A proposal on SAKC
polossatik at gmail.com
Tue Mar 16 13:42:37 EDT 2010
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Daniel Clark <dclark at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Adam Wang <adam at sharism.cc> wrote:
> My point was just that I'd suggest trying really hard not to come up
> with some new incompatible interface if it's at all possible to use
> some standard that is already defined, esp. if the already defined
> standard would make a lot of stuff that is already on the market
> usable with SAKC.
There are no "standards" I know of that are designed to connect "raw"
interface lines to a "shield".
The approach used by arduino of having headers "around" the board is
actually quite usefull and simple (please don not use that annyoing
non-standard pin spacing of the Arduino headers.).
I think it would not be to hard to come up with something like this
that would allow also physical "expansion" in one direction if a
future board would have more I/O lines.
However personally I would reverse the headers, like the roboduino. 
This allows very easy "picking" of I/O lines to a breadboard and so
using jumper cables.
In addition to the "own" header rows it might be an idea to forsee a
real "arduino shield compatible" row (if this is not populated by
default it's easy to solder on).
If this is electrically possible (not sure) then this might not allow
100% compatibility with all arduino shields but basic stuff like those
cheap LCD shields or IO connector shields would be IMHO pose no
So any Arduino adept might be tempted to try the SACK board out,
simply because there is a easy way to use existing shields.
Myamicus  for example decided this for their Microchip PICmicro
platform to use a Arduino header layout., even if it's not 100%
Same goes for the power by the way, please use a existing PS plug like
9 to 12v , 2.5mm power plug , center positive. This is very common
stuff . I'm simply don't want anther PS adaptor in the endless line I
More information about the discussion