??? 10/09/07 23:19 Modified: 10/09/07 23:21 Read: times |
#145569 - Density Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
Was the spacing 0.100" between pins and 0.300"/0.600" between rows?
I don't think I have seen such. The only IDC in this density (0.100" spacing) I know is for the flat cable (either as the connector, 0.100" between rows, or as a plug into DIP sockets for emulators and such, 0.300"/0.600" between rows), which I don't believe would hold lose wires well enough. The lose-wire IDC's I know are either 0.150" or bigger spacing, and all of them are single-row; either IDC on both ends, or PCB, or connector. I wonder what's the reason this technology did not evolve further. I think there were two reasons ... cost and maintainability. You could build a very dense circuit with this technology, but because the wires were continuous, it was very difficult to modify a circuit as required due either to a mistake or a design change. I knew one fellow who bought a bunch of this hardware at considerable expense, yet couldn't use it, ultimately, because it was too difficult to modify. He hadn't yet discovered that there were "two-level" wire-wrap sockets, so his wire-wrap boards required he skip a slot between boards, and that didn't work in his Apple-][. In reality, it's never necessary to place more than two levels on a wire-wrap pin. People do it, but it's never necessary. The patch-panels used in telephony and networking are all based on this technology and appears to be solid and reliable - and, for prototyping, it's certainly faster than to use the "plug-type" breadboard. I don't know anything about vibrations and such, but that's not an issue for a rapid prototype which would sit on a benchtop throughout its whole lifetime...
JW |