follow the directions. The directions that came with the etching solution should be pretty reliable, and there are no further tips or advice beyond just following directions. If you however have something specifically go wrong, then you need to ask about the specific failure mode instead of expecting it to just come up in discussion. There are tips and tricks if you are trying to do something less standard, i.e. how to build a dedicated etching tank, or make your own etching solution, or different ways to transfer patterns, but you kind of need to be more specific then before expecting relevant advice (not every discussion of how to install Linux is going to cover how to build your own distro or how to bootstrap compile the kernel). Otherwise, you sound like someone saying, "I was hoping for advice installing Linux, because doing so from a CD is just too unreliable and there must be a better way." However, unlike hardware occasionally being to blame for Linux problems, etchings is mostly only going to fail from no completing a step, for example not cleaning the board, not heating the enchant to the appropriate temperature, or failing to transfer a mask properly.

    9. Re:circuitboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you being so critical?

      Everything said in the original comment is pure nonsense: There is no method lost to time, diy doesn't produce a higher quality product, new technologies are already out there for purchase, there is nothing special about etching a SMD board.

      I can give you a through hole board in a few hours but an smd board is much harder.

      It is the exact same process, minus a step. A lot of people are scared of SMD before they try it, but you can find numerous blogs of people expressing how they will never go back to through hole because the board making and soldering ends up being so much easier (with unfortunate exception to those with a far below average hand steadiness).

      Throwing money at a problem is not a skill I value.

      Then you don't want the new technology that the original comment was pining for, as the two cheapest methods are etching and sending it out to be made. Both of the latter can cost as low as $10, and depending on exactly what you are trying to do, either can edge the other out. If you actually want a solder mask and silkscreen, then sending it out because the method of least money throwing.

      Your comments don't contain any information.

      Other than trying to explain the difference between diy and professional boards, and that etching is still the same tried and true method it was decades ago. If you can't accept that there is no new magic bullet, then no amount of tips and advice will help. Maybe instead of hoping some new fancy technology can fix your troubles, you should figure out what you're doing wrong with etching, for which there is no shortage of information on how to do or how to address common beginner issues.

    10. Re:circuitboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After having worked in academia and two engineering firms in the last 5 years, and having seen half a dozen other engineering departments while consulting, the vast majority of prototype boards I've seen are sent out for. They are willing to pay for the expedite order to get a new board in 2-3 days, as it is not worth the engineer or shop technicians time to be making their own board.

      Only when the stuff hit the fan, and engineers couldn't wait two days, did you see stuff get made in house. The vast majority of the the time the boards were made in house, they just used etching. The only exception were two of the places I've been two had circuit board routers, which cost them over $10k (you can get small, Chinese ones for under $1k though). However, the router was used far less than etching, because it really only helped out big time for drilling holes, while boards with mostly surface mount parts could be cranked out in less time by etching than it took to setup and run the router for a decent sized board.

  19. My simpler 5-step plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe my circuits are just too simple, but my strategy is:

    1) Build on wireless breadboard. Get it working there.
    2) Port to prefabbed circuit board that matches the connection layout of the wireless breadboard, soldering/moving one component over at a time.
    3) Wrap circuit board in electrical tape and put it into a 50 cent travel-soapbox from walmart. Drill holes for LEDs/Switches/etc & glue/wire/solder them in.
    4) Add battery to soapbox & circuit. Add modeling clay to keep everything from rattling around in the soapbox.
    5) Put on your most friendly face and try to convince the nice men with all those guns that this is not a bomb.
    6) If still alive, call lawyer. Remember to memorize phone number of lawyer before step 1. Better yet, put him on a retainer before starting.

    Is this a great country or what?

  20. Re:Make sure your project is ready for the real wo by itzly · · Score: 1

    And don't be stingy with decoupling caps.

    And put them right next to the power pins. I've seen boards where all the decoupling caps are bunched together in a corner of the board, far away from the action.

  21. Re:Make sure your project is ready for the real wo by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

    I've seen boards where all the decoupling caps are bunched together in a corner of the board, far away from the action.

    Yeah, kinda defeats the purpose. I've seen something dumber though - many years back, a friend of a friend tried to get rid of the ignition noise coming over the radio in his car by installing a filter cap across the battery terminals and then wondered why it didn't make any difference. Guy was an electronics tech in the Navy, for crying out loud.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  22. Just make sure you don't use FTDI chips... by cpotoso · · Score: 1

    Just make sure you don't use FTDI chips... as you never know whether they are legit and the current FTDI Windows drivers will brick them. Sure, it is reversible but if anybody connects your FTDI chip to a Windows machine then it is bricked... Not nice. Not nice at all. Just avoid FTDI.

