Post by thread:[PIC] Microchips ridiculous ICD2 connector

Yeapper, actually you just need 5 pins. Pick an arrangement - I use power, Vpp, PGD, PGC, Gnd for all my designs, just b/c the first ICSP PIC board I made, that's what I did, pretty arbitrarily chosen. Maybe pick an order such that if the cable is plugged in backwards it doesn't short though. (but I haven't blown anything up the few times I put the cable on the board backwards.) Like... power, PGC, gnd, Vpp, PGD? not sure. Maybe having Vpp on a programming pin is worse if cable swapped. Or make a 6-pin and key it. If you'd rather not cut the microchip original: H3661R-07-ND Header that is real convenient! use this: S4379-ND after building and testing a cable, epoxy it. mark orientation with red nail polish or dab of whiteout. also for low-volume production, where you just need to program once, put the 0.1" header pins in the female socket and just hold 'em to the holes in the board. If boards are being contract-assembled, make sure they leave the holes clear of solder! else is a big hassle. and it is nice to give a cable to clients here and there, to program the board you made for them with an ICD2 you told them to buy for updates down the road / in the field. Have fun J Steve Smith wrote: {Quote hidden}> Easy.. > Cut one off and fit a 6 pin kk these go on to the little gold headers you > fit shorting links on > > Steve.. > > Just don't leave an unattended icd for too long somebody will plug in a fone > when you least expect it... > > -----Original Message----- > From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspam@spam@mit.edu] On Behalf Of > Shawn Wilton > Sent: 24 October 2006 05:46 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: [PIC] Microchips ridiculous ICD2 connector > > Has anyone found a reasonable solution for dealing with the ridiculous RJ-12 > jack on the Microchip ICD2 other than to remove it, add wires and "install" > a new header of sorts? >

The only thing is that a pin header is not polarized. Also PicKit2 has a 6 pin connector -- it is not a problem as you can use it with the 5 pin one but... Anyway, what's wrong with the RJ12? Is that something like a contact problem or just the bad taste of having a telephony socket on your programmer? Tamas On 24/10/06, Mike Harrison <mikeKILLspamwhitewing.co.uk> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:46:28 -0700, you wrote: > > >Has anyone found a reasonable solution for dealing with the ridiculous > RJ-12 > >jack on the Microchip ICD2 other than to remove it, add wires and > "install" > >a new header of sorts? > > Yes - I've standardised on a Molex 5-pin header, chopping the RJ off the > end of the cable. > Handy hint to save time - write the pin names on the connector. > > > -

>-----Original Message----- >From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmit.edu] >Sent: 24 October 2006 10:16 >To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. >Subject: Re: [PIC] Microchips ridiculous ICD2 connector > > >The only thing is that a pin header is not polarized. Also >PicKit2 has a 6 pin connector -- it is not a problem as you >can use it with the 5 pin one but... > >Anyway, what's wrong with the RJ12? Is that something like a >contact problem or just the bad taste of having a telephony >socket on your programmer? I was just wondering the same thing, IMO the RJ12 connector is ideal for the IDC end. It's cheap, readily available, polarised and latched. OTOH it sucks as a target connector for anything other than a prototype/evaluation board, but that's a total non-issue as you just buy an RJ12 cable, cop one end off and solder your prefered connector on. Regards Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. =======================================================================

Olin Lathrop wrote: >Shawn Wilton wrote: > > >>Has anyone found a reasonable solution for dealing with the ridiculous >>RJ-12 jack on the Microchip ICD2 ... >> >> > >Mine didn't come with ridiculous RJ-12 jacks, and I don't remember them >listed as options. > That's the MICROCHIP default... for everything! Rediculous is not a MICROCHIP option, it's a feature! >******************************************************************** >Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products >(978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. > > -- * | __O Thomas C. Sefranek WA1RHPspam_OUTARRL.net |_-\<,_ Amateur Radio Operator: WA1RHP (*)/ (*) Bicycle mobile on 145.41, 448.625 MHz hamradio.cmcorp.com/inventory/Inventory.html http://www.harvardrepeater.org

Jesse Lackey wrote: > and it is nice to give a cable to clients here and there, to program the > board you made for them with an ICD2 you told them to buy for updates > down the road / in the field. This may sound like a self-serving suggestion, but you really don't want to use a ICD2 for field upgrades, especially for customers to use themselves. The chances of a screwup and resulting phone call when they try to clickety-click their way thru MPLAB alone make this a bad idea. But worse is that the ICD2 is not a production programmer, which Microchip is actually careful to point out. Do it right and get a real production programmer that can be run from a dedicated program that can have all its parameters passed on the command line. That allows you to wrap the programming operation into a larger program, or give them a single BAT file to run that just does the programming. Personally I think my ProProg (http://www.embedinc.com/proprog) production programmer is a good choice for this task, although there are probably others out there. At 1/3 the price of the Microchip PM3 and a lot less clunky, I think it's a good deal too. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

Shawn Wilton wrote: > Has anyone found a reasonable solution for dealing with the ridiculous RJ-12 > jack on the Microchip ICD2 other than to remove it, add wires and "install" > a new header of sorts? > > Yes. I use a clone which has the RJ12 _AND_ a proper connector. I have several of the "FULL ICD2" designed by Kenny Wong. Has these features, eliminates the flakey Cypress chip (uses Microchip PIC18F4550). Consequently, almost all of the complaints about ICD2 are fixed. If that wasn't enough: 2 programming sockets, one dedicated just to DSPic, are included as well (The ICD2 does a GREAT job as an programmer, too, and there is NO chance that it isn't on the "list" like most programmers. And the whole solution costs less than HALF of the cost of a standard ICD2. Get 'em from Kenny on Ebay. He ships from Hong Kong for only $12 USD. I got mine in 10 days. Total cost plus shipping was $90 USD. Ran right out of the box. Almost NO manual, but it all makes intuitive sense. Trust me, I'm an engineer. You WON'T be disappointed. <G>. --Bob

Tamas Rudnai wrote: > The only thing is that a pin header is not polarized. Also PicKit2 has a 6 > pin connector -- it is not a problem as you can use it with the 5 pin one > but... > > Anyway, what's wrong with the RJ12? Is that something like a contact problem > or just the bad taste of having a telephony socket on your programmer? > > Tamas > > One problem is that there are only a few cables that can be used with an RJ12, and these do not have enough strands to be flexible. Solder connections made do not last very long; I rarely got through a project without needing to replace the development connector. The last problem is that the wire size is AWG#26, which is simply not heavy enough to provide a decent ground connection between the development tool and the project. With my clone, I make up high-flex #22 as a ground lead, and #24 for all the other pins. --Bob

{Quote hidden}> > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: @spam@piclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu [KILLspampiclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu] >>Sent: 24 October 2006 10:16 >>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. >>Subject: Re: [PIC] Microchips ridiculous ICD2 connector >> >> >>The only thing is that a pin header is not polarized. Also >>PicKit2 has a 6 pin connector -- it is not a problem as you >>can use it with the 5 pin one but... >> >>Anyway, what's wrong with the RJ12? Is that something like a >>contact problem or just the bad taste of having a telephony >>socket on your programmer? > > I was just wondering the same thing, IMO the RJ12 connector is ideal for > the IDC end. It's cheap, readily available, polarised and latched. OTOH > it sucks as a target connector for anything other than a > prototype/evaluation board, but that's a total non-issue as you just buy > an RJ12 cable, cop one end off and solder your prefered connector on. > > Regards > > Mike That's what I do too. I have a bunch of cables we made up with RJ on one end and 2x5 header connectors on the other. Also have a few with single row connectors for some applications. We recently bent a pin inside the RJ connector on the ICD, so had to open it up to replace it. I noticed that it LOOKS like there's a footprint for another connector in there, perhaps a header. Harold -- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising opportunities available!

> I was just wondering the same thing, IMO the RJ12 connector > is ideal for the IDC end. It's cheap, readily available, > polarised and latched. OTOH it sucks as a target connector > for anything other than a prototype/evaluation board, but > that's a total non-issue as you just buy an RJ12 cable, cop > one end off and solder your prefered connector on. What's an IDC and why does an RJ12 suck for the target side? I would guess it is mated/demated less on the target side, so less chance of problems there. Actually my preferred ICSP setup is a Wisp628 (DB15 connector), with a DB15 contra - to RJ12 cable, RJ12 connector on the target PCB. DB15 on the target would take much more PCB space. Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

part 1 1077 bytes content-type:text/plain (decoded 7bit) On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 07:54 -0700, Harold Hallikainen wrote: > That's what I do too. I have a bunch of cables we made up with RJ on one > end and 2x5 header connectors on the other. Also have a few with single > row connectors for some applications. We recently bent a pin inside the RJ > connector on the ICD, so had to open it up to replace it. I noticed that > it LOOKS like there's a footprint for another connector in there, perhaps > a header. Very interesting... Actually, what's even more interesting is the Cypress chip isn't used anymore for USB!? We recently bought a new ICD2 at work, I never opened it up before since I opened the older one I had at home. But reading this message I opened it up to look at this header pinout. I then noticed the cypress chip was gone, replaced with an 18F4550 for USB! Perhaps this was common knowledge, but I'd never heard of the cypress chip having been replaced until now. I've attached a couple small photos. Maybe I'm the last to have found out, oh well... :) TTYL part 2 20582 bytes content-type:image/jpeg; name=ICD2.jpg (decode) part 3 11046 bytes content-type:image/jpeg; name=ICD2_USB.jpg (decode) part 4 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded 7bit)

Thank you for the suggestions guys, but I think most of you misunderstood my issue. My complaint is the RJ-12 ON the ICD2. Not the other end of the cable. I have plenty of custom programming cables, but last couple of days I've been having to hold the RJ-12 connector on the ICD2. Lousy design. Those connectors s***. On 10/24/06, Tamas Rudnai <RemoveMEtamas.rudnaiTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > The only thing is that a pin header is not polarized. Also PicKit2 has a 6 > pin connector -- it is not a problem as you can use it with the 5 pin one > but... > > Anyway, what's wrong with the RJ12? Is that something like a contact > problem > or just the bad taste of having a telephony socket on your programmer? > > Tamas > > > > On 24/10/06, Mike Harrison <spamBeGonemikespamBeGonewhitewing.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:46:28 -0700, you wrote: > > > > >Has anyone found a reasonable solution for dealing with the ridiculous > > RJ-12 > > >jack on the Microchip ICD2 other than to remove it, add wires and > > "install" > > >a new header of sorts? > > > > Yes - I've standardised on a Molex 5-pin header, chopping the RJ off the > > end of the cable. > > Handy hint to save time - write the pin names on the connector. > > > > > > --

Yes, I ordered one. Wouldn't you know, I'm also an engineer. :-P Just very disappointed with the ICD2. Based on personal preference I think I may move the design to an ATMega8 after this. Must say I really like the BoostC compiler. Works quite well. On 10/24/06, Bob Axtell <TakeThisOuTengineerEraseMEspam_OUTneomailbox.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > Shawn Wilton wrote: > > Has anyone found a reasonable solution for dealing with the ridiculous > RJ-12 > > jack on the Microchip ICD2 other than to remove it, add wires and > "install" > > a new header of sorts? > > > > > Yes. I use a clone which has the RJ12 _AND_ a proper connector. I have > several of the "FULL ICD2" designed > by Kenny Wong. Has these features, eliminates the flakey Cypress chip > (uses Microchip PIC18F4550). Consequently, > almost all of the complaints about ICD2 are fixed. If that wasn't > enough: 2 programming sockets, one dedicated just > to DSPic, are included as well (The ICD2 does a GREAT job as an > programmer, too, and there is NO chance that > it isn't on the "list" like most programmers. > > And the whole solution costs less than HALF of the cost of a standard > ICD2. Get 'em from Kenny on Ebay. He ships from > Hong Kong for only $12 USD. I got mine in 10 days. Total cost plus > shipping was $90 USD. Ran right out of the > box. Almost NO manual, but it all makes intuitive sense. > > Trust me, I'm an engineer. You WON'T be disappointed. <G>. > > --Bob > > -

OOh, I never bothered opening mine up, but I see there is room for another connector in there! I think I'll just pull the RJ-12 off there and replace it with a header or a wire. That is until my Wong shows up.. :-) On 10/24/06, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist3TakeThisOuTfarcite.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 07:54 -0700, Harold Hallikainen wrote: > > That's what I do too. I have a bunch of cables we made up with RJ on one > > end and 2x5 header connectors on the other. Also have a few with single > > row connectors for some applications. We recently bent a pin inside the > RJ > > connector on the ICD, so had to open it up to replace it. I noticed that > > it LOOKS like there's a footprint for another connector in there, > perhaps > > a header. > > Very interesting... Actually, what's even more interesting is the > Cypress chip isn't used anymore for USB!? > > We recently bought a new ICD2 at work, I never opened it up before since > I opened the older one I had at home. But reading this message I opened > it up to look at this header pinout. I then noticed the cypress chip was > gone, replaced with an 18F4550 for USB! Perhaps this was common > knowledge, but I'd never heard of the cypress chip having been replaced > until now. > > I've attached a couple small photos. > > Maybe I'm the last to have found out, oh well... :) > > TTYL > > > -

I posted a note on piclist a while back with a similar issue.... My ICD2 only works if the plug is pushed in further into the jack than just the "click". You need to push it that extra mm more. Otehrwise it is an excercise in frustration. I guess the jacks used by Microchip are slightly non-conformant with standards. For the record, I figured Olin's pedantic reply about his ICD2 not having an RJ12 plug was worth investigating, and it appears he is right. ICD2 s do NOT have RJ12 jacks. There apparently is no such thing specified. An RJ11 jack is a 6p2c modular plug, an RJ14 is 6p4c, and an RJ25 is 6p6c. Thus, the closest "RJ" match is RJ25. But, then, it is not really a pertinent naming convention since the ICD2 is not telephony equiptment, thus, the best descriptor fot the ICD2 would be a 6p6c modular Jack. Go figure. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_jack Rolf Shawn Wilton wrote: {Quote hidden}> Thank you for the suggestions guys, but I think most of you misunderstood my > issue. My complaint is the RJ-12 ON the ICD2. Not the other end of the > cable. I have plenty of custom programming cables, but last couple of days > I've been having to hold the RJ-12 connector on the ICD2. Lousy design. > Those connectors s***. > > > > On 10/24/06, Tamas Rudnai <tamas.rudnaiEraseME.....gmail.com> wrote: > >> The only thing is that a pin header is not polarized. Also PicKit2 has a 6 >> pin connector -- it is not a problem as you can use it with the 5 pin one >> but... >> >> Anyway, what's wrong with the RJ12? Is that something like a contact >> problem >> or just the bad taste of having a telephony socket on your programmer? >> >> Tamas >> >> >> >> On 24/10/06, Mike Harrison <EraseMEmikewhitewing.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:46:28 -0700, you wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Has anyone found a reasonable solution for dealing with the ridiculous >>>> >>> RJ-12 >>> >>>> jack on the Microchip ICD2 other than to remove it, add wires and >>>> >>> "install" >>> >>>> a new header of sorts? >>>> >>> Yes - I've standardised on a Molex 5-pin header, chopping the RJ off the >>> end of the cable. >>> Handy hint to save time - write the pin names on the connector. >>> >>> >>> --

> > What's an IDC i presume that was a typo for ICD > and why does an RJ12 suck for the target side? for breadboards, stripboard etc its a horrible pin layout, for production boards its a bit big (smaller than say a molex or sub-d but much bigger than some surface mount connectors) and depending on the boards purpose possiblly confusing (connecting a debugging port to a phone line would be *BAD*. > I would > guess it is mated/demated less on the target side, so less chance of > problems there. provided you use the right connectors for the cable type (make sure you check manufacturers data sheets and if they don't say if they are for solid or stranded avoid them) i've found the things to be very reliable. unfortunaly microchip also screwed up the pinout which causes problems with the DSPICs (iirc the faster transition time on the dspic data output causes glitches to be coupled accross to the clock line)

Strange, I have a box of connectors at home that says RJ-12 on it... Microchip calls it an RJ-12: http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/51265g.pdf Some more links referring to RJ-12: http://midondesign.com/TEMP08/P13RJ11vsRJ12.html Also, the Wiki article does mention an RJ-12. Just says it's not common. On 10/24/06, Rolf <RemoveMElearrEraseMEEraseMErogers.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > I posted a note on piclist a while back with a similar issue.... My ICD2 > only works if the plug is pushed in further into the jack than just the > "click". You need to push it that extra mm more. > > Otehrwise it is an excercise in frustration. I guess the jacks used by > Microchip are slightly non-conformant with standards. > > For the record, I figured Olin's pedantic reply about his ICD2 not > having an RJ12 plug was worth investigating, and it appears he is right. > > ICD2 s do NOT have RJ12 jacks. There apparently is no such thing > specified. An RJ11 jack is a 6p2c modular plug, an RJ14 is 6p4c, and an > RJ25 is 6p6c. > > Thus, the closest "RJ" match is RJ25. But, then, it is not really a > pertinent naming convention since the ICD2 is not telephony equiptment, > thus, the best descriptor fot the ICD2 would be a 6p6c modular Jack. > > Go figure. > > See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_jack > > Rolf > > Shawn Wilton wrote: > > Thank you for the suggestions guys, but I think most of you > misunderstood my > > issue. My complaint is the RJ-12 ON the ICD2. Not the other end of the > > cable. I have plenty of custom programming cables, but last couple of > days > > I've been having to hold the RJ-12 connector on the ICD2. Lousy design. > > Those connectors s***. > > > > > > > > On 10/24/06, Tamas Rudnai <RemoveMEtamas.rudnaispam_OUTKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: > > > >> The only thing is that a pin header is not polarized. Also PicKit2 has > a 6 > >> pin connector -- it is not a problem as you can use it with the 5 pin > one > >> but... > >> > >> Anyway, what's wrong with the RJ12? Is that something like a contact > >> problem > >> or just the bad taste of having a telephony socket on your programmer? > >> > >> Tamas > >> > >> > >> > >> On 24/10/06, Mike Harrison <RemoveMEmikeTakeThisOuTspamwhitewing.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:46:28 -0700, you wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Has anyone found a reasonable solution for dealing with the > ridiculous > >>>> > >>> RJ-12 > >>> > >>>> jack on the Microchip ICD2 other than to remove it, add wires and > >>>> > >>> "install" > >>> > >>>> a new header of sorts? > >>>> > >>> Yes - I've standardised on a Molex 5-pin header, chopping the RJ off > the > >>> end of the cable. > >>> Handy hint to save time - write the pin names on the connector. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- >

Yes, I the RJ12 is mentioned, as a 6p4c jack, which the ICD2 definately is *not* (it is a 6p5c, I guess). Apparently the definition of the "Registered jack" type, requires (twisted) pairs of conductors... and the ICD2 has 5 conductors, which is non-conformant as well. <shrug> The references I quote must somehow be wrong ;-) I will have to be more careful about "common names" and "real names". Rolf Shawn Wilton wrote: {Quote hidden}> Strange, I have a box of connectors at home that says RJ-12 on it... > > Microchip calls it an RJ-12: > http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/51265g.pdf > > Some more links referring to RJ-12: > http://midondesign.com/TEMP08/P13RJ11vsRJ12.html > > Also, the Wiki article does mention an RJ-12. Just says it's not common. > > > On 10/24/06, Rolf <EraseMElearrspamspamBeGonerogers.com> wrote: > >> I posted a note on piclist a while back with a similar issue.... My ICD2 >> only works if the plug is pushed in further into the jack than just the >> "click". You need to push it that extra mm more. >> >> Otehrwise it is an excercise in frustration. I guess the jacks used by >> Microchip are slightly non-conformant with standards. >> >> For the record, I figured Olin's pedantic reply about his ICD2 not >> having an RJ12 plug was worth investigating, and it appears he is right. >> >> ICD2 s do NOT have RJ12 jacks. There apparently is no such thing >> specified. An RJ11 jack is a 6p2c modular plug, an RJ14 is 6p4c, and an >> RJ25 is 6p6c. >> >> Thus, the closest "RJ" match is RJ25. But, then, it is not really a >> pertinent naming convention since the ICD2 is not telephony equiptment, >> thus, the best descriptor fot the ICD2 would be a 6p6c modular Jack. >> >> Go figure. >> >> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_jack >> >> Rolf >> >>

Ah, I would agree, except these are a few relatively technical "special customers", and we're talking about a handful of boards here per design. And I've already done the ridic MPLAB + ICD2 install for them. For less technical / larger pool of customers this wouldn't fly. Am about to get a semicustom bootloader going (run over USB) for the wider audience. J Olin Lathrop wrote: {Quote hidden}> Jesse Lackey wrote: > >>and it is nice to give a cable to clients here and there, to program the >>board you made for them with an ICD2 you told them to buy for updates >>down the road / in the field. > > > This may sound like a self-serving suggestion, but you really don't want to > use a ICD2 for field upgrades, especially for customers to use themselves. > The chances of a screwup and resulting phone call when they try to > clickety-click their way thru MPLAB alone make this a bad idea. But worse > is that the ICD2 is not a production programmer, which Microchip is actually > careful to point out. Do it right and get a real production programmer that > can be run from a dedicated program that can have all its parameters passed > on the command line. That allows you to wrap the programming operation into > a larger program, or give them a single BAT file to run that just does the > programming. > > Personally I think my ProProg (http://www.embedinc.com/proprog) production > programmer is a good choice for this task, although there are probably > others out there. At 1/3 the price of the Microchip PM3 and a lot less > clunky, I think it's a good deal too. > > > ******************************************************************** > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products > (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

Shawn Wilton wrote: > Strange, I have a box of connectors at home that says RJ-12 on it... > > Microchip calls it an RJ-12: > ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/51265g.pdf > yep, my stock says RJ-12 too. Its a Bell Systems terminology, pretty old now. I believe it means the 3-pair (6-pin) part, versus a 2-pin (1 pair) or 4-pin (standard 4-pin used in millions of households). --Bob {Quote hidden}> Some more links referring to RJ-12: > http://midondesign.com/TEMP08/P13RJ11vsRJ12.html > > Also, the Wiki article does mention an RJ-12. Just says it's not common. > > > On 10/24/06, Rolf <RemoveMElearrKILLspamrogers.com> wrote: > >> I posted a note on piclist a while back with a similar issue.... My ICD2 >> only works if the plug is pushed in further into the jack than just the >> "click". You need to push it that extra mm more. >> >> Otehrwise it is an excercise in frustration. I guess the jacks used by >> Microchip are slightly non-conformant with standards. >> >> For the record, I figured Olin's pedantic reply about his ICD2 not >> having an RJ12 plug was worth investigating, and it appears he is right. >> >> ICD2 s do NOT have RJ12 jacks. There apparently is no such thing >> specified. An RJ11 jack is a 6p2c modular plug, an RJ14 is 6p4c, and an >> RJ25 is 6p6c. >> >> Thus, the closest "RJ" match is RJ25. But, then, it is not really a >> pertinent naming convention since the ICD2 is not telephony equiptment, >> thus, the best descriptor fot the ICD2 would be a 6p6c modular Jack. >> >> Go figure. >> >> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_jack >> >> Rolf >> >> Shawn Wilton wrote: >> >>> Thank you for the suggestions guys, but I think most of you >>> >> misunderstood my >> >>> issue. My complaint is the RJ-12 ON the ICD2. Not the other end of the >>> cable. I have plenty of custom programming cables, but last couple of >>> >> days >> >>> I've been having to hold the RJ-12 connector on the ICD2. Lousy design. >>> Those connectors s***. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/24/06, Tamas Rudnai <tamas.rudnaiSTOPspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The only thing is that a pin header is not polarized. Also PicKit2 has >>>> >> a 6 >> >>>> pin connector -- it is not a problem as you can use it with the 5 pin >>>> >> one >> >>>> but... >>>> >>>> Anyway, what's wrong with the RJ12? Is that something like a contact >>>> problem >>>> or just the bad taste of having a telephony socket on your programmer? >>>> >>>> Tamas >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 24/10/06, Mike Harrison <spamBeGonemikeSTOPspamEraseMEwhitewing.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:46:28 -0700, you wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Has anyone found a reasonable solution for dealing with the >>>>>> >> ridiculous >> >>>>> RJ-12 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> jack on the Microchip ICD2 other than to remove it, add wires and >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> "install" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> a new header of sorts? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Yes - I've standardised on a Molex 5-pin header, chopping the RJ off >>>>> >> the >> >>>>> end of the cable. >>>>> Handy hint to save time - write the pin names on the connector. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >

Rolf wrote: > For the record, I figured Olin's pedantic reply about his ICD2 not > having an RJ12 plug was worth investigating, and it appears he is right. > > ICD2 s do NOT have RJ12 jacks. There apparently is no such thing > specified. An RJ11 jack is a 6p2c modular plug, an RJ14 is 6p4c, and an > RJ25 is 6p6c. This is not what I was trying to point out. I said I don't have a ICD2 with a "ridiculous RJ12 jack" as the OP asked about. Mine all have regular and quite reasonable RJ12 jacks. I didn't like the way the OP was asking for help and at the same time putting words in anyone's mouth that might help him. His question was a lot like "Have you stopped beating your wife?". Anyone responding to the OP's question would be implicitly agreeing that the ICD2 connector is "ridiculous" and that "everyone knows" that. I thought that was arrogant and a particularly obnoxious way to make a point, so I responded to his post in a way that was litterally correct but otherwise useless. If the OP thought a RJ-12 was the wrong choice for the ICD2 connector he should have stated that as his opinion and provided some support for his argument, instead of just calling it "ridiculous" and implying everyone agrees with that. For the record, I think RJ-12 was a reasonable choice. It is quick to connect and disconnect, locks with a positive feel, can't be plugged in backwards, cheap, and widely available. These connectors have proven to work well in nearly 30 years of telephone use. The one part of the design I don't like is the pinout. PGC and PGD are next to each other. This invites crosstalk, and I've presonally seen it happen. At the time of the design, Microchip was vaguely planning the last pin for PGM, but that was never implemented. In hindsight it would have been much better to separate PGC and PGD with a extra ground wire. All my programmers have a RJ-12 jack for compatibility, but also a 6 pin header and/or pads with the extra ground line between PGC and PGD. For programmers built into fixtures, I always recommend the 6 pin interface be used instead of the RJ-12, but not because there is anything wrong with a RJ-12 jack. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

Olin Lathrop wrote: > For the record, I think RJ-12 was a reasonable choice. It is quick to > connect and disconnect, locks with a positive feel, can't be plugged in > backwards, cheap, and widely available. These connectors have proven to > work well in nearly 30 years of telephone use. I don't like that they have this latch exposed. When pushing such a cable through a bunch of cables, the latches very easily hook up with other cables and either break or the plug has to be carefully removed from that location. I also don't think they are particularly good in making contact when used a lot, and the typical cables available for these plugs don't work well for a development environment. Neither is very important in typical telephone use, but that's not really what they are being used for here. IIRC, they were first designed for use internal to equipment, but then became a de-facto consumer telephony standard -- not by design, more by chance. (No sources, so don't quote me on that :) Gerhard

I appreciate the approach Olin took on this. When I read the original post, I began to worry that all my designs that use an RJ-12 connector were somehow flawed. It took me about 15 minutes of thinking about the jack to decide my fears were unfounded and that I had temporarily allowed the OP to anchor me with a negative opinion of the jack. On 10/25/06, Olin Lathrop <KILLspamolin_piclistspamBeGoneembedinc.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > Rolf wrote: > > For the record, I figured Olin's pedantic reply about his ICD2 not > > having an RJ12 plug was worth investigating, and it appears he is right. > > > > ICD2 s do NOT have RJ12 jacks. There apparently is no such thing > > specified. An RJ11 jack is a 6p2c modular plug, an RJ14 is 6p4c, and an > > RJ25 is 6p6c. > > This is not what I was trying to point out. I said I don't have a ICD2 > with > a "ridiculous RJ12 jack" as the OP asked about. Mine all have regular and > quite reasonable RJ12 jacks. > > I didn't like the way the OP was asking for help and at the same time > putting words in anyone's mouth that might help him. His question was a > lot > like "Have you stopped beating your wife?". Anyone responding to the OP's > question would be implicitly agreeing that the ICD2 connector is > "ridiculous" and that "everyone knows" that. I thought that was arrogant > and a particularly obnoxious way to make a point, so I responded to his > post > in a way that was litterally correct but otherwise useless. > > If the OP thought a RJ-12 was the wrong choice for the ICD2 connector he > should have stated that as his opinion and provided some support for his > argument, instead of just calling it "ridiculous" and implying everyone > agrees with that. > > For the record, I think RJ-12 was a reasonable choice. It is quick to > connect and disconnect, locks with a positive feel, can't be plugged in > backwards, cheap, and widely available. These connectors have proven to > work well in nearly 30 years of telephone use. > > The one part of the design I don't like is the pinout. PGC and PGD are > next > to each other. This invites crosstalk, and I've presonally seen it > happen. > At the time of the design, Microchip was vaguely planning the last pin for > PGM, but that was never implemented. In hindsight it would have been much > better to separate PGC and PGD with a extra ground wire. All my > programmers > have a RJ-12 jack for compatibility, but also a 6 pin header and/or pads > with the extra ground line between PGC and PGD. For programmers built > into > fixtures, I always recommend the 6 pin interface be used instead of the > RJ-12, but not because there is anything wrong with a RJ-12 jack. > > > ******************************************************************** > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products > (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. > -

Ira Burton wrote: > I appreciate the approach Olin took on this. When I read the original > post, I began to worry that all my designs that use an RJ-12 connector were > somehow flawed. It took me about 15 minutes of thinking about the jack to > decide my fears were unfounded and that I had temporarily allowed the OP to > anchor me with a negative opinion of the jack. > > Olin is dead right about the connector. It is very reliable, and the last standard from bell systems was that the contact point must be gold. I believe it would be hard to find a better connector. My complaint is from the wires that must be used with the RJ-12. I also agree about PGD and PGC being next to each other; a ground seperating them would not only improve crosstalk, but it would also halve the GND resistance, a serious problem. As a result, I always have the cable VERY short in length (about 6"). --Bob {Quote hidden}> On 10/25/06, Olin Lathrop <EraseMEolin_piclistEraseMEembedinc.com> wrote: > >> Rolf wrote: >> >>> For the record, I figured Olin's pedantic reply about his ICD2 not >>> having an RJ12 plug was worth investigating, and it appears he is right. >>> >>> ICD2 s do NOT have RJ12 jacks. There apparently is no such thing >>> specified. An RJ11 jack is a 6p2c modular plug, an RJ14 is 6p4c, and an >>> RJ25 is 6p6c. >>> >> This is not what I was trying to point out. I said I don't have a ICD2 >> with >> a "ridiculous RJ12 jack" as the OP asked about. Mine all have regular and >> quite reasonable RJ12 jacks. >> >> I didn't like the way the OP was asking for help and at the same time >> putting words in anyone's mouth that might help him. His question was a >> lot >> like "Have you stopped beating your wife?". Anyone responding to the OP's >> question would be implicitly agreeing that the ICD2 connector is >> "ridiculous" and that "everyone knows" that. I thought that was arrogant >> and a particularly obnoxious way to make a point, so I responded to his >> post >> in a way that was litterally correct but otherwise useless. >> >> If the OP thought a RJ-12 was the wrong choice for the ICD2 connector he >> should have stated that as his opinion and provided some support for his >> argument, instead of just calling it "ridiculous" and implying everyone >> agrees with that. >> >> For the record, I think RJ-12 was a reasonable choice. It is quick to >> connect and disconnect, locks with a positive feel, can't be plugged in >> backwards, cheap, and widely available. These connectors have proven to >> work well in nearly 30 years of telephone use. >> >> The one part of the design I don't like is the pinout. PGC and PGD are >> next >> to each other. This invites crosstalk, and I've presonally seen it >> happen. >> At the time of the design, Microchip was vaguely planning the last pin for >> PGM, but that was never implemented. In hindsight it would have been much >> better to separate PGC and PGD with a extra ground wire. All my >> programmers >> have a RJ-12 jack for compatibility, but also a 6 pin header and/or pads >> with the extra ground line between PGC and PGD. For programmers built >> into >> fixtures, I always recommend the 6 pin interface be used instead of the >> RJ-12, but not because there is anything wrong with a RJ-12 jack. >> >> >> ******************************************************************** >> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products >> (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. >> --

