MOTM

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Blacet <blacet@...>
> I see the same *stuff* every time someone
> mentions "sockets". How much of it is true
> and how much of it just *stuff* that goes on and on?
---
Good question.
---
> We use sockets because it improves the reliability
> of our modules.  Modern day sockets are well made
> and reliable, even the cheaper variety.
---
No doubt, parts are better than they used to be.
---
> Using sockets lowers the amount of time that ICs are
> exposed to static prone conditions. This is especially
> true with kit builders, who may not have the sophisticated
> anti static facilities of industry.
---
I never thougth about that aspect.  But, I have never damaged
a chip this way using "reasonable" precautions.
---
> .... a non-socketed IC is a no brainer for anyone who
> has had to remove a bad IC from a DS board; it takes
> about 20 times as long and runs the risk of damaging
>  the PCB itself.
---
Been there, done that. Ouch!
---
> Our warranty is essentially void if the kit builder does not
> use the sockets provided. At the least, the usually very
> nominal repair charge runs the risk of *tripling* in the case
> of an IC failure.
---
Ouch.  I didn't know that.  That in itself I suppose is reason enough
to use all the sockets when I build my two Time Machines.   But,
it does leave me with one more question.

I did purchase some of those reasonably-nice, machined-socket, gold-contact
IC sockets (about 40 cents, I think) for the purpose of prototyping.  I must
certainly agree with Crow that sockets are essential for this work.  So, I
was
toying with the idea of using them when I did socket stuff on my Blacet
modules.
However......
---
> I cannot point to a single incident of a socket problem in the history
> of Blacet Research.
---
That's a lot of history to argue with.  So, I wonder....  I would assume
that you
mention of warranty would not care which IC socket was used.

Thanks for your comments John.

Larry Hendry