Email Detail
Show an email
GET /hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/FKXSLFBTARMCWU7NON5Y3L7DIRRQ5VJC/
{ "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/FKXSLFBTARMCWU7NON5Y3L7DIRRQ5VJC/", "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/", "message_id": "[email protected]", "message_id_hash": "FKXSLFBTARMCWU7NON5Y3L7DIRRQ5VJC", "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/W6EUI2APL5V77Y6YHVN7WS6UQLVSJYWY/", "sender": { "address": "juan-rivera (a) sbcglobal.net", "mailman_id": null, "emails": null }, "sender_name": "Juan Rivera", "subject": "[eagle] Re: Updated Module", "date": "2007-10-18T14:58:50Z", "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/WN7PFXC3TCEUB6EI3D5UOUCF2X5OCOCC/", "children": [], "votes": { "likes": 0, "dislikes": 0, "status": "neutral" }, "content": "All,\n\nI've seen comments suggesting the need to get into the modules at the last\nminute and probe the bottom of the PCBs. To me that suggests extremely\nserious problems with any process that would require such drastic last\nminute troubleshooting. In my humble opinion the old ways of doing things\nare long gone and didn't work with AO-40, resulting in two spectacular\nfailures - both preventable.\n\nPresent and future projects need to be carried out in a much more\nstructured way. I've attempted to do that with the Eagle receiver\nconstruction and testing but even my best efforts are woefully inadequate\nfor Eagle and unthinkable for a geostationary payload with a design life of\n15 years.\n\nOne very small example of what I'm talking about is that you should never\nprobe a surface mount component or a via with a test probe. You can cause\nlatent defects which will lead to premature failures. Test points need to\nbe designed into the PCB from the beginning. All it takes is one person\ndoing a seemingly harmess act to cause critical damage to a payload that\nmight represent a multi-million dollar effort and many man years of work.\n\nI hope I can get some of my concerns across at the Symposium. I'm looking\nforward to seeing you all...\n\n73, Juan - WA6HTP\n\n\nOn 10/18/07, Rick Hambly (W2GPS) <[email protected]> wrote:\n>\n> Dick,\n>\n>\n>\n> The current design has too much unnecessary hardware and access to the\n> inside of the modules is unnecessarily restrictive. Why not have a full\n> depth machined chassis with a screw-on top and front plate? That would\n> eliminate the PEM standoffs and lots of hardware plus it would allow top\n> only access to PCBs. Tolerances for board mounting could be more closely\n> managed as could overall chassis stiffness. It would also allow for maximum\n> flexibility in the use of front panel space. Boards could be inserted from\n> the top or front as desired. We could choose to use front loading slots for\n> the PCB with fewer screw-in machined standoffs to maximize usable board\n> area.\n>\n>\n>\n> Rick\n>\n> W2GPS\n>\n> AMSAT LM2232\n>\n>\n> ------------------------------\n>\n> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On\n> Behalf Of *Dick Jansson-rr\n> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 17, 2007 7:29 PM\n> *To:* 'Chuck Green'\n> *Cc:* 'AMSAT Eagle'\n> *Subject:* [eagle] Re: Updated Module\n>\n>\n>\n> Chuck:\n>\n>\n>\n> Indeed the machined baseplate width is just 141mm and the cavity is 126mm\n> wide. I would NOT recommend any PCB to be that full width, that it be no\n> wider than 140mm, so theoretically you could have a PCB that is 140x180mm.\n> Perhaps that can be another iteration. (I did not deal with the PCB at all\n> in this round.) Not tonight honey, I've slugged at this beast for six hours\n> today, enough already!\n>\n>\n>\n> Dick Jansson, KD1K\n>\n> [email protected]\n>\n> [email protected]\n>\n>\n>\n> -----Original Message-----\n> From: Chuck Green [mailto:[email protected]]\n> Sent: Wednesday, 17 October, 2007 21.46\n> To: Dick Jansson-rr\n> Cc: Bob Davis; AMSAT Eagle\n> Subject: Re: [eagle] Updated Module\n>\n>\n>\n> Hi Dick,\n>\n>\n>\n> This is a good step forward.\n>\n>\n>\n> I had in mind making the PCB wider so that it extends over the entire\n>\n> length of the base plate on each side. It seems to me that you could\n>\n> then make the PCB mounting points less intrusive into the cavity below\n>\n> the PCB. It looks like I still have that option even if you don't\n>\n> change the mounting points (true?). And I think that would also better\n>\n> support the PCB and allow for more thermal contact between the PCB and\n>\n> the base.\n>\n>\n>\n> I see that you have more mounting points per linear distance for the\n>\n> cover than for the PCB. Is this based on vibration modeling?\n>\n> >\n>\n> > Also note that the depth of the cavity below the posts is 6.35mm, save\n>\n> > for in the very center where there is an attachment for the connector\n>\n> > plate that is located 0.75mm below the PCB for a space in the center\n>\n> > that is 10mm wide by 6mm deep from the connector plate. I was loathe\n>\n> > to locate such a piece here but felt the need for a third attachment\n>\n> > for the connector plate.\n>\n> >\n>\n> Please reconsider this. It will cause considerable restriction on where\n>\n> connectors can be located that are also soldered to the PCB. Connector\n>\n> space/flexibility is a *major* issue.\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> Chuck\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", "attachments": [ { "email": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/FKXSLFBTARMCWU7NON5Y3L7DIRRQ5VJC/", "counter": 2, "name": "attachment.html", "content_type": "text/html", "encoding": "iso-8859-1", "size": 10558, "download": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/FKXSLFBTARMCWU7NON5Y3L7DIRRQ5VJC/attachment/2/attachment.html" } ] }