Transferring Schematics to Veroboard

Well one minute on google didn't find Bill's software but it did find this free stripboard software someone made;

http://blog.reprap.org/2009/07/stripboard-design-app.html

I just tried Mr RB's recommended software and I think its very good as you can look at the underside of your board to see where you need to break the tracks. I usaully use circuit wizard and go onto pcb layout and just make tracks go across the page but I always have the problem of working out where to cut the tracks when I look at my board the other way round on the underside as this only shows the top view.

Hey Colin,

Thanks a lot for your comments regarding the circuit that was designed for me:

You are only "just" going to be able to get the circuit to work with 330k on the touch switches.
R9 should be about 10k.
I don't like the idea of the emitter-follower Q2, and the 10k pot.

Click to expand...

How do you mean I am only going to be able to "just" get the circuit to work?? What would you recommend instead??
Also, why should R9 be about 10k

& what is wrong with the emitter-follower Q2 and the 10k pot??

Sorry for all the questions but I'm trying to get a better understanding of this circuit and how it works before I start to make it.

Thanks

The worst thing about Veroboard is this:
You are forced to lay out the parts according to the strips.
When you want to make a PCB, you have to re-design the board.
Veroboard is not an Engineers Board.
It was developed 40 years ago and never took off.
All the magazines and projects that used it, looked "Mickey Mouse."
Use Matrix Board with individual solder-lands and connect the parts with short lengths of tinned copper wire.
The final result can be transferred instantly to a PCB design.
Veroboard is an embarrassment to use at the best of times.

Thanks, but you never answered my above questions?

I know stripboard is awkward but it is all I currently have available to me.

colin55 said:

You are forced to lay out the parts according to the strips.

Click to expand...

No you aren't, you can jumper anywhere you want, the strips are aids to busing.

colin55 said:

When you want to make a PCB, you have to re-design the board.

Click to expand...

This is personally why I think software for strip board is not needed, if you're doing that much strip board work to need software, you should probably be making your own PCB's, for a few one off's it's great and paper and pencil is all you need for a transfer.

colin55 said:

It was developed 40 years ago and never took off.

Click to expand...

Except that it's been available and is still used successfully for one off since then, it's definitely not an engineers board but to say it never took off is silly it had no where to take off to, it's still perfectly function practical and I have several on had for use.


jctproject, I will say one more time and then I'll stop commenting in this thread that the time you have spent reading and asking questions in this thread is beyond the time it would take you to simply have done it using two pieces of paper and grid mapping it.

No you aren't, you can jumper anywhere you want, the strips are aids to busing.

Click to expand...

Simply look at a final design that someone has produced and see how the parts have been laid out!!!!!!!!
You soon run out of "strips" and have to put the parts "all over the place."

It's the most hiddeous concept anyone could have come up with.

Simply look at a final design that someone has produced and see how the parts have been laid out!!!!!!!!
You soon run out of "strips" and have to put the parts "all over the place.

It's the most hiddeous concept anyone could have come up with. "

Click to expand...

I disagree, It's perfect for small circuits and certainly takes less time than it would to make your own PCB layout and costs less than it does to get one made. Plus I think its very good if your starting out at electronics as you get the idea of routing, then move onto producing proper PCB layouts.

Depends on the circuit complexity colin55, I think you may have something there, could you provide a link to some designs you've seen that have run out of strips and gone all over the place? I'd be curious to see the pin/link count.

It was developed 40 years ago and never took off.

Click to expand...

Maybe not in Oz. But in the rest of the world it's widely used still.

No veroboard is widely used in Australia too, Colin just has a personal dislike of it.

Personally I think he's quite wrong, in the hands of a skilled person veroboard can be the fastest way to solder up a working permanent system. "Engineer" or otherwise.

The inbuilt bussing is far superior to the hassle of soldering little trips of wire on the bottom of matrixboard, and matrixboard (let's face it) is only a fraction above perfboard in usability.

The inbuilt bussing is far superior to the hassle of soldering little trips of wire on the bottom of matrixboard, and matrixboard (let's face it) is only a fraction above perfboard in usability.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, I even picked up a few strip boards that mimic a breadboard layout which eliminates the need for translation as long as you're not working from a schematic and it's something you've designed on a breadboard. The only thing 'matrix board' adds is the through holes have copper plated pads. This is only useful for speed and structural stability in the long term. Straight perfboard is more for components that are physically bolted, or otherwise mechanically linked to it. The copper layer on a matrix board is only a shade more physically stable, and only for low mass components.

Colins questions about the validity of the circuit's functionality should be addressed before any build attempts are made, if it's invalid alec_t needs to explain the design problems that colin raised (if they in fact analytically exist) as according to jct alec_t is the originator of the schematic.

Lets get down to helping jct! I wish I could do the circuit analyse myself, I don't have the penchant for it.

The slight mistakes in the circuit are addressed here:

colin55, could you please address each specific perceived fault you found in the original schematic along with the corresponding parts of the information you provided in that link and how they're relevant, or are you just trying to get hits to your site? WE learn here, you teach there.

Please read this to mean correlate your component problems with the specific sections of the link you posted that solves it you are otherwise being obtuse about providing a solution to a problem which has not been observed.

Colins questions about the validity of the circuit's functionality should be addressed before any build attempts are made, if it's invalid alec_t needs to explain the design problems that colin raised (if they in fact analytically exist)

Click to expand...

The points raised have been addressed. The circuit linked above in this thread has been superseded and a revised circuit is in the other thread.

jctproject - would this be of any help to you in laying out your projects?