----- Original Message ----- From: "Byron A Jeff" To: Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [PIC]: The PICLIST Development Project: Executive Overview > > Zif Socket !!!! Zif Socket !!!! Zif Socket !!!! Zif Socket !!!! Zif Socket > > !!!! Zif Socket !!!! Zif Socket !!!! Zif Socket !!!! - get the idea - we > > need Zif sockets. DIP sockets dont have the insertion cycle durability for > > long term use, people tend to rip them off the board when they dont get > > their screwdriver (oops - chip removal tool) in the right place and the > > stresses to the solder joints - phew !!!! Also include a ICSP socket so the > > end user isnt limited to programming on board - a standard RG11 type socket > > (8 way as used on network cards) would be ideal. > > OK Dominic, help me out. I belive that I've explained how I envisioned the > unit to be used: in essense one or two rarely moved PICs onboard with an ICSP > connector for offboard target programming. ZIFs imply (or as you explicitly > stated! ;-) lots of insertion cycles. I know I may be sounding like a doofus > but what's being inserted into the ZIF socket? Why is something being inserted > into the socket? Even more specifically what would be inserted into the ZIF > socket that wouldn't be connected through one of the other three offered > interfaces: ICSP, I/O expansion connector, breadboard? > > What I'm trying to understand is how this ZIF socket is going to fall within > the normal usage of the box. I see probably 80% of the programming occuring > to the permanently mounted processor(s) and 15% via the ICSP connector. > If my percentages are anywhere near close, then do we really need a permanetly > mounted ZIF socket for that last 5% to 10% of programming cases? > > I have no problem with the RG11 ICSP socket. I really think that the ZIF > socket is one of the few items that should be optional and should connect > via the ICSP socket. > > I really feel that I'm missing something here, or maybe I just want to miss > something here! ;-) But please explain where either my assumptions above fall > down, or despite something close the valid assumptions, you feel that a ZIF > is still required. The reason for desperately wanting a Zif socket is that I have lots of Pics here with bent pins (and a couple with paperclips soldered on to snapped pins). I'm a bugger for reusing Pics but I see your point about using the PKB more as a "tutorial" board. The only thing that would really worry me would be rough handed "beginners" damaging the whole board by incorrectly prising out the Pics if they want to change them or have buggered them up. People may want to develop/program/test on this board and maybe move the programmed chip straight to a "finished project board". While I was out having a ciggie (and getting bitten severely by mozzies), I had a brainwave regarding the Zif socket. There is a lot of talk about the complexities of making the Zif universal (such as in the picstart plus) for programming but how about this idea : Seperate daughterboard containing a Zif 40 pin socket but with 4 x RJ11 connectors all wired to the seperate pins required for programming 8,18,28 and 40 pin Pics. To program a 40 pin Pic, all the user has to do is to plug the RJ11 cable into the 40 pin RJ11 socket etc. This would only provide the appropriate signals to the proper pins on the Zif socket. RJ11 cables and sockets are pennies in quantities. This could maybe be offered as a $10 add on (guessing at numbers here). The user can always align pin 1 on Pic to pin 1 on Zif and this would eliminate any blue smoke ;-) This is a really simple idea but may be worth looking at. Cheers Dominic -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics