B9A tube right angle mounts

[ruffrecords]

It kinda makes sense because I suspect the majority of Windoze users are totally non-technical and wouldn't know what an EXE or DLL file is.

Bri

I have some sympathy for that view but it depends where you draw the line. Bear in mind that the very first Microsoft Windows was released in 1985, the same year the X window system was released for Unix. Back in 1992 I would agree that most home users did not need to know about file types, let alone have the ability to change them. But now, nearly 40 years later is that still true? Computers are so all pervasive that the minimum average computer user's skill level must surely be a lot higher?

Cheers

Ian

 

[Brian Roth]

I have some sympathy for that view but it depends where you draw the line. Bear in mind that the very first Microsoft Windows was released in 1985, the same year the X window system was released for Unix. Back in 1992 I would agree that most home users did not need to know about file types, let alone have the ability to change them. But now, nearly 40 years later is that still true? Computers are so all pervasive that the minimum average computer user's skill level must surely be a lot higher?

Cheers

Ian

I suspect the folks on this forum are FAR more tech savvy than the vast majority of other computer owners. How often does Joe Blo need to change a file extension name? TBH, about the only time I need to do that are for a few files posted here that had to have a "wrong" extension because the forum has a defined list of acceptable file types.

I'm not trying to be a Windoze groupie and am merely guessing their motives.

Also, don't Macs have their own "child proofed" features?

Bri (not a Mac user)

 

[shaggy]

I have some sympathy for that view but it depends where you draw the line. Bear in mind that the very first Microsoft Windows was released in 1985, the same year the X window system was released for Unix. Back in 1992 I would agree that most home users did not need to know about file types, let alone have the ability to change them. But now, nearly 40 years later is that still true? Computers are so all pervasive that the minimum average computer user's skill level must surely be a lot higher?

Cheers

Ian

For me, it's the reverse. Twenty or so years ago, it seemed that more things went wrong, and I learned what little I knew (and have long forgotten) through often painful troubleshooting procedures. With the bullet-proof nature of Win7 (which I still use on my everyday laptops), my experience was that things more often took care of themselves, turning me into a relatively lazier computer user. I only learn what I absolutely have to in order to keep the damned things working (and working the way I'm used to! lol!)

 

[shaggy]

Just made a half dozen in one go (pic 1). Printed solid in PETG, it took 1 hr 41 mins including machine auto-calibration. The A1 mini's build plate will fit up to 16.

Here's a 7-pin version. Just scale down 78% (pic 2)..

 

[MidnightArrakis]

Well, I have to say that, while writing some new dimensions for your design, I found that it was just getting back closer to the original.
The original design has (IMO) some key elements that you've deleted in yours. Namely, a longer foot (for stability), the scallop in the foot (which allows the tube to sit lower while preserving material around the attachment holes), and the extra holes to allow different axial positioning of the socket.
One thing I think might be added the original is your idea of blind holes in the foot for self-tapping screws (as an additional option to the through-holes).

[a longer foot (for stability)] -- With this being merely a simple device for mounting a vacuum-tube horizontally to a PCB, I guess I am missing the point of -- how much stability -- is really needed here? I figured that the self-tapping screws going up and through a PCB and then into the thicker and wider base of this PCB-mounted tube-socket would provide both the necessary security and stability of it being fastened and mounted onto a PCB. What am I missing here?

[the scallop in the foot (which allows the tube to sit lower while preserving material around the attachment holes)] -- The purpose of my modified design was to offer a shallower profile while still maintaining a wide base for stability. Also, my placing of the bottom-side mounting-holes was to also offer an overall shallower profile, while the use of the self-tapping screws was to facilitate a reduction of hardware parts. Not good enough, huh???




[the extra holes to allow different axial positioning of the socket] -- Ever since my working with vacuum-tube electronics began in the early 1960s (about the same time as The Beatles took over the world!!! You've heard of "The Beatles".....right???), I have never ever considered or have even ever given it any thought about how a vacuum-tube socket was rotationally oriented!!! I have always just glanced at a tube-socket to see -- HOW -- it was oriented, just so I could match the vacuum-tube that I held in my hand was being inserted into it in the same orientation. However, and I could be wrong here about this, but.....I don't believe that a vacuum-tube really cares about which direction it is rotated in 36-degree increments. While I have read in the vacuum-tube data-books that -- some -- tubes do care whether they have to be either horizontally or vertically mounted, even those tubes are somewhat rare. The point being.....why include a whole bunch more of inconsequential holes into this device that only ends up making this piece of plastic that much more unnecessarily complex? Again.....what am I missing here???.....

>> Here's a question for all of you "3D Printing Fans" here on this forum, which is probably more than likely specific material dependent.....What is the general "minimum material thickness allowed" when 3D printing? As an example, within the design of this "Horizontally PCB-Mounted Vacuum-Tube Socket" device, there is a minimum material thickness dimension of 0.045-inch (1.143mm) as shown in the image below:



So.....what is an acceptable minimum thickness? 0.025-inch?? 0.020-inch??? What?

