Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: modifiable backplane with sockets?
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 15:01:43 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <101d9sa$mljv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <87v7plzmzf.fsf@librehacker.com> <1017fdp$3bak2$1@dont-email.me>
 <87y0ugcsdn.fsf@librehacker.com> <10189rc$3gj2k$1@dont-email.me>
 <87frgne45z.fsf@librehacker.com> <101afev$1moc$1@dont-email.me>
 <87v7pi10jm.fsf@librehacker.com> <101d1vb$l4pu$1@dont-email.me>
 <87ecw523sk.fsf@librehacker.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 00:01:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bddada10b08e050fa127b14b68438422";
	logging-data="743039"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qaGFSB6dSBULMlpwhNGSm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ii0DAvH2JswtAf2n5srLLyeNBXo=
In-Reply-To: <87ecw523sk.fsf@librehacker.com>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/30/2025 2:21 PM, Christopher Howard wrote:
>> So, the backplane is just a packaging convenience?
> 
> Correct. A backplane is not absolutely necessary, since I built one with
> out a backplane. But it is bothersome to have the wires from the patch
> panel hooked directly to the modules, as it is quite messy and makes it
> more difficult to work on the modules or to replace/modify the patch
> panels(s).

Yes.  Your approach makes perfect sense -- esp if you intend to
reconfigure the "assembly".

In the example I provided, it was a "finished piece" -- despite
being too physically large to STORE as built.

[Your talk of modules had me thinking you would be building
different devices that you would leave configured]