On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 05:10:49PM +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > Agreed. Now to differentiate the other prototype box. This is 
> > a prebuilt
> > rapid prototyper which hangs a chip, interface, and a set of standard
> > fixtures in a box. This is a permanent development box that 
> > sits on your
> > desk to noodle with. Once you get your idea down, you can 
> > then transfer
> > it to the type of board you referred to above.
> 
> Olin states (and I agree) that he prefers that kind of prototype box
> *minus the programmer*. 

No. Olin is talking about a blank stock prototyping board that you have to
populate. A board with enough standard interfaces that you can quick throw
different types of standard stuff (LCDs, switches, LEDs, analog via PWM, etc.)
on it.

That prototyper then becomes the project target. So instead of having to 
develop a custom PCB, you have a stack of blanks for new projects.

I get it. I buy into the concept. I think it's an excellent idea. And
I agree that it doesn't need a programmer, just maybe and ICSP connector
so that it can be programmed.

It's just that when the mood strikes me for an idea, I don't want to have
to populate anything. So I'm thinking of a permanent board. Something like:

http://www.apogeekits.com/images/pic_bread_board_18.jpg

...or a beefed up PicKit.  Call it a proof of concept box, or a rapid 
prototyper. Sometimes it takes only a few minutes to realize that an idea is 
goofy and should be abandoned or seriously rethought.
OTOH populating a blank board will take time to get whichever set of standard
components needed for a particular idea going.

>That way he 
> - needs only one programmer
> - it can be the programmer of his choice
> - when he uses the prototype box as end product for small series he
> saves the cost of the progger on each board

No arguments. But as I said, we're talking about two different, but complimentary
tools. Olin's QuickProto (sp?) would serve as a stock "motherboard" for one off
projects. OTOH the rapid prototyper would be an instant development box, no
soldering necessary. 

They could really complement one another if the rapid prototyper and the blank
boards had the same interfaces. This would facilitate easy transfer of projects
from off the rapid prototyper to its more permanent home.

You can get a value add from the rapid prototyper if it contained an ICSP programmer
too. That's the point I've been making. So when you're ready to do the final
transfer from the rapid prototyper to the QuickProto PCB, you don't have to have
another programmer laying around simply to program the part for the QuickProto.

It would even be worth incorporating ICD at that point. 

Truthfully Olin and I are not really talking about different items, just different
usage. Olin said that one size does not fit all. Very true for one off targets.
But for a rapid prototyper you want it bo be as large, as generic and as flexible
as possible. It serves as the initial scaffolding for project development. It
serves as a temporary home for a budding project. As such it should incorporate
an array of standard items along with ways to hook up project specific stuff.

PC developers do not build new computers for each new project that they start.
Development starts on an existing machine. If it fizzles out, then so be it. 
However if the project idea takes, then you start thinking about new hardware to
run it.

The rapid prototyper is an analog for that. I take the Don Lancaster tack on 
project development: you'll have a bunch of failures before a good one survives.
In my mind it's like dating a project. I certainly don't want to invest much just
for a date. Putting solder to PCB, even on a stock prefab prototyping PCB is simply
too much of a committment... initially. If I warm up to the project, then it can
be transferred to its own separate board. If not, then tear down the breadboard
part and then the rapid protyping scaffolding is in place for the next "great"
idea.

So the rapid prototyper is a tool that serves as an instant temporary target.
But it's going to be a permanent fixture on the desk. So it's OK to incorporate
a programmer, a breadboard, ICD, and the like.

Not true for the final target, which will need an array of sizes to fit different
needs. That will be one offs so they need to be unpopulated and does not need
to incorporate a programmer (except for maybe and ICSP connector or a bootloader
interface that costs 1 I/O pin).

But in the end they are complements to one another, not competetors.

BAJ
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist