[eagle] [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Eagle] SANFORD quicklook comments on Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements]]

Jim Sanford wb4gcs at amsat.org
Thu Oct 11 06:08:49 PDT 2007

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:

Bob, The form allows for your responses there as well.

Thanks & 73,
wb4gcs at amsat.org

-------- 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 <hartzell at gmail.com>
To: 	Jim Sanford <wb4gcs at amsat.org>
References: 	<470AF037.6020008 at amsat.org>


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...



On 10/8/07, *Jim Sanford* < wb4gcs at amsat.org <mailto:wb4gcs at amsat.org>> 

    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

    Can you do this for us?  I tried & failed.

    (Dick Jansson also sent comments that I'd like to get included)

    Thanks & 73,
    wb4gcs at amsat.org <mailto:wb4gcs at amsat.org>

    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: 	[Eagle] SANFORD quicklook comments on Eagle Module
    Mechanical Requirements
    Date: 	Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:00:01 -0400
    From: 	Jim Sanford <wb4gcs at amsat.org> <mailto:wb4gcs at amsat.org>
    To: 	Robert Davis <bob2leo at gmail.com> <mailto:bob2leo at gmail.com>
    CC: 	Bob McGwier <n4hy at amsat.org> <mailto:n4hy at amsat.org>, "John B.
    Stephensen" <kd6ozh at comcast.net> <mailto:kd6ozh at comcast.net>, Juan
    Rivera <juan-rivera at sbcglobal.net>
    <mailto:juan-rivera at sbcglobal.net>, Dick Jansson-rr
    <rjansson at cfl.rr.com> <mailto:rjansson at cfl.rr.com>, Jim Sanford
    <wb4gcs at amsat.org> <mailto:wb4gcs at amsat.org>
    <23536a8a0710081216r52673a0dye7945e5d4e79327e at mail.gmail.com>
    <mailto:23536a8a0710081216r52673a0dye7945e5d4e79327e at mail.gmail.com>
    <23536a8a0710081218q5dfd914n2ee77d5f9c924fb1 at mail.gmail.com>
    <mailto:23536a8a0710081218q5dfd914n2ee77d5f9c924fb1 at mail.gmail.com>

    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
    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.

    wb4gcs at amsat.org <mailto:wb4gcs at amsat.org>

    Robert Davis wrote:

>     I'm specifically hoping for comments from this group.
>     Thanks,
>     bob
>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>     From: *Robert Davis* <bob2leo at gmail.com <mailto:bob2leo at gmail.com>>
>     Date: Oct 8, 2007 3:16 PM
>     Subject: New doc: Eagle Module Mechanical Requirements
>     To: AMSAT Eagle <Eagle at amsat.org <mailto:Eagle at amsat.org>>
>     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

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist 
in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://amsat.org/mailman/private/eagle/attachments/20071011/6edfa5fc/attachment.html

More information about the Eagle mailing list