Solderless vs. soldering - what a difference (measuring 3V LDO)

[dusan]

I bought ME6209A30M3G from aliexpress and I got underwhelming results when I was testing in on breadboard, but on second measurement I got significantly different results so I soldered everything on perfboard and difference was huge. Here are both measurements, first is on breadboard, second is soldered on perfboard. Just an observation.

[ftg]

Images comparing how they were setup might also offer us clues.
But my guess would be the thinner wires and worse decoupling on the solderless breadboard.
Soldering the connections makes for more reliable and lower resistance connections.
Assuming there was no other difference in the parts used.

[tggzzz]

Yet another example of why solderless breadboards are a good way of misleading yourself[1] and discouraging beginners

Fortunately there are better prototyping techniques, technologies, and components: https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2020/07/22/prototyping-circuits-easy-cheap-fast-reliable-techniques/ It looks like you know some of them, but there might be a few surprises there.

[1] another example: https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2024/03/16/practical-traps-with-a-one-transistor-audio-amplifier-solderless-breadboards-and-oscilloscopes/

[shapirus]

Even with a solderless breadboard... Something must have been assembled VERY badly to cause such a big voltage droop at such a low current.

Solderless breadboards can be surprisingly well performing, if you know what you're doing.

[tggzzz]

Even with a solderless breadboard... Something must have been assembled VERY badly to cause such a big voltage droop at such a low current.

Solderless breadboards can be surprisingly well performing, if you know what you're doing.

A bit of oxide coating here, a leaf spring previously forced apart by a large diameter lead there, add a sprinkling of unnecessary L and C - and soon you have a problem.

The question is not whether solderless breadboards can be good enough, the question is what is the probability they will be good enough.

It takes a lot of experience to guesstimate that, and someone with such experience will probably choose to avoid needing to guesstimate and hope

[shapirus]

A bit of oxide coating here, a leaf spring previously forced apart by a large diameter lead there, add a sprinkling of unnecessary L and C - and soon you have a problem.

The question is not whether solderless breadboards can be good enough, the question is what is the probability they will be good enough.

It takes a lot of experience to guesstimate that, and someone with such experience will probably choose to avoid needing to guesstimate and hope

Yes. My point is that with some experience and understanding of where parasitics will matter most the probability of poor performance can be greatly reduced.

It would be interesting to see how the circuit was actually assembled.

[Peabody]

There is also a big difference in the quality of breadboards.

[tggzzz]

A bit of oxide coating here, a leaf spring previously forced apart by a large diameter lead there, add a sprinkling of unnecessary L and C - and soon you have a problem.

The question is not whether solderless breadboards can be good enough, the question is what is the probability they will be good enough.

It takes a lot of experience to guesstimate that, and someone with such experience will probably choose to avoid needing to guesstimate and hope

Yes. My point is that with some experience and understanding of where parasitics will matter most the probability of poor performance can be greatly reduced.

It would be interesting to see how the circuit was actually assembled.

Interesting, yes - especially if it shows sufficient detail to see dirty leads and the leaf springs.

I don't think the probability can be "greatly" reduced, but then I prefer numbers and dislike adjectives

I have no valid opinion as to whether the circuit was oscillating, but oscillations can cause apparently strange effects.

[tggzzz]

There is also a big difference in the quality of breadboards.

True. They range from new to old, and bad to awful 

[shapirus]

I have no valid opinion as to whether the circuit was oscillating, but oscillations can cause apparently strange effects.

Yes, that's another possibility, which isn't at all unlikely, and that could easily have such effects on the DC voltage measurement. Would be nice to see oscillograms of the output signal as well.

[tggzzz]

I have no valid opinion as to whether the circuit was oscillating, but oscillations can cause apparently strange effects.

Yes, that's another possibility, which isn't at all unlikely, and that could easily have such effects on the DC voltage measurement. Would be nice to see oscillograms of the output signal as well.

Not a 10MHz nor 50MHz scope, as illustrated in the second link I gave

[Peabody]

There is also a big difference in the quality of breadboards.

True. They range from new to old, and bad to awful 

I don't think that's right.  I've had very good performance from this board:

https://www.amazon.com/BB830-Solderless-Plug-BreadBoard-tie-Points/dp/B0040Z4QN8

But I've also had bad luck with other boards, particularly the $3 ones from the Far East.  They just don't make good connections.  I don't understand why that happens.  After all, you are sticking a piece of metal in between two other pieces of metal that are touching, and if I asked you to do that without making a good connection, you'd have trouble doing it.  But the cheap boards are able to accomplish the task.

[tggzzz]

We clearly have different definitions for "good" "bad" and "awful"

Adjectives conceal more than they enlighten Famously, Humpty Dumpty had something to say about the subject.

I dislike relying on anything that depends on what a buyer was able to find in the marketplace on that day. It is too easy for them to buy a good batch last week and a bad batch this week - and we couldn't tell before purchase.

There a lot of science and engineering in the design and manufacture of modern connectors. I remember many truly horrible ones when I was young. Solderless breadboards are a modern variant.

Fortunately solderless breadboards can be easily and cheaply avoided nowadays. Why settle for second third best?

[vk6zgo]

Yet another example of why solderless breadboards are a good way of misleading yourself[1] and discouraging beginners

Fortunately there are better prototyping techniques, technologies, and components: https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2020/07/22/prototyping-circuits-easy-cheap-fast-reliable-techniques/ It looks like you know some of them, but there might be a few surprises there.

[1] another example: https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2024/03/16/practical-traps-with-a-one-transistor-audio-amplifier-solderless-breadboards-and-oscilloscopes/

In the latter example, how come the transistor has no provision for forward bias of the base-emitter junction?
Looking at the simulation's input & output signal, it seems that the former very conveniently has its most negative excursion at around +2.0 volts, neatly disposing of the bias problem, as it seems did the "real world" generator they used.

In most people's "real life" the waveform will either be symmetrical around zero volts, or the most negative excursion would be to zero volts.
In both cases, the substantial distortion of the output waveform would be far more obvious than anything as subtle as oscillation.

[tggzzz]

Yet another example of why solderless breadboards are a good way of misleading yourself[1] and discouraging beginners

Fortunately there are better prototyping techniques, technologies, and components: https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2020/07/22/prototyping-circuits-easy-cheap-fast-reliable-techniques/ It looks like you know some of them, but there might be a few surprises there.

[1] another example: https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2024/03/16/practical-traps-with-a-one-transistor-audio-amplifier-solderless-breadboards-and-oscilloscopes/

In the latter example, how come the transistor has no provision for forward bias of the base-emitter junction?
Looking at the simulation's input & output signal, it seems that the former very conveniently has its most negative excursion at around +2.0 volts, neatly disposing of the bias problem, as it seems did the "real world" generator they used.

