Talk:Wire wrap

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Electronics Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"hunter tools" external link at bottom of page is dead

Fixed Light current 16:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wire-Wrap is an active trademark assigned to Cooper Industries and should be capitalized and hyphenated as such. -- Grumpyoldgeek 01:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term is part of the general language now. (I was using it as a generic myself almost thirty years ago!) Stan 12:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's your call then, I'll not lose any sleep over it. Grumpyoldgeek 19:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It was genericised by the time I worked for a Gardner-Denver distributor in the 1980s. My word, this takes me back! Guy (Help!) 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is useless here because it does not illustrate wire wrap at all (or anything else). The method of construction in the pic could easily be any one of:

• nothing at all
• component lead to component lead
• soldered (PCB type) joints using the board pattern
• hand soldered point to point wiring
• hand wire wrap
• mc wire wrap

It should therefore be removed as a waste of space. Unless any justification can be made for its retention, I shall remove it again shortly.--Light current 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture shows the higher component density of a hand wirewrap construction relative to a Veroboard build. You keep removing it, I keep replacing it, and so the spat continues. But in the true spirit of Wiki, would you be happier if we included with this picture, the reverse side of the board which shows the manual wirewrap? I can do this if you wish. Colin99 18:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would be far happier if the reverse side of the board was shown. THis would then at least impart some info! 8-)--Light current 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have a question: The variant of wirewrap used on this board was sold as "Wire Pen". The wire is enamel insulated, and is usually burnt off by the soldering iron when the connections are made. But is this what has been intended under the title Manual Wirewrap, or should this be under another wirewrap category?

PS: The board shown could never have been PCB tracked as in your list. With all those 0.1" pitch holes everywhere?! Colin99 14:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wire wrap in my experience never requires soldering.--Light current 01:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll place the picture here initially for you to look at, in a day or two. Colin99 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks! 8-)--Light current 00:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wirepen construction, a variant of wirewrap. Much higher component density is possible compared with Veroboard. Plastic guides route enamel covered wire. The wire is wrapped around the component legs, and then, uniquely for a wirewrap construction, soldered. The solder burns off the enamel insulation to make the connections. Colin99 16:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard any reply. If nothing is heard, I will put the picture back and a subsection on wirepen and the second picture. Colin99 19:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say photo is not very convincing. Why not take one looking straight down on at the underside of the board?--Light current 01:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can do, though I didn't think that view showed the soldering very well. What aspect is "not convincing"? I mean to say, what do you need to be convinced of? That it is a high density construction? Or that it is the same board?! Colin99 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well basically, on this oblique view, I cant see the actual interconnecting wires. Perhaps you can see them- but I cant make them out. Thats Y I sugggested a proper plan photo so we can see everything. 8-)--Light current 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now we are talking about different things. I dont think what yuo are ahowing is 'wire wrap'. I mean if the wires are soldered, wher does the wrapping come in?--Light current 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THis stuff should not be on the wire wrap page. Where it should go, I have no idea yet! 8-(--Light current 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this technique Wire pen construction deseves its own page actually!--Light current 22:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a variant of wirewrap. The wires are wrapped around the pins and then cut with the supplied tool as part of the wrapping movement. Solder is then applied in order to burn off the insulation. I think it probably should go under manual wirewrap as a variant rather than its own page. Anyone else with opinions on this? Colin99 22:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cant agree!--Light current 04:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you feel that strongly, we can do a Wirepen page and at least mention it under the Wirewrap page, because I think you must agree the two techniques are related. However it is not the way I would do it personally. Hence other people's comments would be welcome in order to make a decision. Colin99 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a Wirepen construction page yes. Well probably link it from this page as well as others.--Light current 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says pin size is typically 0.017 inch square, whereas I'm pretty sure every post I've ever seen or wrapped was 0.025 inch square. For instance http://www.mouser.com/catalog/specsheets/574PINTE.pdf (vector terminals for perfboard.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.9.82 (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good intro, but I have one picky lilttle point:
"Wire wrap is a technique for constructing small numbers of complex electronics assemblies."

Why "complex electronics assemblies"? It can be used for simple assemblies too can't it. 'Electronics' should be 'Electronic', shouldn't it?
Is this a matter of English dialect? ie.'British' vs 'American' usage? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WireWrap CAD section would be remiss if it did not mention the excellent software tool that so many of us used: "WireMaster" developed I think by Gary Gilbraith, dedicated specifically to Wire Wrap.

