Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: New Magazine: Elektor Electronics USA ?
Message-ID: <1991Jan27.024225.22340@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <724@ssc.UUCP> <61847@bbn.BBN.COM> <736@ssc.UUCP> <JON_SREE.91Jan9123228@world.std.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 1991 02:42:25 GMT

In article <JON_SREE.91Jan9123228@world.std.com> jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) writes:
>The larger components (such as 1N4000 series diodes and large caps), I 
>directly wire-wrap to. That is, I insert the device into the board, 
>without the benefit of a socket. It's certainly not as good a contact
>as wrapping to square posts, but  it's usually adequate. 

This is a recipe for long-term unreliability.  All it takes is a little
bit of oxidation between the device pin and the wrapped wire.  You aren't
really wire-wrapping at all:  those sharp-edged square posts are *important*
to wire-wrap, because they bite into the wire and form solid gas-tight
contacts that are reliable forever.  (The bites are why you shouldn't
re-wrap wire.)  I'd strongly advise adding a bit of solder to make the
contacts reliable, at least if the gadget is meant to last.
-- 
If the Space Shuttle was the answer,   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
what was the question?                 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry