How are standards for components like Firewire connectors created?
Doc
connector in a camcorder and after giving it a close examination
realized that the configuration for the port is ill conceived. The
cable end has 4 flat contacts embedded in plastic material, while the
port in the camcorder has 4 flimsy little tines that mate up with
contacts on the cable end. Highly subject to damage if they get grabbed
the wrong way.
Is this a Sony design or are all 4-pin Firewire ports made that way?
It's just really dumb that they deviated from the example of the 6-pin
connector which is much more robust with embedded connectors on both
the cable and port ends.
Richard Crowley
> Is this a Sony design or are all 4-pin Firewire ports made that way?
> It's just really dumb that they deviated from the example of the 6-pin
> connector which is much more robust with embedded connectors on both
> the cable and port ends.
You can blame Apple. They originally developed
it and it became an IEEE staendard ("IEEE 1394")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire#History_and_development
http://www.1394ta.org/index.html
etc. etc.
Robert Haar
> "Doc" wrote ...
>> Is this a Sony design or are all 4-pin Firewire ports made that way?
>> It's just really dumb that they deviated from the example of the 6-pin
>> connector which is much more robust with embedded connectors on both
>> the cable and port ends.
>
> You can blame Apple. They originally developed
> it and it became an IEEE staendard ("IEEE 1394")
While Apple originated the Firewire protocol (a.k.a. IEE 1394), I don't
believe that they ever used the connector design that they ever used the
connector design that the OP described. All the Apple equipment that I have
seen uses six conductor design.
Robert Haar
I should have said that this is for Firewire 400. The connectors for
Firewire 800 are 9 pin.
stau...@usfamily.net
I will address the question in the title, rather than specifically the
IEEE 1394, except to say that the MATERIAL for the connectors might not
even be a part of the standard. There is much more to the standard,
such as signal protocols, and such, and likely more deliberation was
given to these aspects than the mechanical design of the connectors. I
have sat on a standards committee (though for an avionics standard, not
a photography standard- though I have had acquaintences on imaging
ones).
Any such standard is put together by some society or professional group
(in this case the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.
The group decides there is a need for such a standard and seeks to
create a committee (or subcommittees at times for major standards,
splitting up the effort). This work is unpaid volunteer effort, with
the employer of the committee members picking up the tab for the
people's salary and the travel expenses. The for-profit businesses are
willing to spring for this in particular if they are or have developed
a standard that they want to become the standard- this is good
practice. Others, however do it just to faciliate progress in the
technology. In addition to for-profit companies, research
organizations and educational ones also frequently contribute members.
Sometimes the committee comes up with a completey new standard,
sometimes it adopts some existing protocol if it is available and the
committee thinks it is the best route. There is a LOT of politics
involved in such committees and the results are (or at least SHOULD BE,
decided by consensus.
As a side note, I am a little bit familiar with the JPEG effort, and
fail to see how someone can patent JPEG itself. I am assuming that the
patent is for a SPECIFIC algorithm for the compression or
decompression, and NOT for the standard itself. I have seen articles
claiming the latter, which I do not understand :-(
Doc
> > You can blame Apple. They originally developed
> > it and it became an IEEE staendard ("IEEE 1394")
>
> While Apple originated the Firewire protocol (a.k.a. IEE 1394), I don't
> believe that they ever used the connector design that the OP described.
> All the Apple equipment that I have
> seen uses six conductor design.
It's not the number of contacts I have a beef with but the way they're
constructed. It would be simple enough to make the port contacts the
same way they make them on the 6-pin.
Smarty
the connector design. Many vendors make 4 pin and 6 pin connectors, some of
which are cheap and flimsy, and others which will withstand a much wider
range of stresses. The connector which Sony uses may be one tenth the cost
of the seemingly identical 4 pin connector made by Molex, and Sony has made
a conscious and deliberate design choice to trade cost versus life
expectancy. To the hardware design engineer, such decisions are made on
virtually all parts as part of the value engineering process.
My point is that the 1394 spec is not where the fault lies. Mil standard
connectors as are used on avionics and other mission-critical systems cost
hundreds of dollars apiece in some cases. They withstand repeated
vibrations, insertions, misalignments, etc. and keep on working.
Sony could chose to use very high reliability connectors, but costs become
prohibitive. Which leaves the hapless consumer with the option to have it
repaired at great cost, repair it himself as you did, use a crippled
camcorder, or retire the camcorder entirely. Not unlike any appliance,
automobile, or other product we own.
Smarty
"Doc" <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165717050....@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Smarty
made reference to. You will see that it defines connector characteristics
specific to mechanical performance and reliability. The electronics industry
has its' own version, EIA-364, as does NASA and others.
www.samtec.com/standard_products/quality_information/pdf_files/EIA-364-MIL-STD-1344_CROSS_REF.pdf
Smarty
"Smarty" <nob...@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:P8edndQcSLYHFebY...@adelphia.com...