    1. Re:Just make sure you don't use FTDI chips... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you don't use FTDI chips... as you never know whether they are legit and the current FTDI Windows drivers will brick them. Sure, it is reversible but if anybody connects your FTDI chip to a Windows machine then it is bricked... Not nice. Not nice at all. Just avoid FTDI.

      Or god forbid you can buy your parts from places other than ebay. You're pretty much guaranteed legit parts if you buy from reputable sources.

      While this may sound like their reliability is in question, I would say worse from other vendors as the only alternatives to FTDI have had just utter garbage drivers to begin with.

    2. Re:Just make sure you don't use FTDI chips... by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you don't use FTDI chips... as you never know whether they are legit and the current FTDI Windows drivers will brick them. Sure, it is reversible but if anybody connects your FTDI chip to a Windows machine then it is bricked... Not nice. Not nice at all. Just avoid FTDI.

      Or god forbid you can buy your parts from places other than ebay. You're pretty much guaranteed legit parts if you buy from reputable sources.

      While this may sound like their reliability is in question, I would say worse from other vendors as the only alternatives to FTDI have had just utter garbage drivers to begin with.

      As if you have full control over what you get. Are you buying the FTDI chips yourself? You may be buying from a reputable vendor only to know in the end that their supply lines were not as clean as you thought. What FTDI did (brick chips that used their driver, vs. the correct thing: simply ignore the chips) is extremely unethical, I will NEVER BUY ANYTHING FROM FTDI or that has FTDI on them (whether it is fake or not fake, since I can't be sure until it is too late). Next time they'd better think twice.

    3. Re:Just make sure you don't use FTDI chips... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You don't have full control, but you have a very tight control and recourse available should you get stung.

      As a designer you shouldn't be pissed about this. As an end user you definitely should.

      Also I disagree they should have ignored the issue. Fake parts are the scurvy of the industry and should be eradicated. I'd much rather a part that produces a predictable but bad result when connected to the computer (bricks), than a part that I'm forever debugging because it doesn't seem to work quite right. Bricking may be a bit extreme but the do-nothing approach was no better.

    4. Re:Just make sure you don't use FTDI chips... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've used SiLabs parts almost exclusively for years... never had any problems with their drivers. Sure their parts might be a few cents more expensive, but they are usually in smaller packages, or have built in oscillators, or some other advantage. I've never understood the extreme popularity of the FTDI stuff.

    5. Re:Just make sure you don't use FTDI chips... by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      Bricking = taking something that does not belong to you. It is immoral and if it weren't for the fact it is not worth it they should be sued out of existence. Acceptable = make your drivers not respond to the fake chip anymore. In the meantime, just stop using this company's chips altogether. That's my opinion. There are other alternatives (e.g., use atmega chips with USB in them).

    6. Re:Just make sure you don't use FTDI chips... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Actually they aren't taking anything from you. There is only one person who is doing anything immoral and that's the person who made the fake device in the first place. Today it was bricked on purpose, tomorrow it's bricked by accident. These fakes are none the less working devices which would be just fine in their own right if they didn't pretend to be something they're not, using a driver they aren't supposed to, and channelling funds away from someone who did all the work.

      I don't avoid the company that's doing something to guarantee that I'll be getting correct parts and that what I build won't be randomly blowing up in someone's face. (ok extreme example).

      But I do agree avoiding the concept in general. I hate the idea of USB serial bridges and it's been a long time since I used anything other than AVRs with USB support.

  23. Re:Make sure your project is ready for the real wo by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    What you're talking about is "productionization" - in other words making a prototype able to be manufactured. That sounds over-the-top for a hobbyist project, especially a one-off, but I think it's often worth doing for several reasons: those you state, i.e. for reliability, longevity, but also a) because it gives you some insight into what's needed to create a real product not just a hobby project, b) it adds greatly to the satisfaction you get from the finished article. If (b) isn't a consideration for you, then you're probably pursuing the wrong hobby, for the wrong reasons.

  24. Re:Make sure your project is ready for the real wo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of an engineer that came back saying he found the problem in a noisy circuit and said that it was coming from an external power supply and asked if we could increase the capacitance in the power supply. We then reminded him that the external power source was a large capacitor bank with 0.128 F of capacitance already...

  25. More of the Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am going to hijack this thread to drop a link for gearsofresistance.com A podcast dedicated to OSHW news, electronics tips, and building a business on OSHW. It's still learning to stand on its own two legs (and looking for a cohost) so your razor-sharp wit and constructive critiques would be awesome... M.