October 2007 - Eagle (INACTIVE)

Engineering titles
by Robert McGwier 30 Oct '07

30 Oct '07

I was not aware, though I should have been, that Rick enacted an org chart through the BOD before I "returned from the dead". Anyone I have been calling AVP Eng. (Bob Davis, Jim Sanford, and Lou McFadin) are now engineering directors. I like it better myself now that I think about it more carefully. I just wanted to be prickly and argue about it for the sake of arguing since it is different from what was done before I went into the cold! Bob -- AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair “An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?” Descartes

1 0

Some need changes
by Robert McGwier 30 Oct '07

30 Oct '07

Eagle team members: Bob Davis, Jim Sanford, and I met in Pittsburgh as the engineering executive team and we made some changes. Bob and Jim are Asst. VP Engineering and continue to remain in those offices until such time as they do not wish to hold them or another AMSAT opportunity interests them. The office of project manager does not exist as of the annual meeting. I do NOT want this read the wrong way. There are some delicate negotiations that are about to take place with multiple entities. For all sorts of reasons, none of them having a single solitary thing to do with ego, performance, etc. require the person speaking on behalf of the project, for its budget, and direction must reside in the VPE. As of the annual meeting and the budget passed by the AMSAT BOD, the only projects receiving funds in 2008 are RF payloads, antennas, SDX, ACP, and the Eagle structure. The Eagle structure is going forward because it serves multiple purposes. No funds will be expended on any of those systems that are unique to Phase 3 satellite systems since our goal, to put RF payloads on Intelsat, does not need solar panels, attitude sensors, attitude control mechanisms, etc. We are going to need to hold some meetings soon. I will call for them shortly. As much as some of you disliked either the tone or approach of functional requirements and specifications, we are without choices now. We are going to have to talk to and work with some fairly serious engineering firms or offices about getting payloads built that will last for 15 years. We cannot do less than this and expect anyone to give us the millions of dollars this program is going to take. That said, I believe we can raise this money. Expect more to follow shortly. Bob -- AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair “An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?” Descartes

1 0

Interfacing to CAN-Do Widgets - Updated User's Guide
by Stephen Moraco 29 Oct '07

29 Oct '07

Hi all, I've updated our CAN-Do project web-site with new content See: http://can-do.moraco.info/ Various top-level pages which you navigate to using the links along left column have "<- New" marks in yellow to denote the updates. Of particular interest is the new material found linked from our reference page. Designing a Module or Payload which uses a CAN-Do widget? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You will want to make sure you have reviewed the updated Widget User's guide I've posted for review (linked from the reference page.) See the revision history in the guide for what's new. If you would like to see corrections made, or additional material added please let me know. Regards, Stephen, KZ0Q -- kz0q(a)amsat.org (formerly kc0ftq)

2 1

Phased Array Concepts
by Tom Clark, K3IO 26 Oct '07

26 Oct '07

I have (finally!) put the finishing touches on my magnum opus describing my ideas on phased arrays and shipped it off to be included in the Pittsburgh symposium proceedings. If you want to see it, it is available for viewing at http://mysite.verizon.net/w3iwi/electronic_scanning_antennas.pdf. This version has some figures in color, but the proceedings is in B&W (this format is available if you need it). This took me a lot longer than I anticipated. I had a couple of fairly major Gates-induced computer failures, some of which still plague me (like I'm using my notebook for all Email). I advise against the use of Office 2007. I am hoping that this week I will have time to test Dan's hardware so I can have some results to report by Pittsburgh. Matt -- this has the numbers I was trying to remember last weekend. For all -- your comments and critiques are solicited. 73, Tom

5 8

Symposium presentations
by Jim Sanford 25 Oct '07

25 Oct '07

All: I have the display computer which will be used to show presentations during symposium. If you can, please get them to me early. I can accommodate a "stick", CD, or DVD. I'll be in the BOD meeting and "around"today and tomorrow. I can be reached at my cell, 757 869 7892. 73, Jim wb4gcs(a)amsat.org