In general it is good practice to demonstrate effects using the simplest possible circuit/code/mechanics/etc. That enables people to concentrate on the effect, and not be distracted by extraneous components.

What is regarded as 0V is purely arbitrary. Your point evaporates if a +-7.5V symmetrical supply is used.

The TAoE x-chapters example noted didn't even have a generator: they simply applied a constant voltage from a PSU to the base.

In most people's "real life" the waveform will either be symmetrical around zero volts, or the most negative excursion would be to zero volts.
In both cases, the substantial distortion of the output waveform would be far more obvious than anything as subtle as oscillation.

You are missing the point.

Change the +15V supply to +-7.5V: the surprising misbehaviour will still occur, and there won't be any of the distortion you imagine!

[vk6zgo]

Yet another example of why solderless breadboards are a good way of misleading yourself[1] and discouraging beginners

Fortunately there are better prototyping techniques, technologies, and components: https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2020/07/22/prototyping-circuits-easy-cheap-fast-reliable-techniques/ It looks like you know some of them, but there might be a few surprises there.

[1] another example: https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2024/03/16/practical-traps-with-a-one-transistor-audio-amplifier-solderless-breadboards-and-oscilloscopes/

In the latter example, how come the transistor has no provision for forward bias of the base-emitter junction?
Looking at the simulation's input & output signal, it seems that the former very conveniently has its most negative excursion at around +2.0 volts, neatly disposing of the bias problem, as it seems did the "real world" generator they used.

In general it is good practice to demonstrate effects using the simplest possible circuit/code/mechanics/etc. That enables people to concentrate on the effect, and not be distracted by extraneous components.

What is regarded as 0V is purely arbitrary. Your point evaporates if a +-7.5V symmetrical supply is used.

The TAoE x-chapters example noted didn't even have a generator: they simply applied a constant voltage from a PSU to the base.

In most people's "real life" the waveform will either be symmetrical around zero volts, or the most negative excursion would be to zero volts.
In both cases, the substantial distortion of the output waveform would be far more obvious than anything as subtle as oscillation.

You are missing the point.

Change the +15V supply to +-7.5V: the surprising misbehaviour will still occur, and there won't be any of the distortion you imagine!

Indeed, but that is not the situation presented in the simulator's schematic, & in itself, introduces a greater complication to the situation than a couple of resistors.

[ArdWar]

A lot of my problems with breadboard usually boils down to cheap one having ridiculous amount of burrs, with the bad contact either from the burr itself or the eventual weak contact pressure after I yank the previous component getting caught in it.

That, and the use of soft non spring steel on those $3 boards. Not even nickel plated.

[tggzzz]

Yet another example of why solderless breadboards are a good way of misleading yourself[1] and discouraging beginners

Fortunately there are better prototyping techniques, technologies, and components: https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2020/07/22/prototyping-circuits-easy-cheap-fast-reliable-techniques/ It looks like you know some of them, but there might be a few surprises there.

[1] another example: https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2024/03/16/practical-traps-with-a-one-transistor-audio-amplifier-solderless-breadboards-and-oscilloscopes/

In the latter example, how come the transistor has no provision for forward bias of the base-emitter junction?
Looking at the simulation's input & output signal, it seems that the former very conveniently has its most negative excursion at around +2.0 volts, neatly disposing of the bias problem, as it seems did the "real world" generator they used.

In general it is good practice to demonstrate effects using the simplest possible circuit/code/mechanics/etc. That enables people to concentrate on the effect, and not be distracted by extraneous components.

What is regarded as 0V is purely arbitrary. Your point evaporates if a +-7.5V symmetrical supply is used.

The TAoE x-chapters example noted didn't even have a generator: they simply applied a constant voltage from a PSU to the base.

In most people's "real life" the waveform will either be symmetrical around zero volts, or the most negative excursion would be to zero volts.
In both cases, the substantial distortion of the output waveform would be far more obvious than anything as subtle as oscillation.

You are missing the point.

Change the +15V supply to +-7.5V: the surprising misbehaviour will still occur, and there won't be any of the distortion you imagine!

Indeed, but that is not the situation presented in the simulator's schematic, & in itself, introduces a greater complication to the situation than a couple of resistors.

It isn't presented because it is neither relevant nor important.

This input symmetrical-about-zero should satisfy you; I can't be bothered to duplicate the simpler simulation.

[tggzzz]

A lot of my problems with breadboard usually boils down to cheap one having ridiculous amount of burrs, with the bad contact either from the burr itself or the eventual weak contact pressure after I yank the previous component getting caught in it.

That, and the use of soft non spring steel on those $3 boards. Not even nickel plated.

... and then there are the oxide layers on the component leads, the parasitic capactances and inductances.

Too much hassle when there are easy cheap alternatives.

[shapirus]

Too much hassle when there are easy cheap alternatives.

Cheap yes, easy no.

Anything that involves soldering is not even remotely comparable to solderless breadboards in terms of easiness for R&D. Nothing beats solderless breadboards for trying different circuits and different part values in hardware quickly and with zero waste.

It's only when you are settled on a specific circuit and component values that proceeding to soldering to build a working prototype makes sense, or, another scenario, when parasitics of the solderless breadboard make it impossible or too unreasonable to use in a specific case.

The world of electronics isn't limited by HF and fast digital circuits. And even for those solderless breadboards can be quite usable, as long as you know what you're doing.

[tggzzz]

Too much hassle when there are easy cheap alternatives.

Cheap yes, easy no.

Anything that involves soldering is not even remotely comparable to solderless breadboards in terms of easiness for R&D. Nothing beats solderless breadboards for trying different circuits and different part values in hardware quickly and with zero waste.

I disagree, for the reasons I have stated - especially wasted time when (predictably) solderless breadboards don't perform as expected.

Beginners are going to have to learn soldering sometime. "Practicing" while making prototypes is a great way of enhancing their skills before they need to do it on a "real" PCB.

The "zero waste" concept is a red herring. Components soldered on breadboards can be reused: desolder them and put them back in the drawer. I have such components dating from the 1970s! Seriously But thanks; I've updated the page to trap out the "waste" contention.

It's only when you are settled on a specific circuit and component values that proceeding to soldering to build a working prototype makes sense, or, another scenario, when parasitics of the solderless breadboard make it impossible or too unreasonable to use in a specific case.

Many acknowledged experts jump straight to soldering, well documented examples being Jim Williams, Bob Pease. They do that for a reason. Even experts such as Horowitz and Hill can be caught out.

It requires a lot of experience to predict when parasitics cannot be a problem.

The world of electronics isn't limited by HF and fast digital circuits. And even for those solderless breadboards can be quite usable, as long as you know what you're doing.

Beginners - by definition - don't know what they are doing.

"LF" prototypes sometimes exhibit unexpected "VHF" behaviour, with baffling consequences. I showed one very simple example, another traditional example involves LDOs.

Overall with solderless breadboards it is too easy to get a circuit that appears to be working, but on closer examination exhibits weird or intermittent behaviour. I hate intermittent behaviour, and like predictable behaviour. Don't you?

[shapirus]

Overall with solderless breadboards it is too easy to get a circuit that appears to be working, but on closer examination exhibits weird or intermittent behaviour. I hate intermittent behaviour, and like predictable behaviour. Don't you?

I am fine with it when I understand what may be causing it so that I can safely ignore it and concentrate on what I am testing.

I use solderless breadboards to test isolated subcircuits to verify the results I get in simulation and adjust the values of passive components. Also to test things that are hard to simulate, such as power-on transients and state assertions.

So far this has worked in almost 100% of cases. Rare exceptions are things like high(ish) frequency switching converters: for example, a SEPIC converter based on MT3608 (1.2 MHz switching frequency) failed to work almost completely -- that's one of the few cases where I had to etch an actual PCB to test things (maybe a perfboard would have worked too, I'm not sure).

Otherwise, I've had very little issues with everything from DC to elaborate high-speed discrete logic (74LVC) circuits. But I'm not into RF or microwave. That may be a different story, but it's known that some people were able to buld oscillators in the multi-GHz range on solderless breadboards: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/challenge-thread-the-fastest-breadboard-oscillator-on-the-mudball/
People even build entire computers on solderless breadboards: https://hackaday.com/2021/12/18/a-well-documented-breadboard-computer-shows-dedication/

There's no reason to blame the tool. Solderless breadboards work just fine to verify concepts for me and many others. Their parasitics and intermittent contacts have rarely been a problem for me and I think they are usually greatly exaggerated. YMMV. Every tool has its pros and cons and knowing them allows to use the tool most efficiently. Speaking of beginners, being a beginner doesn't change much. You do something, you encounter a problem, ask yourself why it happens, find an answer, learn and make your tools more useful for you.

[joeqsmith]

Same old song and dance

A reminder from four years ago
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/challenge-thread-the-fastest-breadboard-oscillator-on-the-mudball/

More recently I was showing a member how to measure an inductor's self resonance and discuss some of the problems
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/measuring-the-self-resonant-frequency-of-an-inductor/msg5122983/#msg5122983

[Peabody]

As a hobbyist I don't have any problems with breadboards so long as I use quality boards.  But the ever-growing problem is parts that only come in hobbyist-unfriendly packages.  There are little adaptor boards available for things like SOT-to-SIP which can be used with breadboards, but there's not much you can do with a QFN or BGA.  And it seems most of TI's cool new stuff is really too small to solder to an adaptor board.  And even if you lay out a board for a project and order it from the Far East, you still need a stencil, unexpired paste, and hotplate.  Or get the board house to assemble it for you.  But that's all time and money.

[zapta]

When it comes to solderless breadboards, I trust Ben Eater.

https://shop.eater.net/products/bb830-breadboard

[AlienRelics]

My best breadboards are from about 1980 from Radio Shack. They were the original manufacturer, rebranded with Radio Shack's name. Rather thick gold plated contacts.

I've had good and bad since then, some really bad. None are meant for much current, tend to have higher resistance than soldered, and are not good for higher frequencies.

Something anyone starting out in electronics should be told but rarely are.

[Peabody]

Yes, Ben Eater's board is the one I use.  Also available at Amazon, Digkey, Mouser.  Busboard Prototype Systems.

[joeqsmith]

My best breadboards are from about 1980 from Radio Shack.  ...
I've had good and bad since then, some really bad. None are meant for much current, tend to have higher resistance than soldered, and are not good for higher frequencies.   ...

I would imagine mine are all from that era as well.  No idea on the brand.  I still use them for quick and dirty tests.     

For resistance I swept the current through a bus using two copper wires from 30 to 1200mA while measuring the voltage drop.   Resistance stayed around 0.15 ohms.    I then tried four other bus bars at random using 1200mA and measured from 0.08 to 0.18 ohms.  I have no idea how that compares with other boards but certainly easy enough to anyone to check theirs.  With the age and high use of mine, I wouldn't be surprised to find most are much better.   

Heat wise, the worse case was 37uW.  I've pushed more current than 1.2Amps through them before without a problem.  Like others, I would have liked to have seen OPs construction before trying to offer any advice.   

As for higher frequencies, the one link I provided where I was testing inductors, I was testing in excess of 10MHz.  The parasitics became a problem and I had to float one of the nodes.  Still it was very functional.  Of course, if 10MHz isn't what you consider higher frequencies, there's always that second link where I demonstrated an oscillator running in excess of 25GHz. 

From 2021, I mention my use of 3M.  As I said, same old same old. 
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/are-all-breadboards-equal-or-are-there-good-and-bad-ones/

[tooki]

Too much hassle when there are easy cheap alternatives.

Cheap yes, easy no.

Anything that involves soldering is not even remotely comparable to solderless breadboards in terms of easiness for R&D. Nothing beats solderless breadboards for trying different circuits and different part values in hardware quickly and with zero waste.

It's only when you are settled on a specific circuit and component values that proceeding to soldering to build a working prototype makes sense, or, another scenario, when parasitics of the solderless breadboard make it impossible or too unreasonable to use in a specific case.

The world of electronics isn't limited by HF and fast digital circuits. And even for those solderless breadboards can be quite usable, as long as you know what you're doing.

You’re absolutely correct. But we can always count on tggzzz to find every mention of the word “breadboard” and inject his absolutist anti-breadboard stance into the discussion. He will never acknowledge or recognize that breadboards have their applications. I’ve tried explaining it multiple times but it’s like talking to a wall, except that walls aren’t as whiny.

[shabaz]

He's a time-waster when he wants to be. This derails the discussion, and his web pages serve up unwanted, unrelated adverts that cheapen whatever message he wishes to convey.

He did a similar thing on a thread about drawing tools, with a derailment on color blindness when it didn't apply; the OP wanted tools _specifically_ with the need for color diagrams.

Anyway, regarding breadboards, he mentioned The Art of Electronics in one of his discussions about his transistor circuit but forgot to mention that Horowitz & Hill state they actually use solderless breadboards for their course. It's good enough for their students.

Maybe he's forgotten that many of today's engineers were able to afford a breadboard, an LED, and a resistor long before they had any other decent equipment, and then gradually dip their toes into integrated circuits with a 555, and so on, all on a breadboard.

Almost every Forrest Mims book had a breadboard on the front cover—a lot more inviting to the discipline than a load of soldering/prototyping tools/consumables.

I've got a a pile of about 50 breadboards here.. and from experience am confident they will meet the needs (kids will be using them). They are not top-end breadboards (I have a few decent breadboards), but throwaway items after a few dozen experiments. I do try to use decent equipment when possible, but am aware that's a bit of a luxury most can't afford.

Regarding RF, another data-point: I demoed how to use a VNA to a group and used a (solderless) breadboard to show how to design the matching for a 10.7 MHz filter. There was really crude VNA calibration right on the breadboard (and was the first time some people had visually seen calibration steps, even if they would have to do that differently depending on the PCB or connectors for their needs one day). People appreciate a simple no-faff approach to learning something from scratch, eliminating any worries they may have had that it was too difficult to get into without a load of RF experience. No math either, since we had a Smith chart.

[shapirus]

Now, speaking of applications...

I've just been doing exactly what I described above as a typical application: building a subcircuit on a solderless breadboard to verify a concept that I had previously designed and verified in simulation. Simulation worked fine, but I needed to make sure that the power-on transition worked as I needed and just to test that it all generally worked in hardware.

The circuit involves debouncing two push buttons, which is implemented with some RC delays and 74LVC schmitt trigger input inverters (a hex inverter 74LVC14), and producing a single ~10 μs pulse per one button press. These pulses are fed into the inputs of an RS latch built of discrete 74LVC1G00 NAND gates, which do not have schmitt trigger inputs.

The part where the buttons and the outputs and inputs of the hex inverter IC were wired with short jumpers and resistors (even with uncut leads) worked just fine. But the RS latch part was built on a second breadboard (imagine the potential ground loops!) and while the Reset signal wire was short, the Set one was about 15 cm long in total and in addition made of two joined in series (connected on the breadboard).

Guess what, it failed: when the Set button (long wire) was pressed, the RS latch gates went into a state where apparently the CMOS output transistors were cross-conducting (the PSU went to CC mode at ~20 mA, so no ICs were harmed). Curiously, though, it went out of that state on the second press of that button. The Reset button, whose signal was sent over a short wire, worked fine.

What caused it? Well, if you send a pulse with a sub-nanosecond rising or falling edge over a crappy 15 cm-long wire that's terminated with whatever the solderless breadboard has to offer (not to mention the return path), you can guess what beauty the receiving end will see :).

Solution? Easy: add a series resistor right after the output pin to make the edge slower and thus reduce the reflections to more or less return the pulse to a good shape. Even as small as 47 Ohms one solved the problem (even though the signal seen by the scope at the target input pin was still ugly, but apparently good enough).

Conclusion? Know what you're doing and what can be causing the issues you're seeing and how to solve them to mitigate the limitations of your tools. And if you don't know what you're doing, still do it! Encounter problems, troubleshoot, search, read, learn, run simulations, and you'll know what you're doing the next time.

And of course it took much less time than it would have with soldering. Zero mess, zero fumes. Easy to fix mistakes, easy to hand pick and try various values of passive components. Solderless breadboards are cool*!

*but you'd better have an assortment of ZIF socket to DIP adapters for SMD stuff.

[tggzzz]

Too much hassle when there are easy cheap alternatives.

Cheap yes, easy no.

Anything that involves soldering is not even remotely comparable to solderless breadboards in terms of easiness for R&D. Nothing beats solderless breadboards for trying different circuits and different part values in hardware quickly and with zero waste.

It's only when you are settled on a specific circuit and component values that proceeding to soldering to build a working prototype makes sense, or, another scenario, when parasitics of the solderless breadboard make it impossible or too unreasonable to use in a specific case.

The world of electronics isn't limited by HF and fast digital circuits. And even for those solderless breadboards can be quite usable, as long as you know what you're doing.

You’re absolutely correct. But we can always count on tggzzz to find every mention of the word “breadboard” and inject his absolutist anti-breadboard stance into the discussion. He will never acknowledge or recognize that breadboards have their applications. I’ve tried explaining it multiple times but it’s like talking to a wall, except that walls aren’t as whiny.

That is a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black! Can I suggest you read the thread title and the first post, rather than just being a seagull.

This whole thread is about a problem the OP found using solderless breadboard, which disappeared when they used a better prototype technology.

Q.E.D.

[tggzzz]

...
Solution? Easy: add a series resistor right after the output pin to make the edge slower and thus reduce the reflections to more or less return the pulse to a good shape. Even as small as 47 Ohms one solved the problem (even though the signal seen by the scope at the target input pin was still ugly, but apparently good enough).
...

So, you created an experimental circuit, prototyped it, found the prototyping technique caused problems. Then you mutated your experimental circuit to work around the prototyping limitations.

Wouldn't it be more rational to change the prototyping technique?

Now you will have to re-re-implement your (mutated) circuit, making tests on the mutated circuit far less valuable.

[tggzzz]

I've got a a pile of about 50 breadboards here.. and from experience am confident they will meet the needs (kids will be using them). They are not top-end breadboards (I have a few decent breadboards), but throwaway items after a few dozen experiments. I do try to use decent equipment when possible, but am aware that's a bit of a luxury most can't afford.

Most people advocate using solderless breadboards so resistors are not disposable, and can be reused.

You regard solderless breadboards as disposable, after you have realised one has actually started causing you problems.

I must admit that profligacy never crossed my mind.

[shabaz]

You regard solderless breadboards as disposable...

I must admit that profligacy never crossed my mind.

I do regard the cheapest, very low-cost tools to have a finite life. Same as soldering irons. Your message is (again) a complete time-waste both for you and the reader.

[tggzzz]

Anyway, regarding breadboards, he mentioned The Art of Electronics in one of his discussions about his transistor circuit but forgot to mention that Horowitz & Hill state they actually use solderless breadboards for their course. It's good enough for their students.

Try understanding what Horowitz and Hill are saying in the passage you quoted.

They note a set or real-world problems.
In order to be able to use solderless breadboards they restrict students to using logic families introduced 41 years ago.
They state that using they can't use (more) modern logic families with solderless breadboards.

They have thoroughly tested the experiment before their students repeat the experiment for themselves.

Not a good advert for using solderless breadboards with modern logic for new circuits (i.e. not a repeat of a thoroughly known "crippled" circuit).

Thank you for highlighting some real problems with using solderless breadboards.

[shapirus]

So, you created an experimental circuit, prototyped it, found the prototyping technique caused problems. Then you mutated your experimental circuit to work around the prototyping limitations.

Yes. I knew what to expect and how to fix the reasons why things didn't work as expected. There is no qualitative difference with any other prototyping technique: whatever tool you use, you need to be aware of limitations and side effects.

Wouldn't it be more rational to change the prototyping technique?

No. It would have taken much more time, created flux fumes, and wasted some IPA to wash the board. And then, in case a mistake was found, I'd have to desolder, replace, resolder, and potentially wash the board again. I have no reason to believe that I would have made less mistakes on a soldering perfboard than I did on a solderless one, and I did make a few.

Of course there are legit cases when soldering is a must, like this, when the parasitics of a solderless breadboard will absolutely defeat the whole purpose of the circuit:



But the one I described wasn't one of them.

Now you will have to re-re-implement your (mutated) circuit, making tests on the mutated circuit far less valuable.

Very unlikely. It works in simulation, it works on a solderless breadboard, provided that measures are taken to maintain signal integrity (targeting a specific isolated issue), so there is no reason for it not to work on a final PCB, as long as the signal integrity considerations, of which I am well aware, are taken into account when it will be designed.

[tggzzz]

You regard solderless breadboards as disposable...

I must admit that profligacy never crossed my mind.

I do regard the cheapest, very low-cost tools to have a finite life. Same as soldering irons. Your message is (again) a complete time-waste both for you and the reader.

You snipped the real comparison: the cost of a resistor vs the cost of a solderless breadboard.

That's called being "penny wise and pound foolish", or"cent wise and dollar foolish" if you prefer.

[shabaz]

You snipped the real comparison...

Do whatever comparison you wish. It doesn't change the fact, that tools eventually wear out, and when they do, they get replaced.

[tggzzz]

So, you created an experimental circuit, prototyped it, found the prototyping technique caused problems. Then you mutated your experimental circuit to work around the prototyping limitations.

Yes. I knew what to expect and how to fix the reasons why things didn't work as expected. There is no qualitative difference with any other prototyping technique: whatever tool you use, you need to be aware of limitations and side effects.

Wouldn't it be more rational to change the prototyping technique?

No. It would have taken much more time, created flux fumes, and wasted some IPA to wash the board. And then, in case a mistake was found, I'd have to desolder, replace, resolder, and potentially wash the board again. I have no reason to believe that I would have made less mistakes on a soldering perfboard than I did on a solderless one, and I did make a few.

Why IPA on a circuit like that? I've never bothered. Low-noise high-impedance circuits, yes - but digital logic is by definition the opposite of that.

You say below that your circuit worked in simulation, so what mistakes (other than rushed carelessness?) might you have made?

Now you will have to re-re-implement your (mutated) circuit, making tests on the mutated circuit far less valuable.

Very unlikely. It works in simulation, it works on a solderless breadboard, provided that measures are taken to maintain signal integrity (targeting a specific isolated issue), so there is no reason for it not to work on a final PCB, as long as the signal integrity considerations, of which I am well aware, are taken into account when it will be designed.

So you simulated circuit 1, tested circuit 2, in the expectation that implementation of circuit 1 would work. And presumably built and re-tested that circuit.

Seems a long way around. Why bother with circuit 2? Why not just build 1 and test 1.

[tggzzz]

You snipped the real comparison...

Do whatever comparison you wish. It doesn't change the fact, that tools eventually wear out, and when they do, they get replaced.

Strawman arguments come round to bite you, and devalue any point you might have had.

[shapirus]

Why IPA on a circuit like that? I've never bothered. Low-noise high-impedance circuits, yes - but digital logic is by definition the opposite of that.

Just because I hate when the messy flux residue stays on my fingers when I handle the board that I'm testing. No I don't work in gloves and I don't use a vise to hold the board under test. Thus I usually wash them after soldering.

You say below that your circuit worked in simulation, so what mistakes (other than rushed carelessness?) might you have made?

Any that a human may make after a long day. Forget to connect a power rail, connect a jumper wire to the wrong side of the button etc. There is no DRC to automate this job (yet?)

So you simulated circuit 1, tested circuit 2, in the expectation that implementation of circuit 1 would work.

Seems a long way around. Why bother with circuit 2?

As far as this specific prototype is considered, it is the same circuit.

But that calls for another discussion: what can we consider the same circuit? What's drawn in an EDA software is one thing, assembled on a solderless breadboard is another, soldered on a perfboard is yet another, and then soldered on a PCB is another still -- yet all having the same components connected in the same order. There will always be difference caused by non-ideal conductors of a non-zero length. But that's really beyond what I'm willing to discuss in this thread.

[shabaz]

You snipped the real comparison...

Do whatever comparison you wish. It doesn't change the fact, that tools eventually wear out, and when they do, they get replaced.

Strawman arguments come round to bite you, and devalue any point you might have had.

I now recognize it's deliberate when you're in your time-wasting mode, you also get nasty. I'll simply go off and help elsewhere (if I can).

[tggzzz]

Anyway, regarding breadboards, he mentioned The Art of Electronics in one of his discussions about his transistor circuit but forgot to mention that Horowitz & Hill state they actually use solderless breadboards for their course.

Firstly you don't seem to understand what H&H were saying about the crippling preconditions necessary for that to happen.

Secondly you ignore that I told you where H&H pointed out that solderless breadboard construction caused the specific problem I discussed.

so here it is...

[tggzzz]

You snipped the real comparison...

Do whatever comparison you wish. It doesn't change the fact, that tools eventually wear out, and when they do, they get replaced.

Strawman arguments come round to bite you, and devalue any point you might have had.

I now recognize it's deliberate when you're in your time-wasting mode, you also get nasty. I'll simply go off and help elsewhere (if I can).

Strawman argument, such as you made, do indeed waste people's time. That annoys me.

[tggzzz]

Why IPA on a circuit like that? I've never bothered. Low-noise high-impedance circuits, yes - but digital logic is by definition the opposite of that.

Just because I hate when the messy flux residue stays on my fingers when I handle the board that I'm testing. No I don't work in gloves and I don't use a vise to hold the board under test. Thus I usually wash them after soldering.

Curious. I don't use gloves, don't use a vice, and don't notice any residue on my fingers. I wonder what's the source of the difference?

You say below that your circuit worked in simulation, so what mistakes (other than rushed carelessness?) might you have made?

Any that a human may make after a long day. Forget to connect a power rail, connect a jumper wire to the wrong side of the button etc. There is no DRC to automate this job (yet?)

You forgot "connect the power the wrong way round" I've done that both on the component and at the PSU.

After a few times I begin to learn to check before applying power; I'm a slow learner.

Haven't found a practical way of measuring the resistance between this resistor lead and that capacitor lead, but then I don't need to

So you simulated circuit 1, tested circuit 2, in the expectation that implementation of circuit 1 would work.

Seems a long way around. Why bother with circuit 2?

As far as this specific prototype is considered, it is the same circuit.

But that calls for another discussion: what can we consider the same circuit? What's drawn in an EDA software is one thing, assembled on a solderless breadboard is another, soldered on a perfboard is yet another, and then soldered on a PCB is another still -- yet all having the same components connected in the same order. There will always be difference caused by non-ideal conductors of a non-zero length. But that's really beyond what I'm willing to discuss in this thread.

That's exactly the point I made in that blog post: once all the solderless breadboard artefacts were included, the simulation agreed with the solderless breadboard behaviour. If you didn't use solderless breadboard it wouldn't be necessary to "retrofit" stray L/C to the simulation.

I like circuits where the behaviour of "non-ideal conductors" is inherent to the circuit operation, e.g. planar microwave filters and other "strange random" conductor shapes. I don't like it where the behaviour is accidental, destructive, and avoidable.

[shabaz]

That annoys me.

If a comment riles you up like this, then that's not normal.

If you think you have made something evident, then great, why do you need me to respond a certain way. Will it make you not feel annoyed if you can make me agree with you?

I only answered what was relevant, and I don't think it was strawman. I think your comments were more strawman, trying to compare the price of a resistor. That comment from you demonstrated your line of thinking, and I'm happy for it to rest with what you wrote.

[joeqsmith]

Why IPA on a circuit like that? I've never bothered. Low-noise high-impedance circuits, yes - but digital logic is by definition the opposite of that.

Just because I hate when the messy flux residue stays on my fingers when I handle the board that I'm testing. No I don't work in gloves and I don't use a vise to hold the board under test. Thus I usually wash them after soldering.

Curious. I don't use gloves, don't use a vice, and don't notice any residue on my fingers. I wonder what's the source of the difference?

Like shapirus, I clean everything I work on after soldering just out of general practice.  I use various solders but all are rosin core.  Some times I apply flux directly (flux pen) and also get sticky fingers as I don't wear gloves.   

..Guess what, it failed:
...
What caused it? Well, if you send a pulse with a sub-nanosecond rising or falling edge over a crappy 15 cm-long wire that's terminated with whatever the solderless breadboard has to offer (not to mention the return path), you can guess what beauty the receiving end will see .

Solution? Easy: add a series resistor right after the output pin to make the edge slower ...

Conclusion? Know what you're doing
...

I used to use wire wrap for my digital experiments.  The FPGAs did not have the drive strength control we have today.  The last board I made ran at a 100MHz.  I knew enough by then that getting that board working wasn't too bad.  But that is the reason for so many of those  series resistors in the DIP packages shown at 9:50 in.

[tggzzz]

Why IPA on a circuit like that? I've never bothered. Low-noise high-impedance circuits, yes - but digital logic is by definition the opposite of that.

Just because I hate when the messy flux residue stays on my fingers when I handle the board that I'm testing. No I don't work in gloves and I don't use a vise to hold the board under test. Thus I usually wash them after soldering.

Curious. I don't use gloves, don't use a vice, and don't notice any residue on my fingers. I wonder what's the source of the difference?

Like shapirus, I clean everything I work on after soldering just out of general practice.  I use various solders but all are rosin core.  Some times I apply flux directly (flux pen) and also get sticky fingers as I don't wear gloves.   

Flux pens -> sticky fingers. Too true. That has to be cleaned off. I mainly use that when repairing equipment, less so when making prototypes.

I'll clean anything permanent, but I won't bother with a half-built and/or throwaway prototype.

..Guess what, it failed:
...
What caused it? Well, if you send a pulse with a sub-nanosecond rising or falling edge over a crappy 15 cm-long wire that's terminated with whatever the solderless breadboard has to offer (not to mention the return path), you can guess what beauty the receiving end will see .

Solution? Easy: add a series resistor right after the output pin to make the edge slower ...

Conclusion? Know what you're doing
...

I used to use wire wrap for my digital experiments.  The FPGAs did not have the drive strength control we have today.  The last board I made ran at a 100MHz.  I knew enough by then that getting that board working wasn't too bad.  But that is the reason for so many of those  series resistors in the DIP packages shown at 9:50 in.

EDIT: after having bothered to look at the 20s of the video you pointed to... just so. Wire length (relative to risetime) is the source of the problem, and peversely adding the DIP resistors increases the length. Anyway...

I like wire-wrap, but the stub antennas are, um, suboptimal. Some production 70s computers were wire-wrapped. Wire-wrapped logic became obsolete by the mid 80s. Wire-wrap wire is still very useful; I have a lifetime's supply.

A better alternative to wire wrap was a board with pre-inserted pin sockets for ICs, where the other side of the pin was a 2-level IDC connector. The net result was a board with decent ground plane(s), 4 wires/pin like wire-wrap, with the wires fairly snugly placed agains the board.

Oh, the other net result was either a noticable reduction in a bank balance, or the need to go through the hoops for expensive purchase requests.

I haven't seen those boards in years. They were great for gradually building and testing a circuit function by function.

[tggzzz]

That annoys me.

If a comment riles you up like this, then that's not normal.

Strawman arguments (not comments) irritate many people. Not many people like their statements being deliberately distorted.

If you think you have made something evident, then great, why do you need me to respond a certain way. Will it make you not feel annoyed if you can make me agree with you?

That's a different subject, of course, and not an interesting one.

I only answered what was relevant, and I don't think it was strawman. I think your comments were more strawman, trying to compare the price of a resistor. That comment from you demonstrated your line of thinking, and I'm happy for it to rest with what you wrote.

I  noted that your contention, conflicts with contentions made by other solderless breadboard proponents. I noted I hadn't thought of your contention.

For clarity, and lest it be forgotten amongst all the snips, here it is again...

I've got a a pile of about 50 breadboards here.. and from experience am confident they will meet the needs (kids will be using them). They are not top-end breadboards (I have a few decent breadboards), but throwaway items after a few dozen experiments. I do try to use decent equipment when possible, but am aware that's a bit of a luxury most can't afford.

Most people advocate using solderless breadboards so resistors are not disposable, and can be reused.

You regard solderless breadboards as disposable, after you have realised one has actually started causing you problems.

I must admit that profligacy never crossed my mind.

[tooki]

Too much hassle when there are easy cheap alternatives.

Cheap yes, easy no.

Anything that involves soldering is not even remotely comparable to solderless breadboards in terms of easiness for R&D. Nothing beats solderless breadboards for trying different circuits and different part values in hardware quickly and with zero waste.

It's only when you are settled on a specific circuit and component values that proceeding to soldering to build a working prototype makes sense, or, another scenario, when parasitics of the solderless breadboard make it impossible or too unreasonable to use in a specific case.

The world of electronics isn't limited by HF and fast digital circuits. And even for those solderless breadboards can be quite usable, as long as you know what you're doing.

You’re absolutely correct. But we can always count on tggzzz to find every mention of the word “breadboard” and inject his absolutist anti-breadboard stance into the discussion. He will never acknowledge or recognize that breadboards have their applications. I’ve tried explaining it multiple times but it’s like talking to a wall, except that walls aren’t as whiny.

That is a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black! Can I suggest you read the thread title and the first post, rather than just being a seagull.

This whole thread is about a problem the OP found using solderless breadboard, which disappeared when they used a better prototype technology.

Q.E.D.

We don’t actually know whether it being breadboarded was actually the root cause of the problem. It could be, but it could also be something like an assembly error which the OP didn’t repeat when assembling on perfboard. Or maybe they have a really bad breadboard (which I consistently advise against), which cannot be taken as a reason to avoid breadboards entirely. (That people have bad experiences with, for example, dollar store screwdrivers doesn’t mean people should abandon screws entirely and weld everything. It means they should buy proper quality screwdrivers.)


As always, the issue I take with you is your absolutist stance. Smart people recognize that the world exists in shades of gray, not black and white, and that even tools with limitations have their purpose.

[tooki]

Most people advocate using solderless breadboards so resistors are not disposable, and can be reused.

It’s not the cost of resistors that makes breadboarding useful. It’s that saving parts means you don’t run out of them as often (meaning that you don’t find yourself without a part you need, regardless of cost), and it does save money on expensive parts. It also doesn’t involve heat, which is great for beginners who aren’t great at soldering yet, particularly for unusually heat-sensitive parts.

[tggzzz]

Too much hassle when there are easy cheap alternatives.

Cheap yes, easy no.

Anything that involves soldering is not even remotely comparable to solderless breadboards in terms of easiness for R&D. Nothing beats solderless breadboards for trying different circuits and different part values in hardware quickly and with zero waste.

It's only when you are settled on a specific circuit and component values that proceeding to soldering to build a working prototype makes sense, or, another scenario, when parasitics of the solderless breadboard make it impossible or too unreasonable to use in a specific case.

The world of electronics isn't limited by HF and fast digital circuits. And even for those solderless breadboards can be quite usable, as long as you know what you're doing.

You’re absolutely correct. But we can always count on tggzzz to find every mention of the word “breadboard” and inject his absolutist anti-breadboard stance into the discussion. He will never acknowledge or recognize that breadboards have their applications. I’ve tried explaining it multiple times but it’s like talking to a wall, except that walls aren’t as whiny.

That is a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black! Can I suggest you read the thread title and the first post, rather than just being a seagull.

This whole thread is about a problem the OP found using solderless breadboard, which disappeared when they used a better prototype technology.

Q.E.D.

We don’t actually know whether it being breadboarded was actually the root cause of the problem. It could be, but it could also be something like an assembly error which the OP didn’t repeat when assembling on perfboard. Or maybe they have a really bad breadboard (which I consistently advise against), which cannot be taken as a reason to avoid breadboards entirely. (That people have bad experiences with, for example, dollar store screwdrivers doesn’t mean people should abandon screws entirely and weld everything. It means they should buy proper quality screwdrivers.)


As always, the issue I take with you is your absolutist stance. Smart people recognize that the world exists in shades of gray, not black and white, and that even tools with limitations have their purpose.

Thank you for getting round to reading the title and first post, and tacitally admitting that you were doing what you falsely claimed I was doing!

The world certainly is not black and white. However there is a relevant proverb: "the race does not always go to the fastest, but that's the way to bet".

[tggzzz]

Most people advocate using solderless breadboards so resistors are not disposable, and can be reused.

It’s not the cost of resistors that makes breadboarding useful. It’s that saving parts means you don’t run out of them as often (meaning that you don’t find yourself without a part you need, regardless of cost), and it does save money on expensive parts.

There's validity to that, but a counter-example is that I still have components that I desoldered from boards in the 70s. That makes me smile and shake my head more than it makes me feel proud

It also doesn’t involve heat, which is great for beginners who aren’t great at soldering yet, particularly for unusually heat-sensitive parts.

Unusually heat sensitive components are, by definintion, an unusual case. Polystyrene caps spring to mind.

Beginners need to start soldering ASAP. It isn't difficult and is a necessary skill, so throw them in at the the deep end, but don't let them sink.

If they pick up the wrong end of the iron, they've learned something. If they do that again, we've learned something about them

[tooki]

You’re absolutely correct. But we can always count on tggzzz to find every mention of the word “breadboard” and inject his absolutist anti-breadboard stance into the discussion. He will never acknowledge or recognize that breadboards have their applications. I’ve tried explaining it multiple times but it’s like talking to a wall, except that walls aren’t as whiny.

That is a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black! Can I suggest you read the thread title and the first post, rather than just being a seagull.

This whole thread is about a problem the OP found using solderless breadboard, which disappeared when they used a better prototype technology.

Q.E.D.

We don’t actually know whether it being breadboarded was actually the root cause of the problem. It could be, but it could also be something like an assembly error which the OP didn’t repeat when assembling on perfboard. Or maybe they have a really bad breadboard (which I consistently advise against), which cannot be taken as a reason to avoid breadboards entirely. (That people have bad experiences with, for example, dollar store screwdrivers doesn’t mean people should abandon screws entirely and weld everything. It means they should buy proper quality screwdrivers.)


As always, the issue I take with you is your absolutist stance. Smart people recognize that the world exists in shades of gray, not black and white, and that even tools with limitations have their purpose.

Thank you for getting round to reading the title and first post…

I read and understood the OP from the very beginning, before you ever commented.

… and tacitally [sic] admitting that you were doing what you falsely claimed I was doing!

I didn’t admit to anything, and no reasonable reading of this thread would perceive it that way. All I stated is that you inject your absolutist stance into every thread you find about breadboarding, and do not in any way EVER entertain the value in breadboards,  two claims which are objectively true. You absolutely see this issue as black and white, in that you are of the opinion that breadboards are always worse than the alternatives, in all situations.

The world certainly is not black and white. However there is a relevant proverb: "the race does not always go to the fastest, but that's the way to bet".

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

[tooki]

Most people advocate using solderless breadboards so resistors are not disposable, and can be reused.

It’s not the cost of resistors that makes breadboarding useful. It’s that saving parts means you don’t run out of them as often (meaning that you don’t find yourself without a part you need, regardless of cost), and it does save money on expensive parts.

There's validity to that, but a counter-example is that I still have components that I desoldered from boards in the 70s. That makes me smile and shake my head more than it makes me feel proud

Nobody said parts can’t be desoldered. It’s just way, way easier to tear down a breadboarded circuit than a soldered one, and with less risk of damage. (And now that most protoboards have plated through-holes, desoldering multipin components like DIP ICs has gotten harder to do, especially for novices who don’t have a desoldering iron.)

It also doesn’t involve heat, which is great for beginners who aren’t great at soldering yet, particularly for unusually heat-sensitive parts.

Unusually heat sensitive components are, by definintion, an unusual case. Polystyrene caps spring to mind.

Beginners need to start soldering ASAP. It isn't difficult and is a necessary skill, so throw them in at the the deep end, but don't let them sink.

Of course they need to learn to solder. But they also need to learn basic circuit theory, and for many learners, there is great value in being able to decouple the learning of one from the other. That’s why in electronics education, beginners typically lash together their first circuits on breadboards, and learn their first soldering on practice boards (that don’t even make circuits). Of course this goes against the “throw them in the deep end” approach, but there are multiple approaches to pedagogy, not to mention that some learners do better the one way, others do better the other. There is no one best approach. Not black and white, just many shades of gray (and colors).

