[a1rocketpilot]

And also, where can you get the lacquer sprays? A quick google search turned up stuff internationally, but nothing local.

Aditya

 

[Pars]

Quote:

Originally Posted by a1rocketpilot And also, where can you get the lacquer sprays? A quick google search turned up stuff internationally, but nothing local. Aditya

You have a Fry's anywhere around? MG Chemicals makes PCB conformal coatings which Mouser charges ~$18 for... you can get it at Fry's for ~$8. Its brush on, not spray, but seems to work fine and is solderable.

 

[a1rocketpilot]

Nope, no Fry's close by, and I didn't see anything at the Shack either (that's really the only store I think would stock something like that). We have CompUSA and Best Buy around here, but I doubt they would have PCB lacquer.

Aditya

 

[Pars]

Since you appear to be in Ohio, Parts Express might have it...

Parts Express does carry a product called Tinnit which will electrolessly (is that a word?) chemically tin a PCB. I was going to try this but never got around to ordering it. Its around $5 for a pack of it.

 

[a1rocketpilot]

Thanks, I shall take a look there!

On a secondary note, anyone built any interesting designs using the etching kits??

Aditya

 

[ozshadow]

Put clear nail polish on the traces after you are done.

For 2 A47 designs, see my A47 thread. I'll be finishing one up tonight and post it.

 

[mono]

We really ought to start a collection of etching patterns/projects in a central location. A lot of people are using Eagle or ExpressPCB but then the designs have to be converted to a more optimal etching format which is sometimes a lot of work (at least more than it could be, needless duplication each time a different person does one).

It seems many people don't want to etch double-sided designs either, or at least not if there is a lot of precision needed to match up the sides instead of 2nd side being only larger power or ground planes.

 

[joostoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mono We really ought to start a collection of etching patterns/projects in a central location. A lot of people are using Eagle or ExpressPCB but then the designs have to be converted to a more optimal etching format which is sometimes a lot of work (at least more than it could be, needless duplication each time a different person does one). It seems many people don't want to etch double-sided designs either, or at least not if there is a lot of precision needed to match up the sides instead of 2nd side being only larger power or ground planes.

Wasnt headwize going to make a wiki so people could add their projects? I think perhaps head-fi should create a wiki.

 

[mono]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joostoo Wasnt headwize going to make a wiki so people could add their projects? I think perhaps head-fi should create a wiki.

Although a wiki could be useful, it could also be an unnecessary distraction. It may not be necessary to have feedback or alterations in the beginning instead of static designs. If a circuit works satisfactorily, it may not necessarily need changed but some might start putting hypothetical elaborations out there without actual implemenation and comparison of their alternative. IMO, wikis put too much emphasis on armchair quarterbacks who "think" rather than do. I'd be looking for circuits people actually DID already, and compared to the available alternatives or at least found satisfactory for the purpose.

I suspect that more people build a CMOY than an M3, for example. They need a starting point for any new skill and if a more advanced designer creates a pattern, they are more likely to have forethought on it, but a basic design has too many potential "tweaks" that go beyond the purose of the design. IOW, to some, the point is that it is simple and understandable, it is already daunting enough for some to start etching their own boards. For example, I have no desire whatsoever to build another A47, and I would find a lot of things that would improve it, but it is the *right* amp for some to build. I am familiar with what my laster printer can do, and paper, but if I started tweaking to fine traces and a beginner couldn't do it, that may be a problem for some. Likewise, what someone else might find do-able, I might not like or be able to do. I think that by leaving submissions alone, it does categorize them by default, that it is better sometimes than refining later.

If you only go by some theoretical advantage that is not actually (in this case) audible, there might be no practical end to the complexity that results from allowing feedback. I say let people present their own patterns and let the builder choose based on the validity of the argument. That is, a pattern would not just be linked but a description page would be complimentary, even if just a short blurb about what it is.

IMO, the main need is just a central archive and categorized links to them... and of course, submissions to it. Getting momentum might be the longest mile, after people started using it they might be more likely to contribute to it.


That's not to suggest I'm opposed to feedback and improvement, but all too often I see people suggesting "just add this, it's a trivial thing to do" when some things are not so trivial to everyone rather than the person suggesting it, or perhaps even they have not actually DONE what they suggest (as a multilayer etching, putting some perspective to it).

Don't get me wrong, I think peer review of circuits is a great thing, but that's before it becomes a finished etching pattern, not after. Let a group collaboration of something be a new pattern, not an edit of an existing one. Some people may not want what others think is important, audio (and budget, complexity, size, difficulty, etc) are very subjective things. This seems close-minded to me but I feel that quantity is most important in the beginning of an etching collection, that it would be better to limit the resources towards generating and submitting patterns.

This is only a first thought on the issue, that KISS is best before we even know if there will be enough people interested to make it worth the bother.

I can dedicate some webspace and bandwidth to it, how much I will have to check on and I have no idea how much it would ultimately require. I don't feel comfortable claiming to be able to maintain the whole thing from every aspect yet but if it's useful, I could start this project and host it for the time being at the very least, or at least provide some webspace/bandwidth if someone else comletely disagrees with my thoughts about a wiki and wants to do that and just needs some space and bandwidth contributed.