We used this in aerospace industry systems as a netlist optimization and change management tool for many years, at least as late as 1991. In fact I would love to find a copy of this software. I believe there are multiple military contract systems with this software in long-term archive for contract support.

My recollection is that the software did implement a "traveling salesman" minimization algorithm and could take multiple netlist formats from standard schematic capture tools such as OrCAD, PADS, and Case Technology. The first versions were probably CP/M programs, but I know that we used it on DOS with IBM XT computers in the early 90's.

The primary output of WireMaster was a wiring checklist which separated all the wires into a list of first level wires, then a list of second level wires, and finally a list of third level wires if necessary. This software tool would also compare an existing wirelist, with a modified wirelist, and generate a "Remove / Add" list of wires that needed to be removed and added to turn the existing circuit into the modified circuit. I think WireMaster also supported the CAM file requirements of some automated and semi-automated wire-wrap machines, but I am not certain of this.

I originally found this software in small ads in the back pages of Byte magazine, and probably other magazines from that era. I met and talked with the designer of the softare on numerous occasions, but have completely lost track of him since. :
--User:Trsc0tt 07:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so what is the history of it coming into use? the printed circuit board wiki page nicely describes the inventor and gives a date and patent info etcetera. would be nice for something similar here. anyone know? i don't. that's why i came here looking... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjarthur (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

would also be nice to mention that wirewrapping was used in the Apollo Guidance Computer. the wiki page for the latter mentions it. no word of it here though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjarthur (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Overview section, paragraph 2, for consistency and understandability, may I suggest that "(635 micrometres)" be replaced by "(0.635 mm)" ?

(I suspect more people understand millimetres than micrometres ! I know, and it threw me.) Darkman101 (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking response, I have now changed micrometres to milimetres. Darkman101 (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Automated Wire Wrapping", the last paragraph is beautifully written, but totaly incomprehensible without a picture. (Even for experienced mental gymnasts.) Please would someone provide a diagram ? Darkman101 (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was way too much detail for an encyclopedia article - we're not here to teach "Care and maintenance of the Binford 6100 Wire Wrap Machine", we're supposed to be giving an overview. It's gone to the edit history file now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA document that I linked did not explicitly state the number of conductor wraps that there were, but in all the pictures of correct samples it seems there are indeed 7 wraps, and for some reason, I think that NASA draws to scale, as it were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexchally (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NASA cites MIL-STD-1130B section 5.3.2, which specifies seven turns for wire size (presumably AWG) 30 and 28, six for 26, five for 24 and 22, and four for 20 and 18.—Dah31 (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly little mention of crosstalk problems in this article. This was one of the big problems with wire wrap, leading to its abandonment, for digital electronics in the early '80s. As processor speeds increased it became an unsurmountable problem. I remember the early prototypes of the System X telephone exchange as being particularly affected. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I've been searching for references, specifically for the history section, and I've found two suitable(ish) ones so far. The first is http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Bell-Laboratories-Record/50s/Bell-Laboratories-Record-1951-07.pdf which appears to be an original publication with a section about the history of the tool and early practice. The second is http://www.projectmanagementsurvival.com/wire-wrap-history.html which unfortunately appears either to be plagiarized by this article, or vise versa. I'm leaning towards the former, since the revision before mine included the phrase "The design team at Bell was headed by Arthur Charles Keller (18 Aug 1901 – 25 Aug 1983), a renowned inventor and audio engineer.", which would be odd to write in Wikipedia seeing as there is an article on Mr. Keller already. I'm intending to look into it more later, but I'm writing this in case anyone wants to take that initiative before me. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text states that square posts are used for wirewrapping, and that certainly 'squares' with my memory of them. But the very first picture appears to show a hexagonal post. I think it would be better to use a square post, unless the discrepancy is explained somewhere. As I understood it, the point of square posts was to force a large deformation of the wire that caused it to bind tightly against the post and ensured a good connection.

The world is a very large place, and there's probably a well-known IEC standard for it, but I've never heard of a hexagonal wire-wrap post - it would, as you point out, somewhat defeat the purpose. The lead photo shows a square end. Maybe we need a better photo, that's not so fuzzy along the sides? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]