Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 19, 2023. It is now read-only.

Decide on SMT for passive components #172

Open
DanielHull opened this issue Feb 13, 2017 · 2 comments
Open

Decide on SMT for passive components #172

DanielHull opened this issue Feb 13, 2017 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@DanielHull
Copy link
Collaborator

SMT's will be easier to fix if we keep them at 0806's. I'm worried the vias will lose connection with through holes (happened to me a lot) as components are replaced. Of course many of these like the electron will have to be on headers

@aforbis-stokes
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm ok with SMTs as long as they are components that will never need replacing. I have very little experience mounting SMTs, and I would not count on anyone in the field being able to replace/fix a damaged SMT. The only components I would see needing to replaced, though, are the LVR, timer blox pulse generator and then the external components that should connect via headers anyways (thermistors, Particle, etc)

@DanielHull
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hmmm good thoughts. I find surface mounts much easier in replacing components. @mlp6 what do you think?

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants