Bread Board Backers

[tggzzz]

if you get cheap sockets but even a high quality socket is much cheaper then a chip. That is a problem with sockets that are 'economical' for mass production execs profit not machine pin sockets that are still <10% of the price of some chips you can get if purchased new from a electronics distributor.

15$ chip and 90 cent socket. Of course you can push your luck with a 5-10 cent tin plated who knows what socket (instead of bronze) from ebay

I was excited to save my money to buy some higher end op-amps and such when I barely had any money and they were treated quite well and even then it seems reasonable to use a digikey socket.

You can get 32-bit MCUs that are much cheaper than a socket.

There are well-known problems with IC sockets in test equipment that cost a year's salary to buy. They didn't knowingly use cheap sockets.

Sockets are a useful technology when prototyping with through-hole ICs. My latest prototype has one, so I can swap it for a slightly different IC as an experiment. That prototype used manhattan construction around the IC+socket. Here's somebody else's example:



Sockets do not preclude manhattan construction techniques; they are complementary. Use the appropriate combination of techniques for the specific prototype being built.

IC sockets usually have only a few insertions/removals of IC pins. Solderless breadboards usually have far more insertions of component legs that are larger diameter than IC pins. The large diameter will, over time and insertions, tend to bend the contacts and make the contact worse.

[themadhippy]

This topic is about the relative merits of different construction methods

Erm no it weren't ,it was  about adding  a backing plate to support binding posts.

[tggzzz]

This topic is about the relative merits of different construction methods

Erm no it weren't ,it was  about adding  a backing plate to support binding posts.

True

Unfortunately the "breadboards are best" posters tried to push the point beyond reasonable limits, e.g.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/bread-board-backers/msg5306539/#msg5306539
and had to backtrack
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/bread-board-backers/msg5307961/#msg5307961
ets ad mauseum

[Zoli]

This topic is about the relative merits of different construction methods

Erm no it weren't ,it was  about adding  a backing plate to support binding posts.

My 2cents: I've added backing plate to my bread boards(see picture); plain steel, to add some magnetic shielding, too.
Regarding the arguments: breadboards are developed for thru-hole devices; if you piggy-back SMD, you deserve the troubleshooting hell.

[coppercone2]

they usually work fine on adapters though, its hardly hell outside of a few very specific things

[David Hess]

The problems caused by sockets in "high end" equipment are legion; see any of the threads in the "repair" sub-forum! Standard operating practice is to check the power is on, check the PSU voltages and ripple, jiggle all PCBs in their sockets and ICs/transistors in their sockets, check capacitors.

At some point transistors and ICs became more reliable than the sockets for them, so removing the sockets made equipment more reliable.  I like to use machined collet sockets in prototypes and one of a kind assemblies.  The edge wipe sockets made by Texas Instruments in the 1970s and 1980s were horribly unreliable.

Sockets are a useful technology when prototyping with through-hole ICs. My latest prototype has one, so I can swap it for a slightly different IC as an experiment. That prototype used manhattan construction around the IC+socket. Here's somebody else's example:

Sockets do not preclude manhattan construction techniques; they are complementary. Use the appropriate combination of techniques for the specific prototype being built.

Like I wrote earlier, I have some ideas to make Manhattan construction easier and better.  The example below is mine from more than 20 years ago, along with recent point-to-point construction.

[coppercone2]

I like mounting extruded heat sink to those proto boards then you can do power electronics just fine under high load

you just need the kind that slide on a rail. so you can fix on the rail then slide the heatsink on. Or a template to drill with. But with the heat sink that slide on a rail you can use the base as a template to make drill holes. And with the clips instead of bolts there is no alignment problems for mounting parts.

[tggzzz]

they usually work fine on adapters though, its hardly hell outside of a few very specific things

Such adaptors are very useful for small SMD ICs. I keep a stock and use them with whatever construction technique I am using at the time.

[tggzzz]

The problems caused by sockets in "high end" equipment are legion; see any of the threads in the "repair" sub-forum! Standard operating practice is to check the power is on, check the PSU voltages and ripple, jiggle all PCBs in their sockets and ICs/transistors in their sockets, check capacitors.

At some point transistors and ICs became more reliable than the sockets for them, so removing the sockets made equipment more reliable.  I like to use machined collet sockets in prototypes and one of a kind assemblies.  The edge wipe sockets made by Texas Instruments in the 1970s and 1980s were horribly unreliable.

Sockets are a useful technology when prototyping with through-hole ICs. My latest prototype has one, so I can swap it for a slightly different IC as an experiment. That prototype used manhattan construction around the IC+socket. Here's somebody else's example:

Sockets do not preclude manhattan construction techniques; they are complementary. Use the appropriate combination of techniques for the specific prototype being built.

