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 don’t 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,