"Let's post card/connector/PCB dimensions!" thread

"Let's post card/connector/PCB dimensions!" thread
by on (#18137)
I'll start!

FC game PCB thickness = 0.050" (connector suitable for 0.054" – 0.070")
Industry standard thickness = 0.063" <- tight fit in FC connector

FC connector pin spacing/termination post length = 0.100"
FC edge pin thickness = ~0.080"
FC edge space between pin = ~0.020"
Suitable FC edge (PCB) width = ~3.05"

These are my measurements, can anyone concur? Does anyone have official measurements to FC/NES? What are your measurements for FC/NES?

Does anyone have a recent Famiclone with a labeled connector (product code and MFGer) or know of a source for FC compatible connectors?

Same question for 72 pin connectors? (Not NES replacement connector please)

by on (#18139)
NES Connector ID: 93mm x 3mm
NES Cartridge ID: 99.7mm x 10mm
Family Converter PCB Edge (60 connector) 79.3mm x 1.8mm
Family Converter NES Connector 94mm x 2.9mm

by on (#18142)
What is ID?

Your Family Converter is 1.8mm thick? That's very thick

Thanks

by on (#18143)
NES pin pitch: 2.5mm
NES pin width: .080" (2mm?)
max board size: 100mm x ~110mm
large hole location: Y 68mm, X 50mm
small hole location: Y 77.5mm, X 56mm
board thickness: .045"

by on (#18145)
I know this is the NES Hardware section.. but I thought that it wouldn't do so much harm to ask if anyone could also list the dimensions of the SNES/SFC cart/connector/PCB :)

by on (#18146)
Has anyone tried using a scanner to measure stuff on a flat plane like edge pins (which calipers can't handle)?

ie @ 600dpi, each pix = 0.0015"?

Think it would be accurate enough?

by on (#18152)
kyuusaku wrote:
What is ID?

Inner Dimension

by on (#18158)
kyuusaku wrote:
Has anyone tried using a scanner to measure stuff on a flat plane like edge pins (which calipers can't handle)?

I tried this and it works marvelously.

by on (#18161)
I'd place a ruler on the scanner surface as well, measure the entire length of it in pixels, then divide in order to find out exactly how many pixels per inch (as it may differ slightly from the advertised value). The only thing this wouldn't double check is linearity of pixel spacing, but that would be very unlikely. If you scan in grayscale or color, you can probably even get sub-pixel accuracy by incorporating how much mixing occurs at the edges. If the things were black and white, 50% gray at an edge would mean that the white and black meet in the middle of the pixel; 25% would mean that the black fills 75% of the pixel, etc.

by on (#18170)
Quote:
I'd place a ruler on the scanner surface as well, measure the entire length of it in pixels, then divide in order to find out exactly how many pixels per inch (as it may differ slightly from the advertised value). The only thing this wouldn't double check is linearity of pixel spacing, but that would be very unlikely. If you scan in grayscale or color, you can probably even get sub-pixel accuracy by incorporating how much mixing occurs at the edges. If the things were black and white, 50% gray at an edge would mean that the white and black meet in the middle of the pixel; 25% would mean that the black fills 75% of the pixel, etc.


Nah, just scan it and turn on the grid function in Photoshop. You can set the grid to any size interval, and set it to metric or inches.

-Rob

by on (#18172)
rbudrick wrote:
Quote:
I'd place a ruler on the scanner surface as well, measure the entire length of it in pixels, then divide in order to find out exactly how many pixels per inch (as it may differ slightly from the advertised value).

Nah, just scan it and turn on the grid function in Photoshop. You can set the grid to any size interval, and set it to metric or inches.

That's trusting that a 1200 DPI scanner is exactly 1200 DPI; scanning a ruler gives you the real DPI. Using the above procedure on a UMAX Astra 1200S scanner, I found 1172 DPI horizontal and 1199 DPI vertical where the scanner claimed 1200 for both. Of the two I thought horizontal would be closer, since that's governed by the optics as opposed to the stepper motor.

by on (#18177)
Quote:
That's trusting that a 1200 DPI scanner is exactly 1200 DPI; scanning a ruler gives you the real DPI. Using the above procedure on a UMAX Astra 1200S scanner, I found 1172 DPI horizontal and 1199 DPI vertical where the scanner claimed 1200 for both. Of the two I thought horizontal would be closer, since that's governed by the optics as opposed to the stepper motor.


Well, sure, I mean, as long as your ruler measures tenths of millimeters or smaller, sure, go for it. Can't say I know where to find such a ruler, though.

-Rob

by on (#18179)
rbudrick wrote:
Quote:
That's trusting that a 1200 DPI scanner is exactly 1200 DPI; scanning a ruler gives you the real DPI. Using the above procedure on a UMAX Astra 1200S scanner, I found 1172 DPI horizontal and 1199 DPI vertical where the scanner claimed 1200 for both. Of the two I thought horizontal would be closer, since that's governed by the optics as opposed to the stepper motor.


Well, sure, I mean, as long as your ruler measures tenths of millimeters or smaller, sure, go for it. Can't say I know where to find such a ruler, though.


Why would that be necessary? All you need is a starting point and ending point on either edge of the scanned image, then you can divide and figure out the DPI.

by on (#18180)
rbudrick wrote:
blargg wrote:
I'd place a ruler on the scanner surface as well, measure the entire length of it in pixels, then divide in order to find out exactly how many pixels per inch

Well, sure, I mean, as long as your ruler measures tenths of millimeters or smaller, sure, go for it. Can't say I know where to find such a ruler, though.

Maybe I'm missing something insanely obvious, but I don't see why you'd need a ruler with anything more than inch marks. Put a normal 12 inch ruler on the scanner, scan it, then measure the number of pixels between inch marks 1 and 9 (or more, if visible). Divide this by 8 and you have the number of pixels per inch, accurate to 1/8 pixel.