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_Requirement...
Bob, The form allows for your responses there as well.
Thanks & 73, Jim [email protected]
-------- 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 [email protected] To: Jim Sanford [email protected] References: [email protected]
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_Requirement...
Dave
On 10/8/07, *Jim Sanford* < [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] mailto:[email protected] To: Robert Davis [email protected] mailto:[email protected] CC: Bob McGwier [email protected] mailto:[email protected], "John B. Stephensen" [email protected] mailto:[email protected], Juan Rivera [email protected] mailto:[email protected], Dick Jansson-rr [email protected] mailto:[email protected], Jim Sanford [email protected] mailto:[email protected] References: [email protected] mailto:[email protected] [email protected] 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 [email protected] mailto:[email protected]
Robert Davis wrote:
I'm specifically hoping for comments from this group. Thanks, bob ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Robert Davis* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Oct 8, 2007 3:16 PM Subject: New doc: Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements To: AMSAT Eagle <[email protected] <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_Mechanical_Requirements_Oct_8_07.pdf> Thanks, bob Robert Davis KF4KSS