https://www.tag-connect.com/solutions-target-devices/usb-ser...
They have FTDI versions as well, for those who want the full USB boot/reset treatment.
Also, they have another connector for attaching to castellated edges. I think it's just so clever.
I have had one too many arguments with firmware people who think these things are sufficient for production that I am just done with them by now. There are other ways to do it.
The only actual issue I had with Tag is that it takes up more space than an array of aggressively placed test points would. Which is still acceptable in some designs.
If you can't hit a massive, enormous 1.27mm pitch connector complete with dedicated indexing holes with your jig, I can't fathom how that would be the fault of the connector.
This is truth.
> Not sure how this got down voted.
You’ll notice the parent comment could have gotten the point across without sounding toxic, by just dropping the “skill issue” paragraph.
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (the section about how to write a good comment).
I try to get my CMs involved in design early. I think it is telling that whenever I give them choices, they reject Tag-Connect and pick one of the other options. Every. Single. Time.
The connector that was specifically flat-out hard rejected was the TC-2070 14-pin version. The number of pins was part of the problem. Apparently (this was a while back now so I may be misremembering) they had trouble with the density at 0.050": 6 pins gives you a lot more room on the sides to squeeze stuff in than 14 does. So they have to do it with a special premade block that comes in and hits the pads, and that block was nearly-but-not-quite unobtainium for the 14-pin version. The CM hated the Tag-Connect in general and wanted it gone, so we didn't trust them too much, but then we tried to build the fixture in house and prove them wrong... after that experience I have joined them in their hatred.
The fact of the matter is that there are many, many other good ways to do it, so it's not Tag-Connect or nothing. Castellations are right out in HVM because of the cost hit, so that rules out Edge-Connect and friends. Würth has WE-SKEDD which looks like the same general thing as Tag-Connect but I've not had cause to try it.
My favorite thing to do, if space allows, is to just put down the unshrouded surface-mount header. Cortex and ESP parts nominally use a standard 0.050" header and you can just place it down. Then don't populate it, and you've got an array of pads that are long enough to stagger test probes on to in a bed-of-nails, or for bench use it is very easy to hand-solder the header on. Plus it's surface-mount so the space below the header is available for use (often things like pull resistors or ESD diodes go nicely here). The biggest wrinkle here is the solder stencil. You do not want to have paste put on these pads if you're not soldering the header, because you badly want your test pins to hit clean ENIG finish and not flux-covered no-clean solder (doubly nasty to probe, even clean solder is bad enough). So it's harder to do a small run of 100 bench-debug boards with headers then the rest as production. You usually end up just soldering the header by hand (or having the CM do it), which is OK.
Otherwise it's traditional pogo pads all the way. This is pretty much required anyway whenever the board is too small for other methods (did I mention Tag-Connect is huge? Tag-Connect is HUGE.) and it works great as long as you were already planning on fixturing.
That seems to be the "get your cake and eat it" (though it does mean you're spending the space and drilling the holes for TC.) But still -
> They're fine for one guy using them on the bench
Seriously, I tried to like Tag-Connect. I did like it before supporting a CM and a hardware team trying to use it (and lose the cables...). Now I just plain don't think it adds value over the alternatives. The header is three cents. Three. Cents. The cable is $39 (with legs, $34 without). That buys you over 1,000 headers and then you can use the free cables that come in the box with all the debug probes and live in the pile over there in the shop.
https://www.tag-connect.com/product/tc2030-retaining-clip-bo...
For 100 mil pitch, 25 mil square pins: 36 mil holes, 6 mil off center, 12 mil hole to hole.
The short side of a generic pin header is the side that goes in the holes, so the long side is free to accept dupont sockets and shunts the same as if you had the same pins soldered in the pcb. So the cable is just ordinary programmer fly wires with female dupont ends. You don't even need to make an actual cable.
If space is tight on the pcb then it does use up more pcb than pads that leave the other side free. And pogo pins are going to be a lot faster for producing something in numbers.
I don't mind buying nice stuff like a fancy purpose made good-working tool for myself but I'm always making open source projects and one design goal is to require as little as possible, and as generic and universal as possible from the user. So I avoid fancy special things where possible. It's not designing for commercial production runs nor designing for one-off for myself, it's designing to a kind of a platonic ideal to strip away anything unnecessary and yet try to meet 2 opposing goals at the same time as much as possible: Don't require special tools that make things work reliably because of how fancy the tool is, and don't require the user to be a zen master craftsman that can attain a successful result with rocks and nails. Try to make the process reliable and repeatable while still only requiring basic materials and supplies. As much as possible anyway.
Pogo pins are pretty common these days and not exactly exotic or expensive any more so maybe I can start using them.
Then again, the through holes do 2 extra things besides make the connection.
With pads you need to aim/register the pins to land on the pads, and you need to hold them there. That means aiming with your eyes and holding with at least one hand, or it means adding some kind of extra registration and grabbing features to both the pcb and the cable, like extra drill holes or slots and extra plastic shapes on a special cable-end etc. Or no extra features on the board and instead a whole clamping jig that holds both the board and the pins.
Since these are holes that pins go in to, you don't need any other form of registration to aim the pins at the pads. The pins go in the holes.
And they hold onto the pins themselves, so you don't need any other form of retention.
It's just like plugging a plug into a socket where the socket provides all that naturally.
I have one board that needs two different connections like that, one for jtag and one for power and to temporarily close a jumper to write-enable the cpld. So a 4-pin and a 6-pin, 2 different cables in 2 different places. The entire board is slightly smaller than a DIP-28 so no room for any real connectors. You just stick the cables in and two different cables hold themselves with zero hands while you operate the flashing software. The wires are all plain dupont wires stuck on the pins, no solder, and 2 of the pins just have a generic jumper on them. It's completely basic and not-special and works perfect.
I have another board that needs 28 pins in a small space. For that one I used 2.0mm pitch pins in straight rows not staggered, but with the holes only 1.7mm apart. In that case it's the long side of the pins that goes into the holes, and the short side is soldered into a programming adapter pcb that goes into a programmer. The pins are in 2 sets of 2x7. Each set of 2x7 has 2 straight rows of 0.72mm holes 1.7mm apart. What happens there is, as the pins start to lean over, the top of the pins hit the opposite side of the hole on the top of the pcb, and don't want to go any further. The pins wedge solid and make 4 points of contact, 2 on bottom and 2 on top, and the board won't go any further even though the pins only just poke out the top and there is still almost 2mm of travel left. So you have a lot of remaining travel to just push a little more if you get a bad connection. It works great and no special parts anywhere.
https://www.we-online.com/katalog/media/o210254v410%20ANE011...
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/w%C3%BCrth-elektr...
https://forum.kicad.info/t/hdmi-pcb-edge-connector-for-raspb...
But, now I do ENIG everywhere because it's often the same price as lead-free HASL (or so close it does not matter), while looking way cooler. I've started to take quite seriously leaded stuff now, especially since low temperature lead-free solder exists (SAC305).
- A: If you want a 6 or more layer board at some places, you have to get ENIG anyway, and solving routing puzzles isn't my idea of fun.
- B: The PCB price is a small portion of the overall price anyway; parts and SMT dominate. So you're paying 2x as much on 15% of the total or w/e.This just illustrates how different people are: I sometimes make PCBs just to route them! It's by far the most fun part for me.
You can choose your spacing: 1, 1.5, 2, or 2.54mm.
I would say 1.6mm is pretty thick but it depends.
FWIW, my slightly more than anecdotal evidence is that 1.6mm is the default thickness at JLCPCB and PCBWay, and they will subtly encourage you to switch to that width if you don't want to pay more or wait longer for them to fill a sheet.
Every IC prototype board (eg Proto Advantage) and all of those Adafruit breakout boards are 1.6mm.
For these reasons, 1.6mm sure seems like a default if there is one. Is there some JEDEC standard or similar which proves me officially wrong? Happy to learn if so.
If you do consumer (phone/tablet/pc) a lot of boards are 0.8mm(12L) or 0.6mm for example.
If you do automotive/drones/industrial it’ll become thicker (2 oz copper).
DirtyPCB defaults to 1.2mm. I measured a couple random dev/breakout boards around and got 0.8/1.2/1.6.
A "thick" PCB was commonly 3/32" (0.093") and a "thin" one 1/32" (0.031"). Now of course it's all made in Asia so the metric dimensions predominate (0.8mm, 1.6mm, 2.4mm), but the legacy remains.
And of course PCBs aren't really any of these thicknesses, they're whatever the glass weaves press down to in the lamination press....
Your answer prompted me to do some further research. It's true that IPC-2221A does reference 1/16th as a historical precedent.
That said...
Lawrence Berkeley is an American institution, and it's fair to say that your perspective is American-centric. Without rehashing the ages old argument, it is still true that the US stands with Liberia and Myanmar in your steadfast refusal to standardize on the metric system.
It's your prerogative to conclude that this is an Asian thing, but it's very much an almost everyone else thing.
I will concede that it drives me nuts that not only does the lumber industry still use inches here, it's also officially and somehow legally not even accurate in inches. Why we can't have nice things...
I reject your assertion that my comments are America-centric. This a technology that was primarily developed in America and is now predominantly no longer manufactured there (Asia is not in America). It is rather natural for each place to use the units of measure they favor, so it is natural for what was a very common customary unit dimension of 1/16" to become a reasonably round metric dimension of 1.6mm. This is how things develop in the world.
Still, IPC is also based in America, which brings us to the same place. While every org has to be based somewhere, the notion that the entire world should use imperial measurements simply because America does is pretty much the definition of America-centric in my books.
The ground truth is that we're talking about a de-facto standard, not a hard one. Given the actual difference between 1.6mm and 1/16", the ease of working in base 10, PCBs are mostly made in Asia and the flogged horse that the entire rest of the planet thinks in metric... it's no surprise to me that 1/16" has become a historical footnote.
https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20Type-C%20Spec%...
Pages 42 and 44.
This is truly only for a debug port, not anything else.
This is a pretty standard 2.0 receptacle, you've only got 0.2mm between pads if you follow their footprint (literally the limit for soldermask bridges on 2oz at JLCPCB): https://gct.co/download?type=PDFDrawing&name=USB4105.pdf
I have the SS-02, and I like it - I had one of the cheap blue ones first, but the pliable rubber tip really makes a difference. If you’re soldering smd by hand, it’s more than worth the $20
Sometimes though you just have to pile on solder and flux because the via is small enough that surface tension and heat dissipation means its never coming out
You can also scale this up in a solder oven and remove almost every single component. Used this for reversing a PCB a few times.
(If your foundry can't fabricate it, then make the pads thinner until they can fabricate the soldermask.)
(There are passive A-to-C adapters, so I see no reason why I couldn’t short pin pairs like that.)
(Believe me, I have tried to make it work.)
It ends up just not being worth the trouble if you need the USB 2.0 pair. But power-only is much easier and, guess what, pretty available in the market.
The 6-pin Type-C provides 2 pins each for power, ground, and CC. (DO NOT LEAVE CC OUT. THIS IS WHY A LOT OF RECENT USB STUFF MISBEHAVES. GET CC1/2 RIGHT PLEASE.)
The 16-pin adds 10 more: 4 for D+/D-, 2 more each for power and ground, and then they add 2 more for SBU as well. I'm not entirely sure why SBU is important enough but I'd guess it's because it's physically vertically next to CC so probably helps the mechanicals to leave it in.
There actually do exist 8-pin guys like this https://www.lcsc.com/product-detail/C47326494.html (among others) that add D+/D- only to the 6-pin connectors. I can't imagine they work terribly well most of the time but they must have some use? They do seem to be from Asian vendors only, which might mean something.
(Side note: the way Type-C handles D+ and D- has caused me so much pain. I get that it was a difficult problem to solve... but there had to be a better way than this, right? Probably not, but I can still whine.)
I was glad to see this at first (because I did page through Mouser and LCSC a bit before I came back here to continue my bitching and found nothing). Then I actually looked at the drawing, and— Excuse me, is that really a USB-C socket that only works in one orientation?.. The drawing shows that the socket has both CC1 (A5) and CC2 (B5) but only one of the two copies of D+ (A6 but not B6) and D- (A7 but not B7). Seriously? Even I don’t hate my users that much.
I guess past-me was smart when drawing USB-C connector symbols in my library and this one doesn't exist there for a reason!