Like I wrote earlier, I have some ideas to make Manhattan construction easier and better.  The example below is mine from more than 20 years ago, along with recent point-to-point construction.

Yes, and yes.

All looks sensible: use whatever technique is appropriate for the current project. Looks like some wire-wrap wire in there; I have a lifetime stock

[David Hess]

All looks sensible: use whatever technique is appropriate for the current project. Looks like some wire-wrap wire in there; I have a lifetime stock

The wire wrap wire is nice because you can get it in every color.  However the magnet wire shown in the second example is even easier to use because the insulation can be easily burnt off with the soldering iron.  MWS makes magnet wire with different colors, but I have just been using what I have and will probably never run out.

For ease of manufacturing, some low-temperature-grade magnet wire has insulation that can be removed by the heat of soldering. This means that electrical connections at the ends can be made without stripping off the insulation first.

https://mwswire.com/about-magnet-wire/

[tggzzz]

All looks sensible: use whatever technique is appropriate for the current project. Looks like some wire-wrap wire in there; I have a lifetime stock

The wire wrap wire is nice because you can get it in every color.  However the magnet wire shown in the second example is even easier to use because the insulation can be easily burnt off with the soldering iron.  MWS makes magnet wire with different colors, but I have just been using what I have and will probably never run out.

For ease of manufacturing, some low-temperature-grade magnet wire has insulation that can be removed by the heat of soldering. This means that electrical connections at the ends can be made without stripping off the insulation first.

https://mwswire.com/about-magnet-wire/

The ability to "daisy-chain" connections is appealing. For short connections with wire-wrap wire it is possible to "move" the insulation down the wire to create a solderable section in the middle of the wire.

I've never had much "luck" with such burn-thru-insulation wire. ISTR ending up with gunk on the soldering iron tip, but that would have been many decades ago.

However, it has to be said that I've never persevered, and may well have been attempting it with "inappropriate" wire types.

[David Hess]

The ability to "daisy-chain" connections is appealing. For short connections with wire-wrap wire it is possible to "move" the insulation down the wire to create a solderable section in the middle of the wire.

I have done that sometimes and it works great.  Just apply the soldering iron to the middle of the "solder strippable" magnet wire and the insulation bubbles away leaving tinned copper.

I've never had much "luck" with such burn-thru-insulation wire. ISTR ending up with gunk on the soldering iron tip, but that would have been many decades ago.

However, it has to be said that I've never persevered, and may well have been attempting it with "inappropriate" wire types.

I picked up a box of wire at an estate sale decades ago and it came with a 5 pound spool of "solder strippable" 28 gauge wire which works great.  It is especially useful for repairs and bodges because without the insulation of wire wrap wire, it is thinner and holds in place better.

[Gyro]

Ah, the old Vero Penwire technique, I'm really surprised to see they are still selling it after all these years ...  https://verotl.com/verowire-wiring-pen-part-number-79-1732

It comes with little 0.1" pitch plastic combs (see link attached pdf) that fit into the board holes and provide a routing guide for the wires. Wrap around the IC pin and solder.

We used to use it for prototyping at Racal donkeys years ago. I works best with the hottest (9?) Weller TCP tip (dull red glow under low light!), which was lousy for keeping the tip tinned. The wire also gives off Cyanide fumes when soldering and not great for crosstalk either, although we were using 4000 series logic.

It's great for mods - just snap the wire end without removing it (as long as not bussed) and run in another length. No so great for needing rework though, one careless moment would lead to a melted comb and bundle of shorted wires!

[tggzzz]

Ah, the old Vero Penwire technique, I'm really surprised to see they are still selling it after all these years ...  https://verotl.com/verowire-wiring-pen-part-number-79-1732
...
We used to use it for prototyping at Racal donkeys years ago. I works best with the hottest (9?) Weller TCP tip (dull red glow under low light!), which was lousy for keeping the tip tinned. The wire also gives off Cyanide fumes when soldering and not great for crosstalk either, although we were using 4000 series logic.

Ach! That rings a bell.

I always had disappointing results, but maybe that can be put down to non-red-hot soldering irons, or simply PEBKAC PEBsolderingironAC.

[David Hess]

We used to use it for prototyping at Racal donkeys years ago. I works best with the hottest (9?) Weller TCP tip (dull red glow under low light!), which was lousy for keeping the tip tinned. The wire also gives off Cyanide fumes when soldering and not great for crosstalk either, although we were using 4000 series logic.

The wire I have easily strips with the standard 700F Weller tips in maybe 5 seconds.

I would not mind having some heavier wire with the same insulation, but I have no idea what it is.

[tooki]

Breadboards are invaluable for that. They’re not perfect, but they’re not nearly as bad as you make them out to be. All sorts of things work perfectly fine on breadboards, as shown by the gazillions of people who use them.

