Email Detail
Show an email
GET /hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/7C4X66KCYTGHYII4Z2DKZXFCSS7ZBII5/
{ "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/7C4X66KCYTGHYII4Z2DKZXFCSS7ZBII5/", "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/", "message_id": "[email protected]", "message_id_hash": "7C4X66KCYTGHYII4Z2DKZXFCSS7ZBII5", "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/7C4X66KCYTGHYII4Z2DKZXFCSS7ZBII5/", "sender": { "address": "wb4gcs (a) amsat.org", "mailman_id": "87014499e012476c8198fad186f7f963", "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/87014499e012476c8198fad186f7f963/emails/" }, "sender_name": "Jim Sanford", "subject": "[eagle] [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Eagle] SANFORD quicklook comments on Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements]]", "date": "2007-10-11T13:08:49Z", "parent": null, "children": [ "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/KWFWEYYRW54TX426Q6JFLPF2EUJTSSNR/" ], "votes": { "likes": 0, "dislikes": 0, "status": "neutral" }, "content": "All:\nThanks to the efforts of Dave Hartzell, we have a page on EaglePedia for \nthe entry and response to peer review comments on the new module design.\n\nPlease post your comments at:\nhttp://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/eagle/EaglePedia/index.php/Module_Requirements_Document_Comments\n\nBob, The form allows for your responses there as well.\n\nThanks & 73,\nJim\[email protected]\n\n\n-------- Original Message --------\nSubject: \tRe: [Fwd: [Eagle] SANFORD quicklook comments on Eagle Module \nMechanical Requirements]\nDate: \tWed, 10 Oct 2007 22:46:35 -0700\nFrom: \tDave hartzell <[email protected]>\nTo: \tJim Sanford <[email protected]>\nReferences: \t<[email protected]>\n\n\n\nJim,\n\nTake a look at this at let me know. its not a table, per se, but it is \nthe same format that we used for the 70cm RX test plan comments...\n\nhttp://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/eagle/EaglePedia/index.php/Module_Requirements_Document_Comments\n\nDave\n\n\n\nOn 10/8/07, *Jim Sanford* < [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> \nwrote:\n\n Dave:\n I'd like to create a page like the U-RX page for this stuff. \n Couldn't figure out how to create a noew page; can you? I'd like it\n to be reachable both from Requirements and from Mechanical categories.\n\n On that page, I'd like a link to a table where people can EASILY\n enter their comments, and then Bob can EASILY enter his resolution\n thereof.\n\n Can you do this for us? I tried & failed.\n\n (Dick Jansson also sent comments that I'd like to get included)\n\n Thanks & 73,\n jim\n [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>\n\n\n -------- Original Message --------\n Subject: \t[Eagle] SANFORD quicklook comments on Eagle Module\n Mechanical Requirements\n Date: \tMon, 08 Oct 2007 23:00:01 -0400\n From: \tJim Sanford <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>\n To: \tRobert Davis <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>\n CC: \tBob McGwier <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>, \"John B.\n Stephensen\" <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>, Juan\n Rivera <[email protected]>\n <mailto:[email protected]>, Dick Jansson-rr\n <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>, Jim Sanford\n <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>\n References:\n <[email protected]>\n <mailto:[email protected]>\n <[email protected]>\n <mailto:[email protected]>\n\n\n\n All:\n Comments from my first quick look:\n 1. There are many references cited herein. It may be useful to\n collect these in a single section titled \"References\" to which you\n can than refer.\n 2. 6.5: cites machining requirements using MKS units. A year or\n two ago, there was an intense discussion about this on the Eagle\n list, with many complaining that CNC machines want inches and feet. \n At that time, a proposal was made that DESIGNERS be responsible for\n specifying both MKS and inches/feet, so that any machinist could\n fabricate. Request consider making this a requirement.\n 3. 6.6: Can we include a link to the reference?\n 4. 6.10: I don't understand what this is demanding, particularly\n the interior chip piece of it. While the need to prevent chips\n inside is obvious, it would appear that there is more to this story\n than is obvious. Please explain to me, and consider elaborating the\n requirement.\n 5. 6.11: Requests \"consideration\" of certain factors. This is\n vague and unenforceable. Please explicitly state requirements which\n must be met and \"features\" which are desireable.\n 6. 7.4: Uses the word \"generic\" but generic WHAT? It appears that\n a word or words are missing.\n 7. 7.5 et seq: What does \"TBC\" mean??\n 8. 7.7: If possible, please include a link to the references. \n This is valuable information which many should read, and might, if\n they can get to it easily. You've obviously done a lot of homework,\n please share.\n 9. 7.8: Please elaborate on what is intended by requiring \"access\"\n for assembly. It is not clear to me what I must do if I am building\n one of these things.\n 10. 7.9: This looks good, but I have one question: Is this\n requirement consistent with what Juan Rivera found as a requirement\n for board stiffness with SMD devices? If so, please state the\n reason/reference. IF there's a discrepancy, let's get it resolved\n and publish a common requirement.\n 11. 7.10: What is \"arbitrary stiffness\"????\n 12. 7.12 and 7.13: Should we consider flexibility at one end? \n Rationale: Boilers and steam generators which are exposed to\n temperatures ranging from 70F to 950F are rigidly mounted at one\n end, and have \"sliding feet\" at the other, which allows for thermal\n expansion. In our application, should we consider rigidly mounting\n one end of the PCB and allowing the other to move a bit, to prevent\n stress buildup which will manifest itself as a bending moment on the\n PCB, breaking SMD components? I'm open to better ideas, but based\n on what Juan has reported regarding stresses and bending of boards,\n this seems like a reasonable idea, given the temperature ranges our\n boards and enclosures might see.\n 13. 8.4: Please define the \"standard bolting pattern.\"\n 14. 9.1: Please devine \"TML\" and \"CVCM\".\n 15. 9.2, 9.3: Please provide links to the references.\n 16. 9.5: This requirement is ambiguous. Please elaborate on what\n is meant by \"solutions.\" I see the examples, but still don't\n understand what I must do if I'm a provider.\n 17. 9.7 & 9.9: Please define \"MS\" and \"FS\".\n 18. 9.10: Please define \"GEVS\" and \"ASD\".\n 19. Figure 3: Please define \"G2/Hz\". Hz is understandable, but\n what is \"G2\", and what is the significance of normalizing it to Hz?\n 20. 10.4: This appears excessively restrictive. What is magic\n about the dimensions provided? Is this assuming a 1, 2, or 4-layer\n board? Is this assuming a particular dielectric? what happens if a\n microwave circuit requires an exotic dielectric and a thinner\n material to control impedances and losses. Please provide a\n rationale for being so restrictive, or provide guidelines to allow\n variation in materials and thickness based on board functions.\n 21. 10.7: Please explain the rationale for not allowing components\n on the side opposite the connector face. (Prohibiting mounting on\n the lid is fairly obvious, the back wall is not.)\n 22. 10.8: Please explain the reason for the 12.55 mm requirement.\n 23. 10.10: This appears to indicate rigid mounting of connectors\n at one end of the module and also to the board. What will we do to\n eliminate stress to components and the board\n from temperature change?\n\n Bob, this is very good work, and the above is merely questions.\n\n Tomorrow night, I'll attempt to create in EaglePedia a page for this\n and a table like for the UHF RX where comments, commentor, and\n resolution can all be consolidated in one location. \n\n Thank you for all your hard work.\n\n 73,\n Jim\n [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>\n\n\n Robert Davis wrote:\n\n> I'm specifically hoping for comments from this group.\n> Thanks,\n> bob\n>\n> ---------- Forwarded message ----------\n> From: *Robert Davis* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>\n> Date: Oct 8, 2007 3:16 PM\n> Subject: New doc: Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements\n> To: AMSAT Eagle <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>\n>\n> \n> All,\n> I've posted an initial draft of requirements for Eagle module\n> mechanical design. Looking for comments. Be gentle since it's my\n> frist crack at it and there's TBDs.\n> \n> http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/eI\n> dontagle/EaglePedia/uploads/6/6f/Eagle_Module_Mechanical_Requirements_Oct_8_07.pdf\n> <http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/eagle/EaglePedia/uploads/6/6f/Eagle_Module_Mechanical_Requirements_Oct_8_07.pdf>\n> \n> Thanks,\n> bob\n> Robert Davis\n> KF4KSS\n\n\n\n\n-- \n\"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist \nin delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.\" - Carl Sagan.\n\n\n", "attachments": [ { "email": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/7C4X66KCYTGHYII4Z2DKZXFCSS7ZBII5/", "counter": 2, "name": "attachment.html", "content_type": "text/html", "encoding": "iso-8859-1", "size": 12666, "download": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/7C4X66KCYTGHYII4Z2DKZXFCSS7ZBII5/attachment/2/attachment.html" } ] }