[eagle] Module Requirements
rjansson at cfl.rr.com
Mon Oct 8 16:34:31 PDT 2007
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
(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
I hope that these comments will help you and others.
Dick Jansson, KD1K
<mailto:kd1k at amsat.org> kd1k at amsat.org
<mailto:kd1k at arrl.net> kd1k at arrl.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Eagle