[eagle] Re: Still Even Another Revision

[Jim Sanford]

All:
At some point, after the free-form discussion is converging to hard 
comments, I'd like to seem them posted on EaglePedia, for formal, public 
response.   Thanks to Dave Hartzell, the comments page is:  
http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/eagle/EaglePedia/index.php/Module_Requirements_Document_Comments

Thanks & 73,
Jim
wb4gcs at amsat.org


Dick Jansson-rr wrote:
>
> Chuck:
>
>  
>
> Will 4.4mm suffice for your clearance in the center at the connector 
> plate?
>
>  
>
> Rick's suggestions don't make very much sense as there is just not all 
> that much clearance space, inside of the spacecraft, to remove a 180mm 
> PCB assembly. when it is assembled with all of the (even simplified) 
> cabling and connectors. I am with Juan in this matter as these PCB 
> assemblies need to be handled with the greatest of care, considering 
> all of the very small and "tender" components and their junctions. 
> Such removal must be done on a properly equipped bench environment.
>
>  
>
> Dick Jansson, KD1K
>
> kd1k at amsat.org <mailto:kd1k at amsat.org>
>
> kd1k at arrl.net <mailto:kd1k at arrl.net>
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Green [mailto:greencl at mindspring.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October, 2007 20.51
> To: Dick Jansson-rr
> Cc: Bob Davis; AMSAT Eagle
> Subject: Re: [eagle] Still Even Another Revision
>
>  
>
> Hi Dick,
>
>  
>
> Given this design (no access without removing the module), I like it 
> better and better. I still have one *big* concern and that's the 
> center mounting screw for the front plate. The intrusion of the base 
> plate into the PCB area to accommodate this screw bothers me a lot. 
> You point out that it does not touch the PCB but it definitely 
> precludes a connector at this location which I see as a severe 
> limitation on the connector area of the front plate. I just measured a 
> right angle flight Sub-D connector and its pins protrude through the 
> bottom of the PCB almost 1.5mm. I also measured a right angle SMA 
> connector and its pins protrude through the bottom of the PCB almost 
> 2.5mm. I hope you can do something about this. I fear that the 
> connector plate area usefulness may have actually been degraded from 
> the original design.
>
>  
>
> Can you give us a view that shows the inside of the base plate 
> directly behind the front plate?
>
>  
>
> I'm looking forward to a dimensioned drawing. I suspect I'll have more 
> comments then.
>
>  
>
> Rick's suggestion of a base plate that includes the sides, back, and 
> (I would add) possibly the front gives us something like the modules 
> for AO-51. It probably would be stiffer, although I suspect the base 
> you have just designed is stiff enough (although you might be able to 
> make the base plate lighter if the sides/back/front were integral). I 
> doubt there is any advantage to being able to insert the PCB from the 
> front due to clearances within the satellite but you can evaluate that 
> better than I. It would give module builders the opportunity to secure 
> heat producing parts such as TO-220's directly to the walls (I did 
> this quite a bit for P3D modules I built). I know that these can be 
> tricky to machine due to the flexing of the walls if they get too 
> thin. My $0.02 worth.
>
>  
>
> Chuck
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
> Eagle at amsat.org
> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://amsat.org/mailman/private/eagle/attachments/20071018/5ac960b8/attachment.html