Manhattan style is where you take small pieces of PCB (little squares or
whatever) and hot-glue (or epoxy or whatever) them to a bigger piece of PCB
or other surface, typically a ground plane of some sort, to make a
multi-layer stack (like a "skyscraper" or "manhattan"). I personally don't
like building that way.
Seems to have a good explanation. I prefer a dremel and a small router bit
and hand etching a board that way instead.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Stan Labinsky Jr.
> Fred, "Manhattan" style... I missed that one in class... care to explain?
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Spinner" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] I.C.E. Vendors
> There is nothing to stop anyone from hacking a small part of a PCB,
>> soldering the chip on to it, soldering leads on to it and making a leaded
>> part out of a SMT part. this is handy if retrofitting an existing etched
>> board design.
>> But for something like a filter, a Dremel etched PCB or "manhattan" style
>> construction with SMT parts would be no more difficult than building
>> point-to-point with leads-- it would probably be easier and the end result
>> would work better.
>> But yeah, if you can get the values in SMT, you can always MAKE leaded
>> out of them. Doing that is a completely valid substitution for an
>> Fred W0FMS
>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Dan Zimmerman N3OX <email@example.com>
>> You can get every necessary value for the BC band-reject filter from
>>> (and I'm sure, Digikey) in 100V 5% ceramic surface mount type. I forgot
>>> check if all were available in C0G, but I know some were, and I think all
>>> are... it's very standard and the correct choice for RF applications.
>>> Prices are low... 40 to 60 cents in Qty. 1 for some spot checks.
>>> >From what I can find the HF Q of the standard chip caps at least
>>> (dissipation factor of at most 0.0015 is quoted many places, which is
>>> some data sheets say Q>1000). And I think all this is probably more or
>>> the same for C0G ceramic disks vs. C0G ceramic chips if dielectric
>>> dissipation is at fault.
>>> Intuition tells me that anything a leaded ceramic disc cap could do, a
>>> surface mount chip cap can do better with the exception of handling
>>> continuous RF currents and dissipating the resulting heat... not because
>>> they're more lossy (they may be less) but because they are physically
>>> smaller. For receiving filters this should not be an issue. For things
>>> like QRP low pass/bandpass filters, etc, they might. (For QRO filters
>>> probably be looking for mica caps anyway. But even there, surface mount
>>> versions seem to be more available and a bit cheaper ($4-$5 in Qty.1) at
>>> least in new parts )
>>> It's not too hard to use surface-mount chip caps in dead-bug construction
>>> long as you have a decent pair of tweezers.
>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list