Bdale,
It would be a trade-off. I've put out all the information I have and everyone knows my opinions. I think someone else is supposed to be looking into this but I forgot who it is since nothing has been posted. I'd like to see some alternative suggestions from the experts on the CAN-Do, the enclosure, and the EMI situation in general.
By the way, do I have a prototype CAN-Do module or was the intent to fly this version with the dead-bug step-down converter hanging by three leads and a few wires?
Juan
-----Original Message----- From: Bdale Garbee [mailto:bdale@gag.com] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 2:41 PM To: juan-rivera@sbcglobal.net Cc: 'John B. Stephensen'; David Smith; Dave Black (Work); Dave Black (Home); eagle@amsat.org; Samsonoff@Mac. Com; Juan.Rivera (Work) Subject: Re: [eagle] Receiver Spec vs. ATP, a few Suggestions and aQuestion or Two
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 21:23 -0700, Juan Rivera wrote:
I have a few thoughts... The CAN-Do switching step-down converter is only supplying 11 milliamps. If we take a slight efficiency hit we could just go to a simple linear regulator and completely eliminate the radiated and conducted EMI emission problem from CAN-do. That eases the EMI filtering and shielding requirements for every single payload. That seems like a good trade-off to me.
Hrm. What makes you say "a slight efficiency hit"?
Doing this on one or two modules that are particularly susceptible to noise *may* make sense (and I'm certainly open to considering this as an alternative), but we're already on our second power supply design on the CAN-Do! because the original switcher, which was more efficient than a linear regulator, was deemed too inefficient to fly on P3E by our AMSAT-DL friends.
Bdale