Vero Layout Preferences

[Frank_NH]

I was making a post under the "DIY Information and Resources" and realized that there was a topic I've been meaning to bring up - specifically, layout preferences for vero (stripboard) layouts.

Having built many circuits now, I have evolved from the idea that standing axial components are OK to want them all to lie flat (as IvIark prefers), unless a compact layout can't be done any other way.  For 1/4W resistors this means a lead spacing of 0.3" or greater.

Along these same lines, there are similar rules that I've tried to adopt for other components in my own layouts.  Since I use box caps with 0.2" lead spacing, I try to make layouts where all caps have this spacing or larger.  For smaller electrolytics, a lead spacing of about 0.1" or great seems to work.  Axial electrolyics can work provided the minimum lead spacing for the body size can be accommodated.    Diodes (smaller one) can use 0.2" lead spacing or greater.  IC and transistors are socketed and so the lead spacing is fixed.

Also - when laying out electrolytics, especially larger ones, I've seen cases where the cap wouldn't fit in conveniently because another large component was interfering.  I've gotten around it by rearranging the components on the fly, but if this can be anticipated in a layout it would be helpful.

Trimmers can be troublesome since the ones I use have a lead spacing of 0.2" from lug 1 to 3 but only 0.1" from lugs 1 or 3 to 2.  You can bend the legs but I don't like doing that.

In general the less you have bend the legs of a radial component to span a spacing larger than the minimums above the better, but that is preferable to making the legs span a shorter distance.

And double links?  I don't like them, but if they can significantly reduce the layout width, well then OK...

Finally, there may be things you can do as far as input and output, 9V power layout to try to keep noise to a minimum.  I've been reading about grounding and ground loops and think that perhaps some minor layout changes could be used to avoid any ground-related problems.  I'm not sure if this is a major issue for most layouts here, but something to think about (it's certainly an issue for professional PCB layouts).

In the end, I don't mind having a slightly larger vero board if I can adhere to some of my preferences above.  

[Beaker]

Totally agree with everything you have said here Frank (I always find trim pots are a pain - I never seem to hve the right sized one for the layout), except the last part about ground loops.

It's not that you are wrong in any way, in theory ground loops should always be avoided wherever possible. It's just that on a very small, well shielded circuit like a stompbox, they are just not going to cause major problems, (99% of the time anyway).

[Frank_NH]

Thanks Beaker.  Well, I was looking at one reference which concerned the design of PCBs and how to avoid ground loops in the trace patterns.  Apparently it's a big deal if you professionally design PCBs for certain applications where low noise is a priority.  I didn't know if such guidelines were applicable to effects veros as far as where to place the entry points for signal input, 9V, ground, and control pots.  One question that came to me is if it's OK to put all of the control grounds (like lug 1 of a volume pot) to the board versus off board somewhere.  In some cases you can do that with a vero layout - or perhaps it doesn't make too much difference.