It's been requested for years and recently came up again so I thought I'd have a go at getting something started. I've attached a few pics of a quick table I put together in Excel showing what it can do but I need advice from yourselves in what to include. I've completed a few layouts just to give the table some meaning.
The full table
The table filters as you use the search function on a column
I've included dropboxes for IC type, Transistor type, switch etc so data entry is consistent
This will allow anyone to search any column (component) and the results will auto filter as you type.
What I hope we will discuss here is what else needs to be added that will satisfy any query someone may have?
I haven't yet added CMOS type IC's as an IC Type.
Haven't added a column for transformers or other "obscure" parts
Do we really need to specify things like LED size, capacitor type etc
I'd personally want a single search box that will filter the whole table...so I'll have a look at that
What do you think? Anything missing? I'll add all your recommendations to the table as the discussion progresses. Then when we think all is ready we can get some volunteers to start filling it out.
Full marks for starting on this, like the idea of drop-downs for consistency. What I would suggest though is that you keep each component on a separate row and also merge columns that are generic like quantity and value (split into value and unit or denote a standard unit for each component type). Wouldn't worry too much about the filtering capabilities at the moment as the captured data would best be converted to a database and then accessed via an app or web utility, so long as it offers the basics prior to someone building that.
Are you planning on making a master spreadsheet for ALL of the effects? that would be a massive spreadsheet and a real PITA to keep up to date.
it's hard to read the first image, but it looks like you have the BE-OD pedal in there as one project. it also looks like you have multiple types of parts on single lines (i.e. caps, resistors, pots, ics, and leds). most of the big electronics suppliers let you upload an excel bom, but they need 1 part per line item.
Maybe you combine the resistor/cap/pot/ic/transistor/diode into a single column that would allow filtering based on the component type as well as the component value? This way you can filter by effect and then uppload the bom to mouser or digikey and have it create a project for you.
Also, if there is interest in this, we could start creating shared mouser/digikey projects that are essentially BOMs that you can order in one click. of course, some of the specialized parts wouldn't be available like stomp switches, etc.
I thin it looks amazing so far. Might be worth doing it as a google doc. This way it can be update and constantly available. Tim, great idea, it's why I started the recommended and unrecommended suppliers thread.
Don't know if its useful but i started making a list of pedals by the size of the vero to try and use up smaller pieces. I started at the beginning but only got as far as 24 Feb 2012, which i think was the first 100. I'm happy to pass it on if you want to add it in. Also i'd be quite happy to help in any way.
Truth be told, I've managed to avoid Excel for 15 odd years so I'm only learning it atm. I may not be the best person to take the lead on this. But hopefully between the lot of us we can make a killer database that will cater for any query someone may have.
If I understand this correctly, the idea is to add more info to a single cell therefore reducing the number of columns needed? The problem I see here is that, if say I enter a capacitor as 20nf x 4, and Zach enters one as 0.02uf x 4....a search will return one but not the other. Without adding a drop lift of every conceivable cap value, can you add an error rule that pops up if the data doesn't follow a certain format? I need to look this type of stuff up.
The problem with my current layout is the large "gaps." And because of this and they way I've listed data, it forced me to add the make and model to every line so when someone searches a component...they will see what circuit uses them. It does make everything a bit messy looking.
Gavin...that's a great idea too! A search field for vero size and maybe another one for minimum box size.
So...what I'm asking is this, and what scimitar mentioned above....can we agree on a complete list of data points, that must apply to ALL layouts, so that volunteers can grab this data during their trawl. That way, when all the data is finally centralised, it's complete and consistent. And, like he said, worry about how to filter it later.
Here's a larger pic of the full list I posted earlier
This looks great, gave me some great ideas. I started to create a web app for sharing pedal layouts - so hopefully really soon I can show you what I'm working on, maybe that will be a little bit easier to manage.
Regarding the merging of columns and avoiding the 0.02uF vs 20nF issue I think that a standard unit for each component type (as applicable) is the way to go even though the figures might be unwieldy on the database for extreme values this could be handled by a future interface displaying in the most logical multiplier based on the value - so for example if we chose uF for caps we might store 0.000001 but display 1pF. Perhaps uF for caps, Kohms for resistors, mH for inductors...
Yea. I think we just have to have standardized units, which I think we already do really. I mean if you look at all the layouts they all have while number caps, rather then decimals with the unit above, i.e. 120nF vs .12uF. I'm the only one that cocks it up with resistors, cause I use decimals rather then put the unit in between, i.e. I'll put something like 3.3k rather then 3k3. Idk know why, just a habit I can't break.
Just to make it a bit clearer, I have re-done your spreadsheet in the sort of generic layout I was thinking of
The main problems are being clear on the sub types that apply to each component but at least in this way you don not have to pre-define all the possibilities in advance - just hope 2 sub types are enough.
Ahhh....I get it now. Yeah that's much better for data collection. The search filters than then later be built to make this more presentable.
So what we have to do is specify exactly what criteria the data trawlers will search for and some general rules for the component sub types and value entry. I reckon the following....and please do add anything I may have missed
Make The Manufacturer eg Boss, Ibanez etc
Model The effects name eg DS-1, TS808
Effect Type Overdrive, Chorus, Delay
Component Type Resistor, Capacitor, Opamp, Switch etc
Sub 1 NPN, JFET, Dual
Sub 2 TL072, 1N4001 etc
Value 100K, 0.47u
Quantity Self explanatory
Vero Size as labelled on the layout
Minimum Enclosure Size Based on the 21x30 (i think) for a 1590B etc.
Anyone think of any more criteria for the headings? We can work out the standardisation after we nail this.