john larkin <jl@htigct.com>wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/pcba-test-strategies-how-to-select-the-right-methodology-and-tester/
This sounds goofy to me. If many units fail test-and-cal, there's a
design or production problem that needs fixing.
Bare boards might need bed-of-nails or flying probe testing, but that
ain't our problem.
quote:
This involves integrating Parametric ICT with AI-driven analysis.
end quote
Are they selling AI ? or 'nails'
that word "nails" is metioned many many times in that article
n AI ls
Usually putting a nail / scope against a RF circuit changes the impedance
etc at that point.
Seems a bit of a babble article.
I was reading today that humans have more brain cels than AI and humans only need milliwats.
So, human (your, mine, people's ) experience counts
[2] in the 50s, people would hand draw the circuit boards, rather than
print them. I don't know what acronym they used back then. D.C.B? For /drawn circuit boards/?
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
[...]
[2] in the 50s, people would hand draw the circuit boards, rather than
print them. I don't know what acronym they used back then. D.C.B? For
/drawn circuit boards/?
The main reason for using printed circuit boards was stated to be the elimination of wiring errors on the production line. An incidental
advantage was slightly greater productivity because components could be soldered-in quicker - but this was offset by the time and extra
processes needed to make the boards. The disadvantages were the
difficulty of fault diagnosis (the circuit was difficult to follow) and
the difficulty of making a reliable repair (the tracks lifted off the
board when re-soldered).
As the manufacturing processes improved and wave-soldering became the
norm, assembly became much quicker and fewer girls (they were nearly
always girls) were needed on the production line at a time of increasing
wage costs. Being able to *print* the circuit was mainly driven by consideration of mass production, there was no inherent advantage in asesembling circuits that way until transistors, miniature components
and higher frequencies made it inevitable.
Drawing the boards by hand on tracing paper was a way of preparing for production and was actually a very wasteful process compared with hand-wiring. For prototypes and individual pieces of equipment, hand
wiring was still used. I was still building 'rats-nest' prototype
circuits in the late 1960s and only transferred them to printed circuit
when they were finalised.
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid>wrote:
On 03/10/2026 1:11 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@htigct.com>wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/pcba-test-strategies-how-to-select-the-right-methodology-and-tester/
This sounds goofy to me. If many units fail test-and-cal, there's a
design or production problem that needs fixing.
Bare boards might need bed-of-nails or flying probe testing, but that
ain't our problem.
quote:
This involves integrating Parametric ICT with AI-driven analysis.
end quote
Are they selling AI ? or 'nails'
that word "nails" is metioned many many times in that article
n AI ls
Usually putting a nail / scope against a RF circuit changes the impedance
etc at that point.
Seems a bit of a babble article.
I was reading today that humans have more brain cels than AI and humans only >> need milliwats.
So, human (your, mine, people's ) experience counts
Indeed. And humans need to be able to learn from said experience. Many >people are incapable of learning from their own mistakes [1] and repeat
them over and over. I'm sure everyone here in sci.electronics.design
can think of several examples from real life.
Machines never learn from experience, because they don't have experi-
ence. They are and always will be /stochastically ignorant text gene- >rators/.
I keep saying that, because so many people /believe/ the machines are >sentient, and have thoughts. The aren't and they don't.
I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd trust an L.L.M. generated >P.C.B. [2] because it doesn't have /experience/, and it doesn't know how
to test it. And it will never learn from mistakes.
A human written algorithm to design P.C.Bs. on the other hand sounds
like a useful tool; but still, what do you do if the algorithm doesn't
know how to make use of a new component?
Best wishes, and happy hand drawing your own circuit boards.
[1] Amusing insults aside, I have not experienced anyone here in sci.el- >ectronic.design stupid enough to fail this basic test of humanity. If
anyone here is taking this paragraph personally, that's on that person
and not my writing.
[2] in the 50s, people would hand draw the circuit boards, rather than
print them. I don't know what acronym they used back then. D.C.B? For >/drawn circuit boards/?
John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com>wrote:
On 07/10/2026 10:07, Liz Tuddenham wrote:For a few months the main BBC TV broadcast transmissions from
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
[...]
[2] in the 50s, people would hand draw the circuit boards, rather than
print them. I don't know what acronym they used back then. D.C.B? For >>> /drawn circuit boards/?