On 10/25/06, Olin Lathrop <@spam@olin_piclist@spam@spam_OUTembedinc.com> wrote: > > I didn't like the way the OP was asking for help and at the same time > putting words in anyone's mouth that might help him. His question was a > lot > like "Have you stopped beating your wife?". Anyone responding to the OP's > question would be implicitly agreeing that the ICD2 connector is > "ridiculous" and that "everyone knows" that. I thought that was arrogant > and a particularly obnoxious way to make a point, so I responded to his > post > in a way that was litterally correct but otherwise useless. Hilarious. Thank you for the "useless" post, as you put it. :-) -- Shawn Wilton (b9 Systems) http://b9Systems.com <- New web page

On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 10:36 -0700, Shawn Wilton wrote: > > Olin is dead right about the connector. It is very reliable, and the > > last standard from bell systems was that > > the contact point must be gold. I believe it would be hard to find a > > better connector. My complaint is from > > the wires that must be used with the RJ-12. > > > > I have to figure that with the number of complaints this connector has > received, it is not a good choice. Sure, it's cheap, available at any > hardware store and keyed. But, I'm not the only person complaining about > the longevity of the connector or it's ability to maintain a good > connection. A standard keyed header of some sort would IMO been a much > better choice. It is a well known fact that complainers tend to be MUCH more vocal then those happy with something. As such, saying the connector is not a good choice simply because of the complaints received on this list is simply pointless and without any evidence. That said, the RJ12 chosen for the ICD2 was a matter of trade offs (as almost every engineering decision is). A "standard keyed header" is MUCH larger footprint wise on a PCB then the RJ12. Also, the cables are more expensive to make. It does have the longevity element, and is more hobbyist friendly. They made the choice to use the RJ12, and that's done. Of the two choices, I would have probably chosen the keyed header since PCB space during development isn't much a concern. Longevity also isn't much of a concern for me since I don't regularly plug and unplug boards from the ICD2. A project is plugged into the ICD2 until it works to the point I can move to the next project, so it can be weeks before the ICD2 is moved to another board. However, in my opinion, calling the keyed header a "much better choice" is not true, both options have their benefits. TTYL

> That said, the RJ12 chosen for the ICD2 was a matter of trade offs (as > almost every engineering decision is). A "standard keyed header" is MUCH > larger footprint wise on a PCB then the RJ12. Also, the cables are more > expensive to make. It does have the longevity element, and is more > hobbyist friendly. They made the choice to use the RJ12, and that's > done. According to the pictures posted earlier of the ICD2, the board does in fact have a provision for a 6p header. To what cables are you referring when you say more expensive? There are a plethora of choices that could have been persued with regard to cable style. Personally, I would have gone with the 6p 3x2 .1" header and a "3m" style plug-in keyed connector as were used on the IDE interface of hard disk drives. Of the two choices, I would have probably chosen the keyed header since > PCB space during development isn't much a concern. Longevity also isn't > much of a concern for me since I don't regularly plug and unplug boards > from the ICD2. A project is plugged into the ICD2 until it works to the > point I can move to the next project, so it can be weeks before the ICD2 > is moved to another board. However, in my opinion, calling the keyed > header a "much better choice" is not true, both options have their > benefits. That was my opinion and was stated as such. Opinions are not fact and accordingly can't be considered true or false. Perhaps I should have made an argument about the quality of the connector instead of the design of the connector. I have had my ICD2 for only a few weeks and already the 6p connector does not maintain a quality connection to the cables I have. That's my basis for declaring the 6p connector on the ICD2 as "ridiculous" and a poor choice. In the beginning I was in favor of the RJ-11/12 style connector, but seeing as how it no longer works reliably I fail to see the benefit of the design choice. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ridiculous&db=* -- Shawn Wilton (b9 Systems) http://b9Systems.com <- New web page

On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 11:31 -0700, Shawn Wilton wrote: > > That said, the RJ12 chosen for the ICD2 was a matter of trade offs (as > > almost every engineering decision is). A "standard keyed header" is MUCH > > larger footprint wise on a PCB then the RJ12. Also, the cables are more > > expensive to make. It does have the longevity element, and is more > > hobbyist friendly. They made the choice to use the RJ12, and that's > > done. > > > According to the pictures posted earlier of the ICD2, the board does in fact > have a provision for a 6p header. To what cables are you referring when you > say more expensive? A cable that plugs into an RJ12 style jack is VERY cheap to make since it's just a piece of very cheap plastic with some non critical in dimension metal bits in it, crimped to form the connection in one shot. A 1x5 header OTOH is magnitudes more complicated to make and assemble. That said, we are talking about differences in cents, not a big deal for you and me, but it becomes a big deal when volumes go up (although I don't think MChip has made enough ICD2's for that difference to really have much of an impact). > There are a plethora of choices that could have been > persued with regard to cable style. Personally, I would have gone with the > 6p 3x2 .1" header and a "3m" style plug-in keyed connector as were used on > the IDE interface of hard disk drives. In my experience the 3x2 header is rare, compared to sizes bigger then that (yes, you can get them without a problem, but compared to other larger sizes they are relatively rare. The AVR programmer I have uses a 2x3 header, I couldn't find a keyed header at my local parts places so I had to use a 2x5 and extract 4 of the pins, annoying). Rare usually equals more expensive. Again, we're only talking a few cents probably. As a hobbyist I'd choose 1x5 before I'd even consider using a 2x3. In the prototype world PCB space isn't very important IMHO. Let me just mention that I've had my ICD2 for a few years now and haven't experienced a single problem with the connector. Yes, I'm a sample of one, but there it is anyways. TTYL

On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 16:49 -0700, Shawn Wilton wrote: > On 10/25/06, Herbert Graf <TakeThisOuTmailinglist3.....TakeThisOuTfarcite.net> wrote: > > > > Let me just mention that I've had my ICD2 for a few years now and > > haven't experienced a single problem with the connector. Yes, I'm a > > sample of one, but there it is anyways. > > > > > I wish I could duplicate your good fortune. :-) Well, perhaps it's something as simple as they changed the suppliers of the RJ12 jacks at some point and the result was some ICD2's went out with sub standard jacks. The one thing you could do is contact MChip. I have heard (on this list) that they are EXTREMELY willing to rectify any problem with a dev tool, usually with very little prodding. If you contacted them reporting the RJ12 jack contacts are causing you problems I wouldn't be surprised if they just shipped you a replacement. TTYL

An excellent point Herbert, I will see if I can dig up a contact number and give them a ring. On 10/25/06, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist3spamBeGonefarcite.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 16:49 -0700, Shawn Wilton wrote: > > On 10/25/06, Herbert Graf <spamBeGonemailinglist3@spam@spam_OUTfarcite.net> wrote: > > > > > > Let me just mention that I've had my ICD2 for a few years now and > > > haven't experienced a single problem with the connector. Yes, I'm a > > > sample of one, but there it is anyways. > > > > > > > > I wish I could duplicate your good fortune. :-) > > Well, perhaps it's something as simple as they changed the suppliers of > the RJ12 jacks at some point and the result was some ICD2's went out > with sub standard jacks. > > The one thing you could do is contact MChip. I have heard (on this list) > that they are EXTREMELY willing to rectify any problem with a dev tool, > usually with very little prodding. If you contacted them reporting the > RJ12 jack contacts are causing you problems I wouldn't be surprised if > they just shipped you a replacement. > > TTYL > > -

>> I appreciate the approach Olin took on this. When I read the >> original post, I began to worry that all my designs that use an >> RJ-12 connector were somehow flawed. It took me about 15 >> minutes of thinking about the jack to decide my fears were >> unfounded and that I had temporarily allowed the OP to >> anchor me with a negative opinion of the jack. >> >> >Olin is dead right about the connector. It is very reliable, and >the last standard from bell systems was that the contact point >must be gold. I believe it would be hard to find a better connector. >My complaint is from the wires that must be used with the RJ-12. It seems to me that these connectors are not made for regular mates and demates. They are designed for a small number of uses, such as they would normally get when used in telephony service. They do generate problems with regular usage, one problem I have heard of is the wire contacts coming out of their slots in the body of the connector, and the back end coming free and going into an adjacent slot. There is also the problem noted elsewhere in this thread where with continual matings the contacts seem to work their way back into the socket body, so that the plug has to be pushed in past the latch click point to get reliable operation.

>-----Original Message----- >From: Herbert Graf [TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesspammit.edu] >Sent: 26 October 2006 00:35 >To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. >Subject: Re: [PIC] Microchips ridiculous ICD2 connector > > >Let me just mention that I've had my ICD2 for a few years now >and haven't experienced a single problem with the connector. >Yes, I'm a sample of one, but there it is anyways. We've had a couple of ICD's since they were first released, and have been in almost daily use since. The only snag we have ever had is blowing up the output buffers, through carelessness rather than any fault of the ICD. I ordered the parts overnight and fixed it myself rather than send it back and it's been fine since. We also have a variety of different programming cables so the RJ12 socket has certainly been given a good workout. Regards Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. =======================================================================

>Pearce, AB (Alan) wrote: >> It seems to me that these connectors are not made for regular mates and >> demates. They are designed for a small number of uses, such as they >> would normally get when used in telephony service. > >But how often do you change cables on the ICD2 itself? The target end of >the cable gets a lot of use, but the ICD2 end? I try to avoid giving mine >any use at all, but when I'm stuck using a ICD2 I rarely plug/unplug the >cable at the ICD2. I agree Olin, but the OP sounded like they unplug it often. I may be wrong here, but that was the way the posting came across to me. If they don't then it does sound like unit should get a repair, possibly because a substitute connector was used in it.

{Quote hidden}> -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bouncesEraseMEmit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspam_OUTmit.edu]On Behalf > Of Michael Rigby-Jones > Sent: 26 October 2006 11:44 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: RE: [PIC] Microchips ridiculous ICD2 connector > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Herbert Graf [@spam@piclist-bouncesRemoveMEEraseMEmit.edu] > >Sent: 26 October 2006 00:35 > >To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > >Subject: Re: [PIC] Microchips ridiculous ICD2 connector > > > > > >Let me just mention that I've had my ICD2 for a few years now > >and haven't experienced a single problem with the connector. > >Yes, I'm a sample of one, but there it is anyways. > > We've had a couple of ICD's since they were first released, and > have been in almost daily use since. The only snag we have ever > had is blowing up the output buffers, through carelessness rather > than any fault of the ICD. I ordered the parts overnight and > fixed it myself rather than send it back and it's been fine > since. We also have a variety of different programming cables so > the RJ12 socket has certainly been given a good workout. i wonder if there was a bad batch of ICD2s with lower quality connectors. they certainly change parts over the lifetime of thier products (for example they now put a tougher diode in a critical position in the pickit 2).

I've had my unit for a couple of weeks and has been plugged/unplugged no more than 20 times. Hence my degree of frustration. I took mine apart last night and also noticed however that I have one of the older units with the Cypress chip in it. Completely different looking than the pic posted earlier. So I'm going to try and get ahold of Microchip and see if they will exchange it. On 10/26/06, Pearce, AB (Alan) <EraseMEA.B.Pearce@spam@rl.ac.uk> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > >Pearce, AB (Alan) wrote: > >> It seems to me that these connectors are not made for regular mates > and > >> demates. They are designed for a small number of uses, such as they > >> would normally get when used in telephony service. > > > >But how often do you change cables on the ICD2 itself? The target end > of > >the cable gets a lot of use, but the ICD2 end? I try to avoid giving > mine > >any use at all, but when I'm stuck using a ICD2 I rarely plug/unplug > the > >cable at the ICD2. > > I agree Olin, but the OP sounded like they unplug it often. I may be > wrong here, but that was the way the posting came across to me. > > If they don't then it does sound like unit should get a repair, possibly > because a substitute connector was used in it. > > -

At 12:31 PM 10/25/2006, Shawn Wilton wrote: >Personally, I would have gone with the >6p 3x2 .1" header and a "3m" style plug-in keyed connector as were used on >the IDE interface of hard disk drives. Just a quick comment here. Rest assured that I do *NOT* want to start a major discussion about this and the following comment is NOT intended to be a flame <grin>. But . . . Have you tried to find any 6-pin 2x3 (.1" spacing) female ribbon cable connectors? The folks on the JP1 remote control mailing lists would VERY much like to know where they can purchase such an item. I've searched and been unsuccessful as well. I made some of the ones I needed by cutting down IDC ribbon-style connectors, soldering wires to the pins, then covering with epoxy. I've also taken a pair of 1x3 connectors and glued them back-to-back. dwayne -- Dwayne Reid <@spam@dwaynerspam_OUT.....planet.eon.net> Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd Edmonton, AB, CANADA (780) 489-3199 voice (780) 487-6397 fax Celebrating 22 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2006) .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .- `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address. This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email.

