Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/EB6EBWX2LOEJU4OB2EHTCFAL2U6QDIX3/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "EB6EBWX2LOEJU4OB2EHTCFAL2U6QDIX3",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/V3XGVLPO7AOWXPOYXWFT3YAB5IVPEZH4/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "juan-rivera (a) sbcglobal.net",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "Juan Rivera",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: 125x180 Module Assembly",
    "date": "2007-10-16T20:23:15Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/V3XGVLPO7AOWXPOYXWFT3YAB5IVPEZH4/",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Guys,\n\nI assume the PCB mounts are the same swaged PEM hardware as in the prototype\nI have.  Is that correct?  In my prototype all of those standoffs are loose\nand can be rotated with light finger pressure.  This is not good.  Also, I'm\nwondering what the manufacturer's tolerance is on length.  It would be a\nshame to have a nice flat baseplate and then add errors to the PCB flatness\ndue to tolerance differences in the standoffs.\n\nI'd also suggest cap head screws for attaching the PCB to the chassis\ninstead of Phillips.  My screwdriver has jumped out of the head and landed\non the PCB several times.  If that happened to a flight board we'd have no\nchoice but to replace every component that could have possibly been damaged\nby the screwdriver as a precaution.  I think cap head screws would make for\na safer attachment since an Alan wrench is much less likely to jump out of\nthe head during installation or removal.\n\n73,\n\nJuan - WA6HTP\n\n\nOn 10/16/07, Dick Jansson-rr <[email protected]> wrote:\n>\n>  Bob:\n>\n>\n>\n> Attached are three pdf views of the proposed revised Eagle module, and\n> open view, fully closed view, and a view w/o the PCB. It has been a lengthy\n> day getting all of the darned 0.5mm cover bends correct and holes properly\n> placed for full mating of the cover with the baseplate (such things as\n> 0.581mm hole placement discrepancies – ugh!). If built from the drawings\n> that can be made from these objects, there should be a good fit in the real\n> hardware.\n>\n>\n>\n> I do not presume as to what the \"real\" next step wants to be, as I do not\n> propose to make the 2D drawings until the discussions have settled down to\n> agree that this is what we collectively like, or at least collectively\n> accept. Please advise.\n>\n>\n>\n> '73,\n>\n> Dick Jansson, KD1K\n>\n> [email protected]\n>\n> [email protected]\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\n> [email protected]\n> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n>\n>\n>\n\n\n",
    "attachments": [
        {
            "email": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/EB6EBWX2LOEJU4OB2EHTCFAL2U6QDIX3/",
            "counter": 2,
            "name": "attachment.html",
            "content_type": "text/html",
            "encoding": "windows-1252",
            "size": 3570,
            "download": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/EB6EBWX2LOEJU4OB2EHTCFAL2U6QDIX3/attachment/2/attachment.html"
        }
    ]
}