The main reason for using printed circuit boards was stated to be the
elimination of wiring errors on the production line. An incidental
advantage was slightly greater productivity because components could be
soldered-in quicker - but this was offset by the time and extra
processes needed to make the boards. The disadvantages were the
difficulty of fault diagnosis (the circuit was difficult to follow) and
the difficulty of making a reliable repair (the tracks lifted off the
board when re-soldered).
As the manufacturing processes improved and wave-soldering became the
norm, assembly became much quicker and fewer girls (they were nearly
always girls) were needed on the production line at a time of increasing
wage costs. Being able to *print* the circuit was mainly driven by
consideration of mass production, there was no inherent advantage in
asesembling circuits that way until transistors, miniature components
and higher frequencies made it inevitable.
Drawing the boards by hand on tracing paper was a way of preparing for
production and was actually a very wasteful process compared with
hand-wiring. For prototypes and individual pieces of equipment, hand
wiring was still used. I was still building 'rats-nest' prototype
circuits in the late 1960s and only transferred them to printed circuit
when they were finalised.
Crystal Palace in London were passed through a full height rack full
of hand-wired Veroboard to encode Teletext data.
The pcb version followed later.
The Veroboard was the plain type just used as a mechanical support
for point to point hand wiring sleeved with silicone rubber
Hellermann sleeving. Logic was mostly 74S and 74 series TTL.
John
On 03/10/2026 1:11 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@htigct.com>wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/pcba-test-strategies-how-to-select-the-right-methodology-and-tester/
This sounds goofy to me. If many units fail test-and-cal, there's a
design or production problem that needs fixing.
Bare boards might need bed-of-nails or flying probe testing, but that
ain't our problem.
quote:
This involves integrating Parametric ICT with AI-driven analysis.
end quote
Are they selling AI ? or 'nails'
that word "nails" is metioned many many times in that article
n AI ls
Usually putting a nail / scope against a RF circuit changes the impedance
etc at that point.
Seems a bit of a babble article.
I was reading today that humans have more brain cels than AI and humans only >> need milliwats.
So, human (your, mine, people's ) experience counts
Indeed. And humans need to be able to learn from said experience. Many >people are incapable of learning from their own mistakes [1] and repeat
them over and over. I'm sure everyone here in sci.electronics.design
can think of several examples from real life.
Machines never learn from experience, because they don't have experi-
ence. They are and always will be /stochastically ignorant text gene- >rators/.
I keep saying that, because so many people /believe/ the machines are >sentient, and have thoughts. The aren't and they don't.
I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd trust an L.L.M. generated >P.C.B. [2] because it doesn't have /experience/, and it doesn't know how
to test it. And it will never learn from mistakes.
A human written algorithm to design P.C.Bs. on the other hand sounds
like a useful tool; but still, what do you do if the algorithm doesn't
know how to make use of a new component?
Best wishes, and happy hand drawing your own circuit boards.
[1] Amusing insults aside, I have not experienced anyone here in sci.el- >ectronic.design stupid enough to fail this basic test of humanity. If
anyone here is taking this paragraph personally, that's on that person
and not my writing.
[2] in the 50s, people would hand draw the circuit boards, rather than
print them. I don't know what acronym they used back then. D.C.B? For >/drawn circuit boards/?
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 16:27:36 +0800, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson ><johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
On 03/10/2026 1:11 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@htigct.com>wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/pcba-test-strategies-how-to-select-the-right-methodology-and-tester/
This sounds goofy to me. If many units fail test-and-cal, there's a
design or production problem that needs fixing.
Bare boards might need bed-of-nails or flying probe testing, but that
ain't our problem.
quote:
This involves integrating Parametric ICT with AI-driven analysis.
end quote
Are they selling AI ? or 'nails'
that word "nails" is metioned many many times in that article
n AI ls
Usually putting a nail / scope against a RF circuit changes the impedance >>> etc at that point.
Seems a bit of a babble article.
I was reading today that humans have more brain cels than AI and humans only
need milliwats.
So, human (your, mine, people's ) experience counts
Indeed. And humans need to be able to learn from said experience. Many >>people are incapable of learning from their own mistakes [1] and repeat >>them over and over. I'm sure everyone here in sci.electronics.design
can think of several examples from real life.
Machines never learn from experience, because they don't have experi-
ence. They are and always will be /stochastically ignorant text gene- >>rators/.
I keep saying that, because so many people /believe/ the machines are >>sentient, and have thoughts. The aren't and they don't.
I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd trust an L.L.M. generated >>P.C.B. [2] because it doesn't have /experience/, and it doesn't know how
to test it. And it will never learn from mistakes.
AI pcb layout is here and will get better. Nobody lays out non-trivial
ICs by hand any more. Or designs buildings on paper with slide rules.
There are lots of pcb layout AI companies now. I don't trust *any* pcb >layout, no matter how it's done. I check and tweak my boards.
A human written algorithm to design P.C.Bs. on the other hand sounds
like a useful tool; but still, what do you do if the algorithm doesn't
know how to make use of a new component?
A new component needs to be added to the schematic and PCB libraries,
now or with AI layout. AI can (maybe) read a data sheet and do most of
the work, and check things.
We visited a company near here that uses AI to check schematics and
layouts, not actually do them. Allspice. That makes a lot of sense to
me.
Best wishes, and happy hand drawing your own circuit boards.
[1] Amusing insults aside, I have not experienced anyone here in sci.el- >>ectronic.design stupid enough to fail this basic test of humanity. If >>anyone here is taking this paragraph personally, that's on that person
and not my writing.
[2] in the 50s, people would hand draw the circuit boards, rather than >>print them. I don't know what acronym they used back then. D.C.B? For >>/drawn circuit boards/?
PCB than too.
We used black tape on mylar. It was called "the artwork". I have a few
around still. Just checking a typical layout against the schematic
would take two people two days. I fell in love once doing that.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 16:27:36 +0800, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson >><johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
On 03/10/2026 1:11 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@htigct.com>wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/pcba-test-strategies-how-to-select-the-right-methodology-and-tester/
This sounds goofy to me. If many units fail test-and-cal, there's a
design or production problem that needs fixing.
Bare boards might need bed-of-nails or flying probe testing, but that >>>>> ain't our problem.
quote:
This involves integrating Parametric ICT with AI-driven analysis.
end quote
Are they selling AI ? or 'nails'
that word "nails" is metioned many many times in that article
n AI ls
Usually putting a nail / scope against a RF circuit changes the impedance >>>> etc at that point.
Seems a bit of a babble article.
I was reading today that humans have more brain cels than AI and humans only
need milliwats.
So, human (your, mine, people's ) experience counts
Indeed. And humans need to be able to learn from said experience. Many >>>people are incapable of learning from their own mistakes [1] and repeat >>>them over and over. I'm sure everyone here in sci.electronics.design
can think of several examples from real life.
Machines never learn from experience, because they don't have experi- >>>ence. They are and always will be /stochastically ignorant text gene- >>>rators/.
I keep saying that, because so many people /believe/ the machines are >>>sentient, and have thoughts. The aren't and they don't.
I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd trust an L.L.M. generated >>>P.C.B. [2] because it doesn't have /experience/, and it doesn't know how >>>to test it. And it will never learn from mistakes.
AI pcb layout is here and will get better. Nobody lays out non-trivial
ICs by hand any more. Or designs buildings on paper with slide rules.
There are lots of pcb layout AI companies now. I don't trust *any* pcb >>layout, no matter how it's done. I check and tweak my boards.
A human written algorithm to design P.C.Bs. on the other hand sounds
like a useful tool; but still, what do you do if the algorithm doesn't >>>know how to make use of a new component?
A new component needs to be added to the schematic and PCB libraries,
now or with AI layout. AI can (maybe) read a data sheet and do most of
the work, and check things.
We visited a company near here that uses AI to check schematics and >>layouts, not actually do them. Allspice. That makes a lot of sense to
me.
Best wishes, and happy hand drawing your own circuit boards.
[1] Amusing insults aside, I have not experienced anyone here in sci.el- >>>ectronic.design stupid enough to fail this basic test of humanity. If >>>anyone here is taking this paragraph personally, that's on that person >>>and not my writing.
[2] in the 50s, people would hand draw the circuit boards, rather than >>>print them. I don't know what acronym they used back then. D.C.B? For >>>/drawn circuit boards/?
PCB than too.
We used black tape on mylar. It was called "the artwork". I have a few >>around still. Just checking a typical layout against the schematic
would take two people two days. I fell in love once doing that.
I one of the written exams I did, for electronics technician NERG here
one question was 'here is a transistor circuit, draw a PCB for it'.
So on paper with a pen in a few minutes... there were many more questions
to answer.
Was fun, easy, passed,
Had been doing that for years at home with a black pen on copper and then etching.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Making+a+PCB+by+drawing+with+a+black+pen+and+then+etching%3F
But veroboard is more fun, not such a chemical mess, no drilling needed, >lasts forever .-)
Cheaper too.
Faster too (no peeseebee house needed)
And much easier to modify.
Easier to test,
You can slowly expand ciruit by circuit part,
step by step design.
Drawing the boards by hand on tracing paper was a way of preparing for production and was actually a very wasteful process compared with hand-wiring. For prototypes and individual pieces of equipment, handAs most of my designs, early in my career, were digital, wire-wrapping
wiring was still used. I was still building 'rats-nest' prototype
circuits in the late 1960s and only transferred them to printed circuit
when they were finalised.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2026 16:33:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 16:27:36 +0800, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson >>><johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
On 03/10/2026 1:11 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@htigct.com>wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/pcba-test-strategies-how-to-select-the-right-methodology-and-tester/
This sounds goofy to me. If many units fail test-and-cal, there's a >>>>>> design or production problem that needs fixing.
Bare boards might need bed-of-nails or flying probe testing, but that >>>>>> ain't our problem.
quote:
This involves integrating Parametric ICT with AI-driven analysis.
end quote
Are they selling AI ? or 'nails'
that word "nails" is metioned many many times in that article
n AI ls
Usually putting a nail / scope against a RF circuit changes the impedance >>>>> etc at that point.
Seems a bit of a babble article.
I was reading today that humans have more brain cels than AI and humans only
need milliwats.
So, human (your, mine, people's ) experience counts
Indeed. And humans need to be able to learn from said experience. Many >>>>people are incapable of learning from their own mistakes [1] and repeat >>>>them over and over. I'm sure everyone here in sci.electronics.design >>>>can think of several examples from real life.
Machines never learn from experience, because they don't have experi- >>>>ence. They are and always will be /stochastically ignorant text gene- >>>>rators/.
I keep saying that, because so many people /believe/ the machines are >>>>sentient, and have thoughts. The aren't and they don't.
I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd trust an L.L.M. generated >>>>P.C.B. [2] because it doesn't have /experience/, and it doesn't know how >>>>to test it. And it will never learn from mistakes.
AI pcb layout is here and will get better. Nobody lays out non-trivial >>>ICs by hand any more. Or designs buildings on paper with slide rules.
There are lots of pcb layout AI companies now. I don't trust *any* pcb >>>layout, no matter how it's done. I check and tweak my boards.
A human written algorithm to design P.C.Bs. on the other hand sounds >>>>like a useful tool; but still, what do you do if the algorithm doesn't >>>>know how to make use of a new component?
A new component needs to be added to the schematic and PCB libraries,
now or with AI layout. AI can (maybe) read a data sheet and do most of >>>the work, and check things.
We visited a company near here that uses AI to check schematics and >>>layouts, not actually do them. Allspice. That makes a lot of sense to
me.
Best wishes, and happy hand drawing your own circuit boards.
[1] Amusing insults aside, I have not experienced anyone here in sci.el- >>>>ectronic.design stupid enough to fail this basic test of humanity. If >>>>anyone here is taking this paragraph personally, that's on that person >>>>and not my writing.
[2] in the 50s, people would hand draw the circuit boards, rather than >>>>print them. I don't know what acronym they used back then. D.C.B? For >>>>/drawn circuit boards/?
PCB than too.
We used black tape on mylar. It was called "the artwork". I have a few >>>around still. Just checking a typical layout against the schematic
would take two people two days. I fell in love once doing that.
I one of the written exams I did, for electronics technician NERG here
one question was 'here is a transistor circuit, draw a PCB for it'.
So on paper with a pen in a few minutes... there were many more questions >>to answer.
Was fun, easy, passed,
Had been doing that for years at home with a black pen on copper and then etching.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Making+a+PCB+by+drawing+with+a+black+pen+and+then+etching%3F
But veroboard is more fun, not such a chemical mess, no drilling needed, >>lasts forever .-)
Cheaper too.
Faster too (no peeseebee house needed)
And much easier to modify.
Easier to test,
You can slowly expand ciruit by circuit part,
step by step design.
