Eagle (INACTIVE) October 2007

16 participants
17 discussions

by Dick Jansson-rr

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:[email protected]> kd1k(a)amsat.org <mailto:[email protected]> kd1k(a)arrl.net

14 years, 8 months

125x180 Module Assembly

by Dick Jansson-rr

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:[email protected]> kd1k(a)amsat.org <mailto:[email protected]> kd1k(a)arrl.net

14 years, 8 months

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Eagle] SANFORD quicklook comments on Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements]]

by Jim Sanford

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:[email protected]>> 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:[email protected]> -------- 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:[email protected]> To: Robert Davis <bob2leo(a)gmail.com> <mailto:[email protected]> CC: Bob McGwier <n4hy(a)amsat.org> <mailto:[email protected]>, "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(a)comcast.net> <mailto:[email protected]>, Juan Rivera <juan-rivera(a)sbcglobal.net> <mailto:[email protected]>, Dick Jansson-rr <rjansson(a)cfl.rr.com> <mailto:[email protected]>, Jim Sanford <wb4gcs(a)amsat.org> <mailto:[email protected]> References: <23536a8a0710081216r52673a0dye7945e5d4e79327e(a)mail.gmail.com> <mailto:[email protected]> <23536a8a0710081218q5dfd914n2ee77d5f9c924fb1(a)mail.gmail.com> <mailto:[email protected]> 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:[email protected]> Robert Davis wrote: > I'm specifically hoping for comments from this group. > Thanks, > bob > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Robert Davis* <bob2leo(a)gmail.com <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Oct 8, 2007 3:16 PM > Subject: New doc: Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements > To: AMSAT Eagle <Eagle(a)amsat.org <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > 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.

14 years, 8 months

Internet issue

by Robert McGwier

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

14 years, 8 months

progress

by Jim Sanford

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

14 years, 8 months

Module Requirements

by Dick Jansson-rr

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:[email protected]> kd1k(a)amsat.org <mailto:[email protected]> kd1k(a)arrl.net

14 years, 8 months

New doc: Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements

by Robert Davis

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

14 years, 8 months

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Eagle (INACTIVE) October 2007