You are falling into a standard trap: "selection bias". People that have had problems and were discouraged simply moved onto other things and aren't going to write about it.

Analogy: asking people that walk into roads without looking about their experiences

I am doing nothing of the sort. Selection bias is a violation of methods to achieve a representative sample; I wasn’t ever claiming to do a sample of any kind, never mind representative, nor any kind of data analysis at all. I said simply that plenty of people build plenty of functional circuits on breadboards, and that is true. I said nothing about success rates.

Selection bias is usually unwitting, and often not recognised by the person making that error.

:::whoosh:::

That was the sound of my point going right over your head: selection bias is a sampling error, which means one must be attempting to create a representative sample. But I never claimed to be attempting that, and on the contrary, expressly told you that it’s not. (Nor are your claims based on one either, and that’s ok.)

My statement is simply this: many people use breadboards successfully, and there is ample evidence to support this.

That’s it.

Your attitude is one of them being so unreliable and unpredictable as to make them effectively useless, and I think that’s an unfair characterization, and one you make with dishonest arguments, for reasons I’ve already explained in more detail than you deserve (given the rotten attitude you exhibit).

[tggzzz]

Breadboards are invaluable for that. They’re not perfect, but they’re not nearly as bad as you make them out to be. All sorts of things work perfectly fine on breadboards, as shown by the gazillions of people who use them.

You are falling into a standard trap: "selection bias". People that have had problems and were discouraged simply moved onto other things and aren't going to write about it.

Analogy: asking people that walk into roads without looking about their experiences

I am doing nothing of the sort. Selection bias is a violation of methods to achieve a representative sample; I wasn’t ever claiming to do a sample of any kind, never mind representative, nor any kind of data analysis at all. I said simply that plenty of people build plenty of functional circuits on breadboards, and that is true. I said nothing about success rates.

Selection bias is usually unwitting, and often not recognised by the person making that error.

:::whoosh:::

That was the sound of my point going right over your head: selection bias is a sampling error, which means one must be attempting to create a representative sample. But I never claimed to be attempting that, and on the contrary, expressly told you that it’s not. (Nor are your claims based on one either, and that’s ok.)

So you are knowingly creating/propagating misleading stats? Unimpressive

(Actually your statements don't hold up in the context that you have snipped)

My statement is simply this: many people use breadboards successfully, and there is ample evidence to support this.

Many people have unnecessary problems using solderless breadboards, problems that can easily be avoided using other techniques. I don't care if you make life unnecessarily difficult for yourself, but inexperienced beginners deserve to be warned.

[tggzzz]

Just for fun, yesterday I was inspired to spend 5 minnutes demonstrating the fun effects solderless breadboards can have. Getting the photo took another 5 mins

This is an unmodified solderless breadboard, a power source, and a neon bulb. As you can see, the power source is connected the left side side of the neon, but not to the right side. The neon bulb is getting enough power to light up, despite being unconnected to the power source.

Such power transfer is more than sufficient to screw up an op-amp feedback loop, etc, etc, etc.

[tooki]

Breadboards are invaluable for that. They’re not perfect, but they’re not nearly as bad as you make them out to be. All sorts of things work perfectly fine on breadboards, as shown by the gazillions of people who use them.

You are falling into a standard trap: "selection bias". People that have had problems and were discouraged simply moved onto other things and aren't going to write about it.

Analogy: asking people that walk into roads without looking about their experiences

I am doing nothing of the sort. Selection bias is a violation of methods to achieve a representative sample; I wasn’t ever claiming to do a sample of any kind, never mind representative, nor any kind of data analysis at all. I said simply that plenty of people build plenty of functional circuits on breadboards, and that is true. I said nothing about success rates.

Selection bias is usually unwitting, and often not recognised by the person making that error.

:::whoosh:::

That was the sound of my point going right over your head: selection bias is a sampling error, which means one must be attempting to create a representative sample. But I never claimed to be attempting that, and on the contrary, expressly told you that it’s not. (Nor are your claims based on one either, and that’s ok.)

So you are knowingly creating/propagating misleading stats? Unimpressive

How many ways do I need to spell it out for you: “plenty exist” is NOT STATISTICS! That’s literally the point I have said to you twice already. Selection bias is a SAMPLING bias, but if one is not making ANY kind of statistical claims — and I am expressly and explicitly telling you AGAIN that I am making NO statistical claims — then you aren’t sampling at all.

My claim is nothing more and nothing less than “plenty of people use them successfully and there is ample evidence of this”. That is a true statement. There is no statement of the number of people or the success or failure rate, nor anything like “most people”. So you cannot accuse me of selection bias because there’s no sampling and no statistical claim to begin with.

[tggzzz]

Breadboards are invaluable for that. They’re not perfect, but they’re not nearly as bad as you make them out to be. All sorts of things work perfectly fine on breadboards, as shown by the gazillions of people who use them.

You are falling into a standard trap: "selection bias". People that have had problems and were discouraged simply moved onto other things and aren't going to write about it.

Analogy: asking people that walk into roads without looking about their experiences

I am doing nothing of the sort. Selection bias is a violation of methods to achieve a representative sample; I wasn’t ever claiming to do a sample of any kind, never mind representative, nor any kind of data analysis at all. I said simply that plenty of people build plenty of functional circuits on breadboards, and that is true. I said nothing about success rates.

Selection bias is usually unwitting, and often not recognised by the person making that error.

:::whoosh:::

That was the sound of my point going right over your head: selection bias is a sampling error, which means one must be attempting to create a representative sample. But I never claimed to be attempting that, and on the contrary, expressly told you that it’s not. (Nor are your claims based on one either, and that’s ok.)

So you are knowingly creating/propagating misleading stats? Unimpressive

How many ways do I need to spell it out for you: “plenty exist” is NOT STATISTICS! That’s literally the point I have said to you twice already. Selection bias is a SAMPLING bias, but if one is not making ANY kind of statistical claims — and I am expressly and explicitly telling you AGAIN that I am making NO statistical claims — then you aren’t sampling at all.

My claim is nothing more and nothing less than “plenty of people use them successfully and there is ample evidence of this”. That is a true statement. There is no statement of the number of people or the success or failure rate, nor anything like “most people”. So you cannot accuse me of selection bias because there’s no sampling and no statistical claim to begin with.

Unsurprisingly, when I use your type of argument in return, you choose to ignore it and snip it 

[tooki]

Unsurprisingly, when I use your type of argument in return, you choose to ignore it and snip it 

In return for what? I didn’t accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, which I think is something I have every right to defend myself about.

But your way of going about it is to make people fearful of the breadboard, and that’s just not fair, especially for beginners. A useful discussion of suitability means fairly presenting the pros and cons of each method, and your anti-breadboard sentiment makes you blind to their advantages. You invariably dismiss them as insignificant or irrelevant, and they’re not, and you similarly ignore the disadvantages of other methods that you prefer.

You dismiss the problems beginners have with solderless breadboards as "insignificant or irrelevant" (to use your phrase).

Which bit of my statement "Including alternative methods enables discussion of characteristics and allows people to choose the selection best suited to their task." do you not  understand? (Highlighted above to emphasise the point)

I never said I disagree with that. But see how I emphasized “fairly” in how the pros and cons need to be presented? That was the key thing you are failing at horribly. I’m not anti-soldering. But I’m anti-anti-breadboard, because you don’t represent them fairly.

[Omega Glory]

Just for fun, yesterday I was inspired to spend 5 minnutes demonstrating the fun effects solderless breadboards can have. Getting the photo took another 5 mins

This is an unmodified solderless breadboard, a power source, and a neon bulb. As you can see, the power source is connected the left side side of the neon, but not to the right side. The neon bulb is getting enough power to light up, despite being unconnected to the power source.

Such power transfer is more than sufficient to screw up an op-amp feedback loop, etc, etc, etc.

Very interesting. What was the applied voltage/frequency, and did you measure how much current was passing through the bulb?

[tggzzz]

Just for fun, yesterday I was inspired to spend 5 minnutes demonstrating the fun effects solderless breadboards can have. Getting the photo took another 5 mins

This is an unmodified solderless breadboard, a power source, and a neon bulb. As you can see, the power source is connected the left side side of the neon, but not to the right side. The neon bulb is getting enough power to light up, despite being unconnected to the power source.

Such power transfer is more than sufficient to screw up an op-amp feedback loop, etc, etc, etc.

Very interesting. What was the applied voltage/frequency, and did you measure how much current was passing through the bulb?

It would be wrong to read too much into this demonstration; its principal purpose is a visually gripping demonstration of power transfer between insulated conductors.

Frequency apparently around 150kHz, voltage and internal resistance are unclear but both are "high" (I hate adjectives ). The "power supply" was a TIS1040 lamp tester. No, I didn't measure the current, either with a meter or my tongue

It also works with a modern high-efficiency LED, but not with old LEDs.

[Gyro]

Oh, come on! the TIS1040 puts out 3kV at 160kHz, probably a nasty waveform at that. 

You and tooki may get off on this constant argument but it's getting kind of tedious for the rest of us. That 'demonstration' has put you down in my estimation.


P.S. It only takes a couple of pF inter-strip capacitance to pass enough current (the TIS1040 is limited to 7uA) to perform that little trick without needing any insulation breakdown.

[Omega Glory]

3kV into a breadboard!?!?