Are there any other -- mechanical design detail insights -- that you "3D Printing Fans" can offer this "Sheet-Metal Guy" which would assist me in being able to design parts for you? Let me know, OK??? THANKS!!!

/

 

[grid_stopper]

it looks like they are being printed vertically, rotating them 90° in the slicer would result in significantly more robust prints

 

[shaggy]

it looks like they are being printed vertically, rotating them 90° in the slicer would result in significantly more robust prints

Nope, printed laying flat, in solid PETG (100% infill).

 

[Matador]

I'm late to this party but I've been using these to mount (9 pin miniature tubes) at right angles:

https://www.mcmaster.com/products/right-angles/aluminum~/multipurpose-6061-aluminum-90-angles-7/

The 1.5" version is just short enough to clear a 1U rack (about 1/4" to spare) and can hold either 9 pin miniature or octal sockets, and the aluminum is easy to cut cleanly with a draw punch.

A 1ft section can easily hold 4 preamp tubes, and I'm guess up to 6 12AX7's could be mounted if you really needed to. And they only cast about $5 each.

 

[shaggy]

I'm late to this party but I've been using these to mount (9 pin miniature tubes) at right angles:

https://www.mcmaster.com/products/right-angles/aluminum~/multipurpose-6061-aluminum-90-angles-7/

The 1.5" version is just short enough to clear a 1U rack (about 1/4" to spare) and can hold either 9 pin miniature or octal sockets, and the aluminum is easy to cut cleanly with a draw punch.

A 1ft section can easily hold 4 preamp tubes, and I'm guess up to 6 12AX7's could be mounted if you really needed to. And they only cast about $5 each.

That's how I'd have done it too, not so long ago. But I like the idea of non-conductive hardware around HV circuits, esp. on PC boards 8>)

 

[shaggy]

[a longer foot (for stability)] -- With this being merely a simple device for mounting a vacuum-tube horizontally to a PCB, I guess I am missing the point of -- how much stability -- is really needed here? I figured that the self-tapping screws going up and through a PCB and then into the thicker and wider base of this PCB-mounted tube-socket would provide both the necessary security and stability of it being fastened and mounted onto a PCB. What am I missing here?

[the scallop in the foot (which allows the tube to sit lower while preserving material around the attachment holes)] -- The purpose of my modified design was to offer a shallower profile while still maintaining a wide base for stability. Also, my placing of the bottom-side mounting-holes was to also offer an overall shallower profile, while the use of the self-tapping screws was to facilitate a reduction of hardware parts. Not good enough, huh???

View attachment 141492
View attachment 141493

[the extra holes to allow different axial positioning of the socket] -- Ever since my working with vacuum-tube electronics began in the early 1960s (about the same time as The Beatles took over the world!!! You've heard of "The Beatles".....right???), I have never ever considered or have even ever given it any thought about how a vacuum-tube socket was rotationally oriented!!! I have always just glanced at a tube-socket to see -- HOW -- it was oriented, just so I could match the vacuum-tube that I held in my hand was being inserted into it in the same orientation. However, and I could be wrong here about this, but.....I don't believe that a vacuum-tube really cares about which direction it is rotated in 36-degree increments. While I have read in the vacuum-tube data-books that -- some -- tubes do care whether they have to be either horizontally or vertically mounted, even those tubes are somewhat rare. The point being.....why include a whole bunch more of inconsequential holes into this device that only ends up making this piece of plastic that much more unnecessarily complex? Again.....what am I missing here???.....

>> Here's a question for all of you "3D Printing Fans" here on this forum, which is probably more than likely specific material dependent.....What is the general "minimum material thickness allowed" when 3D printing? As an example, within the design of this "Horizontally PCB-Mounted Vacuum-Tube Socket" device, there is a minimum material thickness dimension of 0.045-inch (1.143mm) as shown in the image below:

View attachment 141495

So.....what is an acceptable minimum thickness? 0.025-inch?? 0.020-inch??? What?

Are there any other -- mechanical design detail insights -- that you "3D Printing Fans" can offer this "Sheet-Metal Guy" which would assist me in being able to design parts for you? Let me know, OK??? THANKS!!!

/

Relax, dude.

First, I'm a metalworker by trade. I've had a 3D printer for 6 months. It does an OK job some of the time, other times it's just a toy. So, not a 3D 'fan boy', just an old-fashioned machinist learning some new (to me) and handy technology.

To your other points:

Certain light-duty mechanical parts can be 3D-printed, but without a healthy cross-section or buttressing/reinforcement, etc, the part will have no rigidity whatsoever.

Repeated removal and installation of (often) tight-fitting vacuum tubes will soon wreck or loosen a lightweight or unstable mounting.

When wiring the socket to the board, it could be very handy to be able to orient the solder tags relative to other components, by axially repositioning the socket. The spare holes are already there, and cost nothing.

I hope you find my explanation(s) helpful.