Dremeling is better.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3h6qxsp3swq6p7mb4h3my/D200_BB_3.jpg?rlkey=afkx84wah5xmkaud0tqx57uzx&raw=1
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/t8q4luubibzlr6oqyrlim/Z338_PCB.JPG?rlkey=o23l9jq8y81n7799po4quof18&raw=1
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6pfssxz68ay8t64yh6xag/Z356_SN2.JPG?rlkey=o89t5tjsxh31264zbsirjin47&raw=1
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f3redjl7umja5v8tsi2p5/Z382_1.JPG?rlkey=epclqs4lkx2cmdakne390bbae&raw=1
You get a solid ground plane, matched impedance traces, SMA
edge-launches, and places to write.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2026 16:33:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 16:27:36 +0800, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson >>>><johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
On 03/10/2026 1:11 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@htigct.com>wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/pcba-test-strategies-how-to-select-the-right-methodology-and-tester/
This sounds goofy to me. If many units fail test-and-cal, there's a >>>>>>> design or production problem that needs fixing.
Bare boards might need bed-of-nails or flying probe testing, but that >>>>>>> ain't our problem.
quote:
This involves integrating Parametric ICT with AI-driven analysis. >>>>>> end quote
Are they selling AI ? or 'nails'
that word "nails" is metioned many many times in that article
n AI ls
Usually putting a nail / scope against a RF circuit changes the impedance
etc at that point.
Seems a bit of a babble article.
I was reading today that humans have more brain cels than AI and humans only
need milliwats.
So, human (your, mine, people's ) experience counts
Indeed. And humans need to be able to learn from said experience. Many >>>>>people are incapable of learning from their own mistakes [1] and repeat >>>>>them over and over. I'm sure everyone here in sci.electronics.design >>>>>can think of several examples from real life.
Machines never learn from experience, because they don't have experi- >>>>>ence. They are and always will be /stochastically ignorant text gene- >>>>>rators/.
I keep saying that, because so many people /believe/ the machines are >>>>>sentient, and have thoughts. The aren't and they don't.
I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd trust an L.L.M. generated >>>>>P.C.B. [2] because it doesn't have /experience/, and it doesn't know how >>>>>to test it. And it will never learn from mistakes.
AI pcb layout is here and will get better. Nobody lays out non-trivial >>>>ICs by hand any more. Or designs buildings on paper with slide rules.
There are lots of pcb layout AI companies now. I don't trust *any* pcb >>>>layout, no matter how it's done. I check and tweak my boards.
A human written algorithm to design P.C.Bs. on the other hand sounds >>>>>like a useful tool; but still, what do you do if the algorithm doesn't >>>>>know how to make use of a new component?
A new component needs to be added to the schematic and PCB libraries, >>>>now or with AI layout. AI can (maybe) read a data sheet and do most of >>>>the work, and check things.
We visited a company near here that uses AI to check schematics and >>>>layouts, not actually do them. Allspice. That makes a lot of sense to >>>>me.
Best wishes, and happy hand drawing your own circuit boards.
[1] Amusing insults aside, I have not experienced anyone here in sci.el- >>>>>ectronic.design stupid enough to fail this basic test of humanity. If >>>>>anyone here is taking this paragraph personally, that's on that person >>>>>and not my writing.
[2] in the 50s, people would hand draw the circuit boards, rather than >>>>>print them. I don't know what acronym they used back then. D.C.B? For >>>>>/drawn circuit boards/?
PCB than too.
We used black tape on mylar. It was called "the artwork". I have a few >>>>around still. Just checking a typical layout against the schematic >>>>would take two people two days. I fell in love once doing that.
I one of the written exams I did, for electronics technician NERG here >>>one question was 'here is a transistor circuit, draw a PCB for it'.
So on paper with a pen in a few minutes... there were many more questions >>>to answer.
Was fun, easy, passed,
Had been doing that for years at home with a black pen on copper and then etching.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Making+a+PCB+by+drawing+with+a+black+pen+and+then+etching%3F
But veroboard is more fun, not such a chemical mess, no drilling needed, >>>lasts forever .-)
Cheaper too.
Faster too (no peeseebee house needed)
And much easier to modify.
Easier to test,
You can slowly expand ciruit by circuit part,
step by step design.
Dremeling is better.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3h6qxsp3swq6p7mb4h3my/D200_BB_3.jpg?rlkey=afkx84wah5xmkaud0tqx57uzx&raw=1
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/t8q4luubibzlr6oqyrlim/Z338_PCB.JPG?rlkey=o23l9jq8y81n7799po4quof18&raw=1
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6pfssxz68ay8t64yh6xag/Z356_SN2.JPG?rlkey=o89t5tjsxh31264zbsirjin47&raw=1
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f3redjl7umja5v8tsi2p5/Z382_1.JPG?rlkey=epclqs4lkx2cmdakne390bbae&raw=1
Yes, some look really nice!
You get a solid ground plane, matched impedance traces, SMA
edge-launches, and places to write.
Yes SMA
https://panteltje.nl/pub/2.4_GHz_to_1.5_GHz_down_converter_closeup_IMG_4660.JPG
https://panteltje.nl/pub/2.4_GHz_to_1.5_GHz_converter_IMG_4645.JPG
https://panteltje.nl/pub/testing_2.4_GHz_to_1.5_GHz_down_converter_IMG_4655.JPG
that square white thing is a VFO.
Dremeling.. I do have one, always makes so much dust on the table :-)
https://panteltje.nl/pub/z80/graphics_card_bottom.jpg https://panteltje.nl/pub/z80/graphics_card_top.jpg https://panteltje.nl/pub/z80/soundcard_top.jpg https://panteltje.nl/pub/z80/sound_card_bottom.jpg https://panteltje.nl/pub/8052AH_BASIC_computer/8052AH_BASIC_computer_inside_img_1727.jpg
it is still working!
We used black tape on mylar. It was called "the artwork". I have a few
around still. Just checking a typical layout against the schematic
would take two people two days. I fell in love once doing that.
john larkin <jl@htigct.com>wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2026 17:24:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:Dremeling.. I do have one, always makes so much dust on the table :-)
On Wed, 07 Oct 2026 16:33:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>wrote:
There are some nice fan/filter things on Amazon.
The wirewrap/perfboard thing, parts on one side and connections on the
other, always confused me.
john larkin <jl@htigct.com>wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2026 17:24:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:Dremeling.. I do have one, always makes so much dust on the table :-)
On Wed, 07 Oct 2026 16:33:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>> wrote:
There are some nice fan/filter things on Amazon.
I have a nice fan to blow smoke away when I am soldering.
Do not always use it, grew up with soldering and its smoke..
But does not dremeling on copper clad PCBs throw copper everywhere?
I do not want that on my tables full of microchip stuff.
On 10/7/2026 2:07 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:Yeah!
Drawing the boards by hand on tracing paper was a way of preparing forAs most of my designs, early in my career, were digital, wire-wrapping
production and was actually a very wasteful process compared with
hand-wiring.˙ For prototypes and individual pieces of equipment, hand
wiring was still used.˙ I was still building 'rats-nest' prototype
circuits in the late 1960s and only transferred them to printed circuit
when they were finalised.
was the norm.
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>wrote:
Am 07.10.26 um 18:58 schrieb Don Y:Yeah!
On 10/7/2026 2:07 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Drawing the boards by hand on tracing paper was a way of preparing forAs most of my designs, early in my career, were digital, wire-wrapping
production and was actually a very wasteful process compared with
hand-wiring.˙ For prototypes and individual pieces of equipment, hand
wiring was still used.˙ I was still building 'rats-nest' prototype
circuits in the late 1960s and only transferred them to printed circuit
when they were finalised.
was the norm.
Double Eurocard, 80186 , dual ported DRAM to Multibus I, floppy wd2793,
SCSI, Zilog Z8500 serial ports, TI9914 IEEE-488 and parallel I/Os:
< >https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/53895151180/in/photostream/lightbox/
bottom side:
< >https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/53895151120/in/photostream/lightbox/
detail GND/VCC distribution:
< >https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/53895263745/in/photostream/lightbox/
Am 07.10.26 um 18:58 schrieb Don Y:My designs were "CPUs" -- lots of MSI used to build the various parts
On 10/7/2026 2:07 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:Yeah!
Drawing the boards by hand on tracing paper was a way of preparing forAs most of my designs, early in my career, were digital, wire-wrapping
production and was actually a very wasteful process compared with
hand-wiring.˙ For prototypes and individual pieces of equipment, hand
wiring was still used.˙ I was still building 'rats-nest' prototype
circuits in the late 1960s and only transferred them to printed circuit
when they were finalised.
was the norm.
Double Eurocard, 80186 , dual ported DRAM to Multibus I, floppy wd2793,
SCSI, Zilog Z8500 serial ports, TI9914 IEEE-488 and parallel I/Os:
On 10/7/2026 2:07 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Drawing the boards by hand on tracing paper was a way of preparing forAs most of my designs, early in my career, were digital, wire-wrapping
production and was actually a very wasteful process compared with
hand-wiring. For prototypes and individual pieces of equipment, hand
wiring was still used. I was still building 'rats-nest' prototype
circuits in the late 1960s and only transferred them to printed circuit
when they were finalised.
was the norm.
But, I quickly discovered most technicians were sorely lacking in
that skill. I eventually opted to just do my own prototypes
as familiarity with the design often made it easier for me to know
which connections were to be made without consulting the schematic
so I could proceed at a faster and more reliable pace.
[I still have my GD corded and cordless "guns", unwrapping tool,
crochet hook, no niks and the super special needle nose stripper
"lent" to me by an IBM contact -- even cut/strip/wrap bits
which were a big labor-saver!]
Once I started working on my own, I quickly opted to prototyping in
foil as it made it *so* much easier to "get to Done". It made
economic sense to buy layout tools instead of relying on someone
to physically tape a board and then having to manually check the
artwork against the schematic. I *rarely* find problems after-the-fact
with this process.
Plus, having multiple copies of a prototype (instead of one "hand-made) >allowed me to distribute them to other stake holders: manufacturing
engineer to prepare for that hand-off, another to the test engineer, >packaging guy, documentation, etc. It trimmed a lot off the schedule
(and thus cost). And, took pressure off folks wanting/needing "my" >prototype!
This was much more fun than the more highly integrated designs that are now so common -- far less design choice!˙ :<
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 09:58:09 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> >wrote:
On 10/7/2026 2:07 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Drawing the boards by hand on tracing paper was a way of preparing forAs most of my designs, early in my career, were digital, wire-wrapping
production and was actually a very wasteful process compared with
hand-wiring. For prototypes and individual pieces of equipment, hand
wiring was still used. I was still building 'rats-nest' prototype
circuits in the late 1960s and only transferred them to printed circuit
when they were finalised.
was the norm.
But, I quickly discovered most technicians were sorely lacking in
that skill. I eventually opted to just do my own prototypes
as familiarity with the design often made it easier for me to know
which connections were to be made without consulting the schematic
so I could proceed at a faster and more reliable pace.
[I still have my GD corded and cordless "guns", unwrapping tool,
crochet hook, no niks and the super special needle nose stripper
"lent" to me by an IBM contact -- even cut/strip/wrap bits
which were a big labor-saver!]
Once I started working on my own, I quickly opted to prototyping in
foil as it made it *so* much easier to "get to Done". It made
economic sense to buy layout tools instead of relying on someone
to physically tape a board and then having to manually check the
artwork against the schematic. I *rarely* find problems after-the-fact >>with this process.
Plus, having multiple copies of a prototype (instead of one "hand-made) >>allowed me to distribute them to other stake holders: manufacturing >>engineer to prepare for that hand-off, another to the test engineer, >>packaging guy, documentation, etc. It trimmed a lot off the schedule
(and thus cost). And, took pressure off folks wanting/needing "my" >>prototype!
Nowadays one can use free layout tools to order a bunch of 4-layer
boards from JLC and others and get a few boards in a couple of weeks
for beer money.
Few parts come in DIP packages any more.
=?UTF-8?B?Q8OzaWzDrW4=?= =?UTF-8?B?IE5pb2Nsw6Fzw61u?= =?UTF-8?B?IEdsb3N0w6lpcg==?= <thanks-to@Taf.com>wrote:
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> schreef: >|---------------------------------------------------||"[. . .] |
| |
|It is bad thing they dropped Ceefax. |
|Almost all German and Dutch channels still have it,|
|with lots of program data and ads." | >|---------------------------------------------------|
I showed a German Teletext in the British Isles. He contrasted it with
German Teletext, because he said that German Teletext is bare.
=?UTF-8?B?Q8OzaWzDrW4=?= =?UTF-8?B?IE5pb2Nsw6Fzw61u?= =?UTF-8?B?IEdsb3N0w6lpcg==?= <thanks-to@Taf.com>wrote:
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> schreef: >|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|"I think you mention German twice, what did he contrast (compare? it with?"| >|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
This German did not contrast technologies. He contrasted contents of
German teletext with non-German teletext: i.e. basic data versus
interesting essays written like magazines.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|"Some of that code I wrote I still use (see above)." | >|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| >Congratulations!
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 3 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 497972:54:13 |
| Calls: | 190 |
| Files: | 846 |
| Messages: | 71,498 |