[tggzzz]

You’re absolutely correct. But we can always count on tggzzz to find every mention of the word “breadboard” and inject his absolutist anti-breadboard stance into the discussion. He will never acknowledge or recognize that breadboards have their applications. I’ve tried explaining it multiple times but it’s like talking to a wall, except that walls aren’t as whiny.

That is a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black! Can I suggest you read the thread title and the first post, rather than just being a seagull.

This whole thread is about a problem the OP found using solderless breadboard, which disappeared when they used a better prototype technology.

Q.E.D.

We don’t actually know whether it being breadboarded was actually the root cause of the problem. It could be, but it could also be something like an assembly error which the OP didn’t repeat when assembling on perfboard. Or maybe they have a really bad breadboard (which I consistently advise against), which cannot be taken as a reason to avoid breadboards entirely. (That people have bad experiences with, for example, dollar store screwdrivers doesn’t mean people should abandon screws entirely and weld everything. It means they should buy proper quality screwdrivers.)


As always, the issue I take with you is your absolutist stance. Smart people recognize that the world exists in shades of gray, not black and white, and that even tools with limitations have their purpose.

Thank you for getting round to reading the title and first post…

I read and understood the OP from the very beginning, before you ever commented.

In that case your statement made no sense whatsoever.

… and tacitally [sic] admitting that you were doing what you falsely claimed I was doing!

I didn’t admit to anything, and no reasonable reading of this thread would perceive it that way. All I stated is that you inject your absolutist stance into every thread you find about breadboarding, and do not in any way EVER entertain the value in breadboards,  two claims which are objectively true. You absolutely see this issue as black and white, in that you are of the opinion that breadboards are always worse than the alternatives, in all situations.

I suppose I might see a black swan, someday.

The world certainly is not black and white. However there is a relevant proverb: "the race does not always go to the fastest, but that's the way to bet".

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

Sigh. Do I really have to spell it out in terms of black/white/probability?

[joeqsmith]

I used to use wire wrap for my digital experiments.  The FPGAs did not have the drive strength control we have today.  The last board I made ran at a 100MHz.  I knew enough by then that getting that board working wasn't too bad.  But that is the reason for so many of those  series resistors in the DIP packages shown at 9:50 in.

EDIT: after having bothered to look at the 20s of the video you pointed to... just so. Wire length (relative to risetime) is the source of the problem, and peversely adding the DIP resistors increases the length. Anyway...

I like wire-wrap, but the stub antennas are, um, suboptimal. Some production 70s computers were wire-wrapped. Wire-wrapped logic became obsolete by the mid 80s. Wire-wrap wire is still very useful; I have a lifetime's supply.
...

I visited one of Western Electric's factories back when they were building some of the production equipment using WW with fully automatic machines. Things were much slower back then.

Sure, you can define when we need to consider a transmission line based on edge rates.  I look it the problem with WW isn't so much the length but rather the lack of having a controlled impedance.   There is a reason on that board that I resorted to coax for the clock distribution. 

I did use WW for the transient generator I designed to test hand held multi-meters.  There was no practical reason for it.  It was more just for the fun of it.   

While one advantage of using 5V technology for constructing such a transient generator may be to improve the immunity,  all that WW sure doesn't help.  Inside I have various shields and ferrite voodoo to prevent the board from faulting out.   

[joeqsmith]

Here I am using a solderless breadboard to demonstrate using a low cost VNA to measure PDNs.  No black magic, just some basics.

Demonstrating how to compensate
https://youtu.be/Y8ouApeex78?t=1959

Sweeping to 50MHz
https://youtu.be/Y8ouApeex78?t=2171

Is the breadboard the problem?  Effects of long leads ...
https://youtu.be/Y8ouApeex78?t=2231

[shabaz]

Nice video, and VNA is the epitome of a technology that many people will benefit from, but may initially be unsure to try unless the basics are shown in a friendly way to dive into.

Here's a flyback circuit (well, part of it, I did it in stages), purely to experiment and observe the various signals on a 'scope.

The simple solderless breadboard circuit resonated with a lot of people, I received dozens of comments and it had several thousand views. Many people might not have ever created a flyback power supply circuit in their line of work, so committing straight to a soldered prototype just to experiment a bit doesn't make sense for all.

It was fast to try different component values, and when I was happy to do so, I created a PCB with lots of test points and a few extra features to continue the experimentation. I would never have built that if I had not prototyped on solderless breadboard first, and received the interest/encouragement to want to work on it further, so it was a nice outcome, that the benefits worked both for the readers and for me.

Incidentally, at the top-right of the photo, is a surface-mount diode, with wires soldered on, and then encased in a blob of Polymorph. That stuff is great for quickly securing things. The container says to put the Polymorph beads in water, but instead, I use a hot-air tool to melt the beads, and then mould with fingers. Polymorph has dozens of uses, I like it a lot.

[vk6zgo]

I suppose I might see a black swan, someday.

Come to Australia, they're all over the place!

Staying with Oz, in support of the "unimpressed with solderless breadboards" argument.
Throughout my career in electronics, I never saw such a breadboard "used in anger".
A few places had one tucked away unused for years, some still in their original unopened packing.
The general opinion amongst both Techs & EEs was that they were overpriced & unreliable.

The EEs usually built prototypes in "spiderweb" fashion, got a nice PCB made & handed it to a Tech to build----and debug, as things seldom worked as well on a PCB as they did "spiderwebbed".

[tggzzz]

I suppose I might see a black swan, someday.

Come to Australia, they're all over the place!

I ought to come. Between school and uni my daughter came home and announced "Dad, I've bought a plane ticket for 6 months in Australia". Did her the world of good

Staying with Oz, in support of the "unimpressed with solderless breadboards" argument.
Throughout my career in electronics, I never saw such a breadboard "used in anger".
A few places had one tucked away unused for years, some still in their original unopened packing.
The general opinion amongst both Techs & EEs was that they were overpriced & unreliable.

The EEs usually built prototypes in "spiderweb" fashion, got a nice PCB made & handed it to a Tech to build----and debug, as things seldom worked as well on a PCB as they did "spiderwebbed".

My first large PCB was double sided with, IIRC, ~80 LSTTL ICs. I heard afterwards that people were amazed it worked first time. I put that down to laying out Vcc Gnd and decoupling before any signals, and being careful to put ICs where track lengths were minimised. Oh, the PCB was layed out using 2:1 reb/blue/black rubylith tape.


Some professional circuits need to be built with air-gapped components, especially where low currents or high voltages are involved. And, as I have pointed out, others use air gaps between wires as part of the circuit operation, e.g. spot the L69-L70 variable transformer in


Yes, bend the wire to get the circuit working

Yes, that variable capacitor, C70 is 1.2-3.5pF, the same as the inter-leaf capacitance in solderless breadboards

But then Tektronix engineers always knew how to push technology. (That circuit was in production 1965-1971)