I have never tried the drag technique but it looks straightforward enough. Are the pins too fine for that?
I guess the hard part must actually be just getting the legs lined up exactly in the first place. I have soldered fine legs by hand with a pencil the regular individual way but each time it was just to tap a few individual legs not to do all 40 or more. Like I added an audio line-in jack to a laptop where the audio chip had the pins, but the laptop wasn't using them. I just needed to connect fine wrapping wire to maybe 3 pins. Schmartboard makes little breakout/adapter/carrier boards where the solder pads are actually recessed, and the chip legs drop in to the solder pads, specifically so that you can hand solder them. I guess there's no way to get boards made like that. -- bkw On May 16, 2016 9:54 PM, "Stephen Adolph" <twospru...@gmail.com> wrote: > no, i have not, mostly because I feel like they can't do the M100 > machining. I hand grind the PCBs for M100 to expose the large vias so > they can engage the molex. So, that's an issue. Next is just the $$ > per hour of the offshore assembling. If you have a contact Ken, I > could actually get *facts*. > PC-8201 is pretty easy, but the pins needed are kinda special from > what I can tell. I only have 50 of those carriers in my parts pile, > and I never see them on ebay. > steve > > > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Ken Pettit <petti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Steve, > > > > Did you ever look into having an assembly house build these? > > > > Ken > > > > > > On 5/16/16 6:48 PM, Stephen Adolph wrote: > >> > >> ..re REX. IF I could release it to oshpark I would. In fact the > >> boards are there. The problem is... I doubt people will be successful > >> soldering fine pitch. Do you want to try? The chips can be purchased > >> on ebay or digikey. > >> If you want to try I will release the board design(s). > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> > >> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Brian White <bw.al...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> The figtronix link broke because I asked him a question about his main > >>> rom > >>> adapter a couple weeks ago, and he updated the board, just the > silkscreen > >>> not anything functional, and he removed the old link and made a new > one. > >>> I > >>> don't know if that's just the way oshpark works or if he's just doing > >>> something wrong. > >>> > >>> He ended up doing a bunch of stuff that I wanted for free and without > >>> asking, so I wasn't going to complain about a little thing like it's > >>> annoying having to keep finding out the new link! > >>> > >>> We ended up trading a lot of emails and he whipped up both the option > rom > >>> board and the programmer adapter after I showed him the club100 links > to > >>> the > >>> old EME option rom module. There were several rapid iterations of both > of > >>> those and he did the same thing each time with those too, broke the > >>> existing > >>> link and made a new one. And it takes forever before they show up in > the > >>> oshpark search too. > >>> > >>> (Oh yeah, don't trust that search. Find any working link to any board > by > >>> that guy, then click on the guy's name, and THERE you see all his other > >>> boards, including all 3 M100-related, even though they don't show up in > >>> the > >>> search.) > >>> > >>> Anyway there's lot's of ways to skin the same cat of course. > >>> > >>> I like your board too. I actually assembled one of your boards too, but > >>> I'm > >>> using the figtronix at the moment, because I don't want a combined > system > >>> and option rom, I want to be able to use the external accessible option > >>> rom > >>> socket to swap roms and install commercial roms, and I want the system > >>> rom > >>> to be socketed and re-programmable or at least swappable. I actually > >>> found > >>> ceramic uv-erasable clcc 27C256, but even replacing OTP plcc ones is > >>> better > >>> than needing a test-clip. > >>> > >>> One thing I should verify, maybe there IS actually room to solder your > >>> board > >>> on the motherboard and put a dip socket on the adapter, then trim the > >>> legs > >>> of the eprom a little so the eprom sits lower in the socket, does the > >>> resulting stack come out 0.55" or shorter? That would meet all my same > >>> wishes above. Takes a standard eprom, and the eprom is removable and > >>> reprogrammable with no special adapters. > >>> > >>> Ideally I'd like both the main and option roms to use the same kind of > >>> eprom. not plcc in one and soic in the other. There is just barely > >>> vertical > >>> room for a low profile plcc socket in the option rom, but low profile > >>> plcc > >>> sockets are surface mount so soldering them at home is not simple like > >>> the > >>> regular socket with thru pins. I have old commercial option roms that > >>> used a > >>> full dip28 eprom on a board. it's a tight fit but it works. The holes > for > >>> the eprom are actually pulled in a little closer than the proper dip28 > >>> spacing, squished inside the half-holes on the edges which are at dip28 > >>> spacing. No room for a socket, so a board like that you could only > >>> re-program with either a test clip or a programming adapter, but that's > >>> no > >>> worse than what you already need for the soic board. But at least then > >>> that, > >>> along with your main rom board, means you'd have the same kind of part > on > >>> both system and option roms. > >>> > >>> I mean IDEALLY of course, I'd love a REX, but I emailed the address on > >>> club100 a couple times and never got any answer, and the plans for REX > >>> aren't published like on oshpark, so oh well. Even if by a miracle one > >>> REX > >>> became available from somewhere, I still probably wouldn't want to > invest > >>> time hacking with it if no one else could ever make use of the results. > >>> If > >>> the REX were reproducible at will and anyone could have one, THEN it > >>> would > >>> be a worthwhile target for hacking/developing. If not, then I'd rather > >>> just > >>> start a new public/open design even if it's cruder and reinventing the > >>> wheel. > >>> > >>> (And now that I say that, I realize I sure like my MISE, and that's > >>> basically in the same boat. The design is not public. The guy just > >>> happens > >>> to be actively producing and supporting it right now. So maybe I'm > being > >>> inconsistent. At least I made my enclosure for the MISE public, > including > >>> a > >>> slick non-trivial arrangement to hold the cf card reader which does not > >>> have > >>> any nice mounting holes or anything, if I do say so myself. ;) ) > >>> > >>> In the 102 of course I just stuck a plain socket in and a plain dip > >>> 27c256. > >>> No complications there. Same goes for late m100 too apparently though > >>> both > >>> my m100's needed the adapter. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> bkw > >>> > >>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Mike Stein <mhs.st...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for posting those links. When I mentioned the various options > for > >>>> adding/upgrading System and Option ROMs I wanted to include this one > but > >>>> at > >>>> the time the link at Oshpark didn't seem to work; I couldn't find any > >>>> mention on his Figtronix site either so I assumed they were no longer > >>>> available for some reason. Glad to see they're back and he's added a > >>>> programming adapter. > >>>> > >>>> One advantage of those boards over the board Bill and Steve are > >>>> discussing > >>>> is that in a T102 you can add an Option ROM without removing the > System > >>>> ROM > >>>> chip; however, at the risk of being immodest I should point out what I > >>>> think > >>>> are some advantages of the 'Combo' board: > >>>> > >>>> Whether you want to upgrade the System ROM and/or add an Option ROM in > >>>> either an old or a new M100/T102 you use the same board; no need for > >>>> separate System and Option ROM adapters. > >>>> > >>>> To (re)program the IC in an 'old' M100 you'll need another adapter to > >>>> convert the pinout back to standard JEDEC; no problem, just assemble > >>>> another > >>>> adapter 'in reverse' as it were, with a socket. > >>>> > >>>> So the one PCB essentially does the same job as all three different > >>>> Figtronix ones; since you get a minimum of six boards you might save > >>>> some > >>>> money. > >>>> > >>>> Finally, since it uses a standard 28-pin socket if you want to play > >>>> around > >>>> with the System ROM code without burning/replacing/reprogramming the > >>>> E(E)PROM every time, replace it with a non-volatile RAM chip like the > >>>> Dallas > >>>> DS1230Y or the FM1808 FRAM and a minor mod to connect R/W and you can > >>>> POKE > >>>> around all you want.. > >>>> > >>>> m > >>>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: Brian White > >>>> To: Model 100 Discussion > >>>> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 11:42 PM > >>>> Subject: Re: [M100] ROM burning questions > >>>> > >>>> ...Re-post without pic... > >>>> > >>>> Old m100 takes a non-standard pinout, new m100 and all t102 takes a > >>>> standard 27C256 pinout. > >>>> > >>>> I just did an old m100 using this plcc adapter: > >>>> > >>>> https://oshpark.com/shared_projects/toQDqmVV > >>>> > >>>> I burned the Tandy 102 rom with y2k patches from the rex page on > >>>> bitchin100. > >>>> > >>>> The board is easy to assemble except the only hitch is you have to > find > >>>> pin headers that have thinner round pins rather than the more common > >>>> square. > >>>> > >>>> If you have a "new" m100, the chip number on the rom will not match > the > >>>> number silkscreened on this board. In that case you don't need any > >>>> adapter, > >>>> just put in a 27C256 dip28 directly, same as for T102. > >>>> > >>>> https://goo.gl/photos/GUKXgxxVGaUVt57k9 > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> bkw > >>> > >>> > > >