On 10/26/06, Dwayne Reid <spamBeGonedwaynerEraseMEplanet.eon.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> At 12:31 PM 10/25/2006, Shawn Wilton wrote: > > >Personally, I would have gone with the > >6p 3x2 .1" header and a "3m" style plug-in keyed connector as were used on > >the IDE interface of hard disk drives. > > Just a quick comment here. Rest assured that I do *NOT* want to > start a major discussion about this and the following comment is NOT > intended to be a flame <grin>. But . . . > > Have you tried to find any 6-pin 2x3 (.1" spacing) female ribbon > cable connectors? The folks on the JP1 remote control mailing lists > would VERY much like to know where they can purchase such an > item. I've searched and been unsuccessful as well. > > I made some of the ones I needed by cutting down IDC ribbon-style > connectors, soldering wires to the pins, then covering with > epoxy. I've also taken a pair of 1x3 connectors and glued them back-to-back. > > dwayne > Like digikey #A3047-ND? Photo: http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Amp/Web%20Photo/New%20Photos/102393-1,%20102398-1,%20102694-1.jpg Regards, Mark -- You think that it is a secret, but it never has been one. - fortune cookie

At 03:41 PM 10/26/2006, Mark Rages wrote: >On 10/26/06, Dwayne Reid <dwaynerspamBeGoneplanet.eon.net> wrote: > > > > Have you tried to find any 6-pin 2x3 (.1" spacing) female ribbon > > cable connectors? The folks on the JP1 remote control mailing lists > > would VERY much like to know where they can purchase such an > > item. I've searched and been unsuccessful as well. > > > > dwayne > >Like digikey #A3047-ND? Photo: >http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Amp/Web%20Photo/New%20Photos/102393-1,%20102398-1,%20102694-1.jpg Beauty! Stephen Forrest also provided links to some actual IDC ribbon connectors as well. I'm happy to see them available now - I last looked a couple of years ago (back when I was into making OneForAll universal remotes do what I needed) and hadn't looked since. There are places where they would indeed be useful. <carefully removing foot from mouth> Thanks, all! dwayne -- Dwayne Reid <RemoveMEdwayner@spam@spamBeGoneplanet.eon.net> Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd Edmonton, AB, CANADA (780) 489-3199 voice (780) 487-6397 fax Celebrating 22 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2006) .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .- `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address. This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email.

The are a few reason why the RJ connector fails. One is the clip from the connector breaks off. Easily fixed. The other one is the pins in the female connector bends in too badly until it does not connect well to the ICD2 connector. Both can be fixed... As I see it any cable fails with frequent meddling. John --- "Pearce, AB (Alan)" <.....A.B.Pearce@spam@EraseMErl.ac.uk> wrote: {Quote hidden}> >Pearce, AB (Alan) wrote: > >> It seems to me that these connectors are not made > for regular mates > and > >> demates. They are designed for a small number of > uses, such as they > >> would normally get when used in telephony > service. > > > >But how often do you change cables on the ICD2 > itself? The target end > of > >the cable gets a lot of use, but the ICD2 end? I > try to avoid giving > mine > >any use at all, but when I'm stuck using a ICD2 I > rarely plug/unplug > the > >cable at the ICD2. > > I agree Olin, but the OP sounded like they unplug it > often. I may be > wrong here, but that was the way the posting came > across to me. > > If they don't then it does sound like unit should > get a repair, possibly > because a substitute connector was used in it. > > --

On 10/30/06, Charles Craft <.....chuckseaSTOPspam@spam@mindspring.com> wrote: > > My problem is the similar style connector used for UTP ethernet on > laptops. > > Ever had the pins get hosed up in your laptop ethernet connector? > Pretty much have to swap out the motherboard to resolve that one. %-) > I actually haven't experienced that specific problem firsthand yet, and neither have I heard of anyone I personally know experiencing it. I do however know that in the case of my 6 or 7 year old HP Omnibook 6100, it would be cheaper to buy a new laptop than it would be to replace it's motherboard if you where to include labour costs, which reminds me that I still have to order a new cooling module for it. I have been operating it the past two or three years without any active cooling... I am amazed that it's survived the things that I have put it through! Sean

>> My problem is the similar style connector used for UTP ethernet on >> laptops. >> >> Ever had the pins get hosed up in your laptop ethernet connector? >> Pretty much have to swap out the motherboard to resolve that one. %-) >> > >I actually haven't experienced that specific problem firsthand yet, and >neither have I heard of anyone I personally know experiencing it. I do >however know that in the case of my 6 or 7 year old HP Omnibook 6100, it >would be cheaper to buy a new laptop than it would be to replace it's >motherboard if you where to include labour costs, which reminds me that I >still have to order a new cooling module for it. I have been operating it >the past two or three years without any active cooling... I am amazed that >it's survived the things that I have put it through! You should have seen what these bods were doing to a couple of Toshiba laptops (one of them an unprotected toughbook) on the gadget Show last Tuesday ... http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.jsp?lnk=401&section=Consumer&show=s5e7&featureid=233&description=Laptops:%20banged,%20chilled,%20dunked%20and%20blown%20up. The Toughbook still worked after the explosion ...

Alan, On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 08:55:01 -0000, Alan B. Pearce wrote: >... > You should have seen what these bods were doing to a couple of Toshiba > laptops (one of them an unprotected toughbook) on the gadget Show last > Tuesday ... > > gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.jsp?lnk=401&section=Consumer&show=s5e7&featureid=233&description=Laptops:%20banged,%20chilled,%20dunked %20and%20blown%20up. > > The Toughbook still worked after the explosion ... Wasn't the Toughbook a Panasonic? I was amazed to see what the explosion did to the one in the padded bag - the shockwave produced a domed dent that looked as if they'd dropped a bowling ball on it from a very great height! They do have some fun on that programme - I wonder how you get a job there? I'm sure I could replace Jon or Jason... Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England