12 Dec
2011
12 Dec
'11
12:55 p.m.
In my experience, "solderless breadboard" is
the usual term, [...]
[...] and that's a lot of the electronics I do.
Similarly, it's a lot easier
to rip the circuit apart and put the parts back in stock in shape
suitable for future experimentation.
Actually, I don't find they save much time. When I am
designing/prototyping, I put all the ICs (even TTL) in sockets (turned
pin sockets, I've never had a bad contact from one of those), so I cna
easilly pull those for testing or reuse. Most passives haev jsut 2 leads,
it's easy to tak-solder those in place nad replace them with another
value if you want. And yes, they go back into 'stock' aftwewards, a
little solder otneh ends of the leads doesn't make much differentce (and
I've not found any signifcant change in relibility from reusing such parts).
And of coruse when I'm doign experiement awork, I want everything to be
as certain as it can be, so that I know that problemns are due to bad
design (or less likely faulty components) and notdue to a poor conentuion
somewhere.
It also greatly cuts down on scorched/burnt skin. :)
As does using a soldering iron properly ;-)
That said, different strokes for different folks. If
Tony, or anyone
else for that matter, finds soldering works better, I'd never try to
argue otherwise. For me, with my skills and preferences and the kinds
of stuff I do, solderless breadboards are a huge win - but those
qualifications are important.
The big problem comes when you use modern-ish high-speed ICs (F TTL,
etc). Even if you're clcoking them quite slowly, the signals still have
fast rise-times and the impedance of the breadboard conenctions is often
enoguh to cause problems when powering such ICs.
If it works for you, then use it, but do rememebr they can cause
problems, so if your design doesn't work and you've checked everything
else, try soldering it up.
-tony