1 0

More Information
by Dick Jansson-rr 23 Oct '07

23 Oct '07

John: This will be my concluding note on this subject prior to the Symposium. I have tuned the analyses done yesterday and that data follows. For a single 1.4mil ground plane with a single IC located 52mm from the Baseplate edge, a 1.0W dissipation results in a temperature rise of 38.2°C For a double 1.4mil ground plane with a single IC located 28mm from the Baseplate edge, a 1.0W dissipation results in a temperature rise of 21.1°C. For a double 1.4mil ground plane with TWO ICs, spaced 40mm and both located 28mm from the Baseplate edge, a 1.0W dissipation in each IC results in temperature rises of 26.1°C (one at 26.0 and the other at 26.2). Total dissipation here is 2.0W. In other words, doubling the ICs, with this spacing, only added ~24% to the temperature rise. This shows you how this module design handles the kind of power situations that you have in the URx. See you in Pittsburgh? 73, Dick Jansson, KD1K <mailto:kd1k@amsat.org> kd1k(a)amsat.org <mailto:kd1k@arrl.net> kd1k(a)arrl.net

2 1

New Data
by Dick Jansson-rr 21 Oct '07

21 Oct '07

John: I have just completed some analytic evaluation of the clamping of the PCB generously to the side edge of the Baseplate, as in the revised design shown to you on the E05 60 Module, its new designation. The model consists of a 80x80mm PCB, with 72x80mm freely hanging away from the Baseplate. One model uses only a single 1.4mil copper ground plane layer and has the IC mounted 52mm from the clamped PCB to the Baseplate. The second model uses a dual 1.4mil copper ground plane and has the IC mounted 20mm from the clamped PCB to the Baseplate. I ran a series of four power levels in the IC, 0.25W, 0.50W, 0.75W, and 1.00W. The IC temperatures are fairly linear with power for each case. In the first case with the IC mounted pretty far away, 1.00W of power caused a temperature rise of 38.4°C above a 20°C Baseplate and enclosure. For the more closely mounted IC, the temperature rise for the 1.00W case is 28.6°C above the 20°C of the Baseplate. You can detect that the temperature rise does not seem to be very linear with the distance from the Baseplate. As this data is still quite new for me, I do not have an explanation for this effect. I did, however, want to make you aware of the data so that you can start to plan to see what you can do in the URx redesign. I plan to do some variations on these two cases to try to understand the processes more completely. I do, however, have to wrap up this data process so that I can complete my presentation in Pittsburgh. I hope that this information will be of use to you. 73, Dick Jansson, KD1K <mailto:kd1k@amsat.org> kd1k(a)amsat.org <mailto:kd1k@arrl.net> kd1k(a)arrl.net

1 0

Review
by Dick Jansson-rr 19 Oct '07

19 Oct '07

Bob: Attached is drawing E05 64, 140x180 PCB. This is being sent out for your review, prior to being posted on Eaglepedia. This PCB gives more working area with fewer interruptions to the working area (just essentially two posts). Please look at this and forward any corrective comments. '73, Dick Jansson, KD1K <mailto:kd1k@amsat.org> kd1k(a)amsat.org <mailto:kd1k@arrl.net> kd1k(a)arrl.net

2 4

Revised Module Suggestion
by Dick Jansson-rr 19 Oct '07

19 Oct '07

Bob: Shown in this message is a picture of the revised module design that you and I have been working on in the last few days. The revised cover has not yet been done but its features are implicated in this current view. The machined base plate has robust beams around three sides. Further, there are stiffening beams machined on the bottom side of the baseplate. The side to side dimension of the baseplate is shown at 141mm, reduced from its previous 147mm. This step was needed to accommodate the cover screw heads now on the side of the module. Shown also is a revised connector plate, which is increased in width from the previous 122mm to the 141mm of the baseplate. This should ease the connector space issue a little as the cover PEM nuts have accordingly been moved out leaving a 125mm wide clear space for connector activity, an increase from 106mm. The PCB is unchanged, however its standoff posts are now 6.4mm (1/4 inch) from the previous 4.8mm (3/16 inch), a step needed for connector plate screws. The cover will slide over the assembly shown and it will have only one flange, along the rear side. The long sides will use screws placed into the edges of the assembly (formerly a flanged side). This means that there will not be mechanical loading on the baseplate caused by irregular flange bends, as in the present cover design. Regarding this design of module, the PCB access has been fully maintained, but the cover cannot be removed while the module is installed into the spacecraft, a feature that had been planned with the current design. Discussion is invited. Dick Jansson, KD1K <mailto:kd1k@amsat.org> kd1k(a)amsat.org <mailto:kd1k@arrl.net> kd1k(a)arrl.net 125x180 Module Assembly.jpg

10 19

Still Even Another Revision
by Dick Jansson-rr 19 Oct '07

19 Oct '07

Bob: Owing to the "popularity" of these discussion, I have done further revisions of the E05 20 Module. It is now officially termed a "140x180" module as the PCB has grown to that size. The size increase has allowed an increase in PCB working area to a clear 126x173.6mm, 6.35mm deep, save for three protrusions - two support posts and the third at the front to accommodate the third connector plate screw (this later post is not in contact with the PCB as explained earlier). The three attached PDF files show the module with its cover attached, cover removed and PCB and cover removed. I shall shortly be able to issue a drawing of this revised PCB. The cover has further been simplified as the rear mounting flange has been removed and replaced by side-inserted screws, as is for the cover's sides. Chuck has properly noted that such a mounting of the PCB will enhance the thermal characteristics of the PCB. I plan to combine an earlier PCB thermal analysis and this new PCB configuration and expect to be able to identify the power handling capability of this PCB without the use of any added heat sinks. The enhancement should certainly be available along three sides of the PCB. That data should be available for the Symposium. Dick Jansson, KD1K <mailto:kd1k@amsat.org> kd1k(a)amsat.org <mailto:kd1k@arrl.net> kd1k(a)arrl.net

4 5

Updated Module
by Dick Jansson-rr 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

Bob: In response so some of Chuck's, Juan's and other's suggestion, I have updated the 125x180 module to incorporate integrally machined support posts and revised the cover attachment to the connector plate. While making this change permanently attaches the posts to the baseplate, it also means that there is no flexibility in omitting any posts. For Chuck's information the nomenclature of the module is the PCB size, as it has been for seven years. There may possibly be PCBs that would be 75mm larger, totaling to be a 200x180mm PCB, but I certainly would not expect anything larger than that. Also note that the depth of the cavity below the posts is 6.35mm, save for in the very center where there is an attachment for the connector plate that is located 0.75mm below the PCB for a space in the center that is 10mm wide by 6mm deep from the connector plate. I was loathe to locate such a piece here but felt the need for a third attachment for the connector plate. For Juan, the use of socket heat cap screws is not out of the question, I just did not replace them in this assembly at this time. For John, I will have to create a revised footprint of the baseplate interface to the bottom of the PCB, which obviously is not quite as limited as just some 0.250inch cylindrical posts. I kept the basic pad of that same general size, but the machining aspects of things get in the way of keeping it quite to the same exact area of spots. Bob Davis and I discussed extensively the issue of being able to remove the cover while the module is mounted in the spacecraft. To achieve a relief in the issue of the cover dictating the shape of the baseplate, instead of the converse, this feature had to be sacrificed. I well remember the discussions of earlier this century, but the issues that Juan raised seemed to overpower the need to remove the cover while still in the spacecraft. To accommodate the side-mounted screws the sides of the module were "pulled in" by 3mm on each side, with the finished module now being 141mm plus 2x0.5mm for the cover (=142mm) and plus screw heads, instead of the former 147mm overall. (Now don't get bent all out of shape on that fuzzy math. No comments thereof will be accepted.) The module mounting pitch is 150mm leaving 8mm between adjacent modules for two sets of screw heads. One type of module will, however, have to retain its removable cover feature, however, and that for the power modules as the heat sink screws must be accessed in order to mount the module into the spacecraft. What this design is to look like has not been redetermined at this point. Dick Jansson, KD1K <mailto:kd1k@amsat.org> kd1k(a)amsat.org <mailto:kd1k@arrl.net> kd1k(a)arrl.net

4 5

125x180 Module Assembly
by Dick Jansson-rr 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

Bob: Attached are three pdf views of the proposed revised Eagle module, and open view, fully closed view, and a view w/o the PCB. It has been a lengthy day getting all of the darned 0.5mm cover bends correct and holes properly placed for full mating of the cover with the baseplate (such things as 0.581mm hole placement discrepancies - ugh!). If built from the drawings that can be made from these objects, there should be a good fit in the real hardware. I do not presume as to what the "real" next step wants to be, as I do not propose to make the 2D drawings until the discussions have settled down to agree that this is what we collectively like, or at least collectively accept. Please advise. '73, Dick Jansson, KD1K <mailto:kd1k@amsat.org> kd1k(a)amsat.org <mailto:kd1k@arrl.net> kd1k(a)arrl.net

4 5

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Eagle] SANFORD quicklook comments on Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements]]
by Jim Sanford 14 Oct '07

14 Oct '07

All: Thanks to the efforts of Dave Hartzell, we have a page on EaglePedia for the entry and response to peer review comments on the new module design. Please post your comments at: http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/eagle/EaglePedia/index.php/Module_Requiremen… Bob, The form allows for your responses there as well. Thanks & 73, Jim wb4gcs(a)amsat.org -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Eagle] SANFORD quicklook comments on Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements] Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:46:35 -0700 From: Dave hartzell <hartzell(a)gmail.com> To: Jim Sanford <wb4gcs(a)amsat.org> References: <470AF037.6020008(a)amsat.org> Jim, Take a look at this at let me know. its not a table, per se, but it is the same format that we used for the 70cm RX test plan comments... http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/eagle/EaglePedia/index.php/Module_Requiremen… Dave On 10/8/07, *Jim Sanford* < wb4gcs(a)amsat.org <mailto:wb4gcs@amsat.org>> wrote: Dave: I'd like to create a page like the U-RX page for this stuff. Couldn't figure out how to create a noew page; can you? I'd like it to be reachable both from Requirements and from Mechanical categories. On that page, I'd like a link to a table where people can EASILY enter their comments, and then Bob can EASILY enter his resolution thereof. Can you do this for us? I tried & failed. (Dick Jansson also sent comments that I'd like to get included) Thanks & 73, jim wb4gcs(a)amsat.org <mailto:wb4gcs@amsat.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Eagle] SANFORD quicklook comments on Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:00:01 -0400 From: Jim Sanford <wb4gcs(a)amsat.org> <mailto:wb4gcs@amsat.org> To: Robert Davis <bob2leo(a)gmail.com> <mailto:bob2leo@gmail.com> CC: Bob McGwier <n4hy(a)amsat.org> <mailto:n4hy@amsat.org>, "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(a)comcast.net> <mailto:kd6ozh@comcast.net>, Juan Rivera <juan-rivera(a)sbcglobal.net> <mailto:juan-rivera@sbcglobal.net>, Dick Jansson-rr <rjansson(a)cfl.rr.com> <mailto:rjansson@cfl.rr.com>, Jim Sanford <wb4gcs(a)amsat.org> <mailto:wb4gcs@amsat.org> References: <23536a8a0710081216r52673a0dye7945e5d4e79327e(a)mail.gmail.com> <mailto:23536a8a0710081216r52673a0dye7945e5d4e79327e@mail.gmail.com> <23536a8a0710081218q5dfd914n2ee77d5f9c924fb1(a)mail.gmail.com> <mailto:23536a8a0710081218q5dfd914n2ee77d5f9c924fb1@mail.gmail.com> All: Comments from my first quick look: 1. There are many references cited herein. It may be useful to collect these in a single section titled "References" to which you can than refer. 2. 6.5: cites machining requirements using MKS units. A year or two ago, there was an intense discussion about this on the Eagle list, with many complaining that CNC machines want inches and feet. At that time, a proposal was made that DESIGNERS be responsible for specifying both MKS and inches/feet, so that any machinist could fabricate. Request consider making this a requirement. 3. 6.6: Can we include a link to the reference? 4. 6.10: I don't understand what this is demanding, particularly the interior chip piece of it. While the need to prevent chips inside is obvious, it would appear that there is more to this story than is obvious. Please explain to me, and consider elaborating the requirement. 5. 6.11: Requests "consideration" of certain factors. This is vague and unenforceable. Please explicitly state requirements which must be met and "features" which are desireable. 6. 7.4: Uses the word "generic" but generic WHAT? It appears that a word or words are missing. 7. 7.5 et seq: What does "TBC" mean?? 8. 7.7: If possible, please include a link to the references. This is valuable information which many should read, and might, if they can get to it easily. You've obviously done a lot of homework, please share. 9. 7.8: Please elaborate on what is intended by requiring "access" for assembly. It is not clear to me what I must do if I am building one of these things. 10. 7.9: This looks good, but I have one question: Is this requirement consistent with what Juan Rivera found as a requirement for board stiffness with SMD devices? If so, please state the reason/reference. IF there's a discrepancy, let's get it resolved and publish a common requirement. 11. 7.10: What is "arbitrary stiffness"???? 12. 7.12 and 7.13: Should we consider flexibility at one end? Rationale: Boilers and steam generators which are exposed to temperatures ranging from 70F to 950F are rigidly mounted at one end, and have "sliding feet" at the other, which allows for thermal expansion. In our application, should we consider rigidly mounting one end of the PCB and allowing the other to move a bit, to prevent stress buildup which will manifest itself as a bending moment on the PCB, breaking SMD components? I'm open to better ideas, but based on what Juan has reported regarding stresses and bending of boards, this seems like a reasonable idea, given the temperature ranges our boards and enclosures might see. 13. 8.4: Please define the "standard bolting pattern." 14. 9.1: Please devine "TML" and "CVCM". 15. 9.2, 9.3: Please provide links to the references. 16. 9.5: This requirement is ambiguous. Please elaborate on what is meant by "solutions." I see the examples, but still don't understand what I must do if I'm a provider. 17. 9.7 & 9.9: Please define "MS" and "FS". 18. 9.10: Please define "GEVS" and "ASD". 19. Figure 3: Please define "G2/Hz". Hz is understandable, but what is "G2", and what is the significance of normalizing it to Hz? 20. 10.4: This appears excessively restrictive. What is magic about the dimensions provided? Is this assuming a 1, 2, or 4-layer board? Is this assuming a particular dielectric? what happens if a microwave circuit requires an exotic dielectric and a thinner material to control impedances and losses. Please provide a rationale for being so restrictive, or provide guidelines to allow variation in materials and thickness based on board functions. 21. 10.7: Please explain the rationale for not allowing components on the side opposite the connector face. (Prohibiting mounting on the lid is fairly obvious, the back wall is not.) 22. 10.8: Please explain the reason for the 12.55 mm requirement. 23. 10.10: This appears to indicate rigid mounting of connectors at one end of the module and also to the board. What will we do to eliminate stress to components and the board from temperature change? Bob, this is very good work, and the above is merely questions. Tomorrow night, I'll attempt to create in EaglePedia a page for this and a table like for the UHF RX where comments, commentor, and resolution can all be consolidated in one location. Thank you for all your hard work. 73, Jim wb4gcs(a)amsat.org <mailto:wb4gcs@amsat.org> Robert Davis wrote: > I'm specifically hoping for comments from this group. > Thanks, > bob > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Robert Davis* <bob2leo(a)gmail.com <mailto:bob2leo@gmail.com>> > Date: Oct 8, 2007 3:16 PM > Subject: New doc: Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements > To: AMSAT Eagle <Eagle(a)amsat.org <mailto:Eagle@amsat.org>> > > > All, > I've posted an initial draft of requirements for Eagle module > mechanical design. Looking for comments. Be gentle since it's my > frist crack at it and there's TBDs. > > http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/eI > dontagle/EaglePedia/uploads/6/6f/Eagle_Module_Mechanical_Requirements_Oct_8_07.pdf > <http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/eagle/EaglePedia/uploads/6/6f/Eagle_Module_M…> > > Thanks, > bob > Robert Davis > KF4KSS -- "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan.

2 1

Internet issue
by Robert McGwier 09 Oct '07

09 Oct '07

Today is the day Verizon comes and I get trapped into their monopoly (FIOS). I have given up on getting Comcast to fix things or reduce their prices. With Verizon I have 3 digital boxes, faster internet, more channels of nothing on, and it all costs me $45 a month LESS than comcast. After they get the majority of us trapped in their monopoly, I am expecting the prices to rise but $45 is a ways to go. It will ultimately result in Comcast dropping their price. Anyway, enough soap box: Later today the internet switch over will occur. It may OR MAY NOT go smoothly. If it does, I will be on the teamspeak conference. If it does not go smoothly, I will not. I would suggest that we could use the Meet Me line (it is Tuesday) but when my cable goes out, so does my phone. That is the nature of a monopoly is it not? Bob -- AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair “An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?” Descartes

1 0

progress
by Jim Sanford 09 Oct '07

09 Oct '07

Team: I'm glad to see the recent work on mechanical design of hardware modules and the phased array concepts. Thanks, Bob, Tom, and to Matt for the pointer on a good linux simulation tool. I'll get it and play this weekend when I get back in tosn. Tomorrow night is TeamSpeak. I'd like to hear more about this work from Tom, Matt, & Bob. Last item on my agenda is status and preparations for demonstration at Symposium. Thanks & 73, Jim wb4gcs(a)amsat.org

1 0

Module Requirements
by Dick Jansson-rr 09 Oct '07

09 Oct '07

Bob: Here are my first comments regarding your Eagle Module Requirements document. These are first brush and I reserve the right to add to them. J 1) ¶6.8: I would suggest restricting the drawing sizes to A and B, as we did for AO-40, as it allows the use of easily available reproduction machinery, both in creation and replication, and in the standardization of the handling of the drawings. 2) ¶6.10: I would suggest that the term hardware elements (screws)... be used instead of ...hardware joints This more specific reference makes clear that requirement. 3) ¶7.4: You speak of generic, generic what is your reference? 4) ¶7.10: What is meant here? 5) ¶8.5: To accommodate a maximization of the spaceframe Izz, I found that I had to move the equipment panels outward as far as possible to be able to achieve this needed Izz. This step removed a lot of otherwise vacant space above the modules, thus restricting the over height of the modules, which would probably preclude the stacking of modules. Further, I dont feel that the AO-40 stacking experience was all that good. On the thermal arena and stacking, stacked modules do not radiate their heat very well and such stacking would be somewhat thermally restrictive. 6) ¶9.9: Good! 7) You have made no provision for the creation of a heat sink module that will be necessary for the really high power modules, defined hereby as greater than 5+ Watts for a 125x180 module. Also the inclusion of small heat sinks, as done for the recent URx work, does not seem to have a home in your document. I hope that these comments will help you and others. 73, Dick Jansson, KD1K <mailto:kd1k@amsat.org> kd1k(a)amsat.org <mailto:kd1k@arrl.net> kd1k(a)arrl.net

1 0

New doc: Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements
by Robert Davis 08 Oct '07

08 Oct '07

All, I've posted an initial draft of requirements for Eagle module mechanical design. Looking for comments. Be gentle since it's my frist crack at it and there's TBDs. http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/eagle/EaglePedia/uploads/6/6f/Eagle_Module_M… Thanks, bob Robert Davis KF4KSS

1 0