A simple Relay Bypass

Looks like there is enough clearance around the switch hole on the +9V only board that the insulated washer is not needed.

Did you consider using SMDs for the 555 and 78L09? Would free up some space. An adjustable LDO reg would be a nice alternative to the 78L09.
 
Did you consider using SMDs for the 555 and 78L09? Would free up some space.
I'd be happy to give those changes a shot.

An adjustable LDO reg would be a nice alternative to the 78L09.
Did you have a particular LDO in mind? I try to find parts that are readily available at Tayda but it looks like they don't have any SMD options for an adjustable LDO regulator.
 
LM317 is not LDO (low drop-out). We need the LDO feature when we power the pedal with 9V. We could easily lose 2V in an LM317.
Oh, I thought the regulator was only for using voltages over 9v. But I guess the idea is to always have the regulator in the circuit for all voltages, with the ability to adjust for as little voltage drop as possible when using 9v, right? If that’s the case, what about keeping the 78L09 but add a little DIP switch to bypass the regulator when running at 9v?

Edit: SMD only, but the Linear LM3045 has a 260mV dropout voltage. It’s brother LM3042 has 350mV dropout voltage (also SMD only). Not cheap either - but deliciously overkill specs!
 
Last edited:
@Brett @Smrtokvitek - both of your designs are awesome. I think the footswitch-through-board approach is the more practical one (a la Effects Layout), but with added SMD to get the size down. You have to sacrifice a lot of space for the footswitch to avoid shorts, but I think there's enough space to play around with in the SMD world.. a 125B should have enough space for a dual footswitch with relay without causing pain to the PCB..
 
@Brett @Smrtokvitek - both of your designs are awesome. I think the footswitch-through-board approach is the more practical one (a la Effects Layout), but with added SMD to get the size down. You have to sacrifice a lot of space for the footswitch to avoid shorts, but I think there's enough space to play around with in the SMD world.. a 125B should have enough space for a dual footswitch with relay without causing pain to the PCB..
Thank you, @szukalski! SMD is certainly an option, and one that I don't mind working with. I DO try to design in through hole because if anyone else ends up with one of my boards, through-hole is usually preferred. In deed, the FS takes up a lot of space but it's possible to design around it. I've designed a board for another @Chuck D. Bones circuit in 125b that uses two of these relay switching systems, all through-hole.
 
Trying to satisfy my curiosity:

When engaging an effect using relay bypass, I notice a small, but perceptible, lag in the effect coming on/off.

How can the NE555 portion be tweaked to “speed” the switching up?
 
I want nothing more than 9.372 ms




I made a relay bypass a few years ago with the smallest PIC (10F322) in the product line with SMDs. There is plenty of room if you want to go that way. I really like @Brett s switch mounting. That's the only thing I don't like about my design. I usually use solid wire to secure it to PCB and hot glue.

View attachment 45539


View attachment 45540


What if you were to change the layout to accommodate the fang style switch? No more glueing...

SPST FOOTSWITCH FANG SW1061-Fusstaster-1x-AUS-Footswitch-SPST-MOMENTARY-1.jpeg
 
I want nothing more than 9.372 ms







What if you were to change the layout to accommodate the fang style switch? No more glueing...

View attachment 51948
In general, I think securing any external hardware (switch or jack) to a pcb is just asking for trouble. There’s a risk of mechanical stress if the component fixing comes loose and then the stress is all being taken by the pcb or solder joint.
 
Move your foot faster! ;)

But seriously folks, mine has no perceptible lag. The relay should switch in 10ms or less.
Also. No lag when using the same design.

A few thoughts in an attempt to appease my petulant and insatiable curiosity....

Let's say there was a lag when using something akin to the Basic Relay Bypass from our dear old PPCB. I pulled the timer datasheets this morning for the NE555P and the LM555 and did not see anything too different about them from a timing standpoint.

There is however a different arrangement around the footswitch between the two.

Is the Simple Relay Bypass (SRB) debouncing the switch? Could the "lag" I'm perceiving being the contacts "bouncing" or "chattering" after the press on my Basic Relay Bypass (BRB) implementation?
 
The 555 debounces the switch by reacting instantaneously the first time the switch contacts close, then it takes a few 10s of milliseconds for the circuit to recover and be ready to toggle again once the contacts break. That way, contact bounce in the switch does not keep retriggering the 555.
 
Back
Top