I assume the PCB mounts are the same swaged PEM hardware as in the prototype I have. Is that correct? In my prototype all of those standoffs are loose and can be rotated with light finger pressure. This is not good. Also, I'm wondering what the manufacturer's tolerance is on length. It would be a shame to have a nice flat baseplate and then add errors to the PCB flatness due to tolerance differences in the standoffs.

I'd also suggest cap head screws for attaching the PCB to the chassis instead of Phillips. My screwdriver has jumped out of the head and landed on the PCB several times. If that happened to a flight board we'd have no choice but to replace every component that could have possibly been damaged by the screwdriver as a precaution. I think cap head screws would make for a safer attachment since an Alan wrench is much less likely to jump out of the head during installation or removal.

On 10/16/07, Dick Jansson-rr <rjansson@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

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

kd1k@amsat.org

kd1k@arrl.net

_______________________________________________
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
Eagle@amsat.org
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle