bluehash 1,581 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Alright. TI came back with a response(Thanks for replying back, TI): In regards to the male headers on LaunchPad DrMag 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gordon 229 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 The only disadvantage I see is that prototyping becomes difficult. From the LP QSG: The evaluation board/kit is intended for use for ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, OR EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY and is not considered by TI to be a finished end-product fit for general consumer use. So is it then an eval/devel board that is difficult to use for eval/devel...? I am accepting that on trainings it must be a PITA -- so have a 100ku batch made with pre-soldered headers and take those to trainings -- should last a year and change. In regards to the male headers on LaunchPad Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bluehash 1,581 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I am accepting that on trainings it must be a PITA -- so have a 100ku batch made with pre-soldered headers and take those to trainings -- should last a year and change. I don't think it is that easy. Training seminars take place all over the world. They might be just taking it from the current stock. Having a batch made and shipped to different parts adds to logistics. I'm sorry but this is bollocks -- a whopping grand total of one TI booster pack that appeared before the last what, three-ish weeks is hardly an argument against the lot sold in the past 1.5 years. There are five Booster Packs currently from TI. But I think the one from Olimex has a Male Header. Hmm.. so there is one problem. I'm not sure about the others. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jim940 28 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I am a fan of male headers on the platform. And female to male cables can be had from Sparkfun etc. Male headers on the bottom of any PCB is lousy idea in my opinion. Too much risk for damage cause of it, where as female headers on the bottom of a PCB will generally act as legs and not bend, twist, or conduct onto the board. So far both digital Pot EVM's (such as the TPL0501EVM) come with female headers, as well as the CC110L modules. Even if TI is slow to set a standard, at least they are setting one that makes more sense then having a .160" gap between headers so regular prototyping PCB's cannot be used. Jim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gordon 229 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I am accepting that on trainings it must be a PITA -- so have a 100ku batch made with pre-soldered headers and take those to trainings -- should last a year and change. I don't think it is that easy. Training seminars take place all over the world. They might be just taking it from the current stock. Having a batch made and shipped to different parts adds to logistics. The :evil: in me says "if they can manage to ship me a totally unexpected order of several different samples second-day to the opposite side of the northern hemisphere, they can surely manage paid-for seminars they know well in advance about". But that's just the :evil: in me. I'm sorry but this is bollocks -- a whopping grand total of one TI booster pack that appeared before the last what, three-ish weeks is hardly an argument against the lot sold in the past 1.5 years. There are five Booster Packs currently from TI. Four (430BOOST-CC110L, TPL0501EVM, TPL0401EVM, 430BOOST-SENSE1). Of which three (430BOOST-CC110L, TPL0501EVM, TPL0401EVM) are younger than 3 weeks (OK, make that 4 weeks). The others are not made by TI. They are not even from TI ("ORDER NOW @ Golden IC") -- I chose my words vewy, vewy carefully . I guess my real problem here is communication. They ran a public poll on the (comparatively rather less significant, IMHO) issue of how to fix the RX/TX jumpers, then this... But I think the one from Olimex has a Male Header. Hmm.. so there is one problem. I rest my case :eh:. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobG 1,892 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 1. As jim940 mentioned already, male headers are easier to damage. 2. Affecting hundreds of users by soldering headers just to make presenters life easier, crazy. 3. There is a simple solution that will make everyone happy: pre-soldered female headers with F-F adapters DrMag, ike and SugarAddict 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrMag 14 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 When I first got started with MSP430's (two years ago now?) I thought long and hard about whether I should use female or male headers on my target board. I opted for female headers, because the rule of thumb in rockets is that any exposed pin should be unpowered if it shakes loose, lest you create shorts and sparks and other nasties. When the LaunchPad came out, I thought about it again, and came to the same conclusion. Of course, the Vcc/GND pins were pre-populated with male headers, so perhaps that rules out my line of thinking. I've certainly been very interested in the discussion here arguing both sides. One question about the male headers being easily damaged: doesn't that hold true for the new LP now? How is that better than having them on the daughter board? Does anyone know which Tx/Rx configuration corresponds to the previous design? When TI ran the poll, I preferred the option of just changing the order and not looking back; it's easy to change the software UART, swapping TA0 and TA1 for the Tx/Rx roles. (If I ever get around to it, the UART tutorial I'm finishing will show how. It does require a quick change in the interrupts since they behave differently, but it's really not hard to do.) I prefer not having to deal with "backwards compatibility" baggage, but I was obviously in the minority. Anyway, is the vertical configuration equivalent to the previous LP design, or the horizontal? Edit: Ah-- I see the answer to the second question now. The silkscreen shows a vertical configuration is for software UART (ie. P1.1 for Tx, P1.2 for Rx) and a horizontal configuration is for hardware UART (ie. vice-versa). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jim940 28 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 One question about the male headers being easily damaged: doesn't that hold true for the new LP now? How is that better than having them on the daughter board? Generally (or atleast me and a few others) tend to keep our boards right side up, not upside down in storage. With a Arduino for example, you end up having to keep the "shields" in a upside down direction to keep them on the female headers instead of the male ones. If the male headers are being used to support the shield/booster you tend to have a tenancy that the legs will bend due to loading on the board (accidentally of course). However since female pins are one solid plastic unit, there is less of a tenancy to break or bend pins as you'd have to tear out the plastic from the soldered pins, which would mean it was more then a accident. Jim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
krazeivan 1 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 This discussion is reminding me that vi is better...or was it emacs? RobG 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cde 334 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Ti should replace the female headers with female-female adaptors. Easy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gordon 229 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 This discussion is reminding me that vi is better...or was it emacs? How does this even came up?! :wq :clap: Besides, no, the question is not whether it is Emacs or vi. The question is why, after an extended period of "use whichever suits you best", is Emacs being pushed from above. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
krazeivan 1 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Besides, no, the question is not whether it is Emacs or vi. The question is why, after an extended period of "use whichever suits you best", is Emacs being pushed from above. Touch Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SugarAddict 227 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I'm 100% for RobG's suggestion to fix the issue. It certainly works for both fields though it doesn't consider people like me that solder male headers going downward... (So I like to drop the LP into a breadboard instead of using 14-20 wires... sue me!) Perhaps if they were to presolder the dual header of male down/female up AND supply the female to female connector... that would be like... wet dream. If you don't like the male down, a few snips and it's fixed which is a LOT easier than desoldering. From the ones I can find right now... 3 male down, 1 female down, 1 female up, 2 no header... though I know I did have a male up (from when I played with the cap sense boost) but I can't find it... I think I mailed it off to someone else. gordon 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DanAndDusty 62 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I also solder the female headers onto my LPs because my chips are almost never in the LP Sockets and breadboard is my way forward. However for the Cap touch sensor and the CC110L Air module (yet another piece of kit that looks really nice but I haven't had time to play with it yet) which both need Male headers on the LP I use a similar idea to RobG and use a double ended male connector to convert the female sockets. I like the idea of the new UART jumper layout but it doesn't really matter to me as I find a FT232RL breakout board much more reliable/faster. The fact that the more capable chips are being shipped is the biggie out of this for me. Im in the UK and still haven't found a good supplier of the 2553 chips here. $4.30 for the chips and a few pieces for my kits box (spare headers, crystal, Tactile buttons, jumpers etc) is not such a bad deal as even the 430h store sells them for $2.50 before postage. *EDIT* This arrived this morning and contains 5 Fem-Fem cables. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rickta59 589 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I heard that someone received a LaunchPad recently with G2452 and G2553 chips instead of the G2211 and G2231 chips. Does anyone know if this is a permanent upgrade to the LaunchPad package or just an anomaly? I ordered 2 boards on Thu Dec 8th after I read this thread. They showed up today and I got the 1.4 REV. : ( Has anyone else order since this Dec 8th and received old boards? -rick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.