On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 10:51 -0800, rq1...@q7.com wrote:

> During check-out 'scope the gates during ignition. If there's
> oscillation or hash then a resistor in the 10-100 Ohm range should fix
> it. IMO don't go above ~2k, because at that point the switching
> transition will start to slow down.

I put 100 parts in the schematic/bom, so that's probably what I'll load
on the first boards.  Will definitely scope things out.

> If the battery polarity was successfully reversed, i'm as confident as i
> can get without trying it, that stuff will smoke.

Agreed.

> I don't put traces as close to the board edge as you have shown. Same
> for component U4. Typically there would be a design rule of perhaps
> 1.5mm between components/traces and the board outline. This can be
> handled at saw-out rather than in the gerbers.

I ended up pulling everything in at least 10 mils.  I realize many would
still consider that tight, but it meets the fab's DFM rules.  We'll see
how it goes.

> I'm not sure to what extent your RF layout follows TI, but for example,
> the hole between silkscreen indicators C23 and C24, what will surface
> tension do to those adjacent components? I'm not sure, but it doesn't
> look to me like they'll come out quite straight. But maybe i'm wrong.

I started with TI's layout but didn't stay entirely with it.  Andrew
also expressed concern about via - pad distances, I spent some time
pulling them all apart before sending the artwork out.  Again, we'll see
how things turn out.

> Typically manufacturers don't recommend full solder paste coverage of
> the exposed pad on parts bigger than ~3-4mm. They want to give the
> solder paste farts somewhere to dissipate. The CC1111 data sheet
> (SWRS033G p41) has a similar recommendation. I haven't seen the
> tic-tac-toe pattern shown in the datasheet before. Seems like it would
> work. All i typically do is reduce the paste coverage to ~60% and leave
> the mask alone, but i don't have any high-volume experience, maybe their
> way is more reliable?

It took me a couple hours, but I finally figured out how to bludgeon
gEDA's pcb tool into giving me a footprint that matches the TI
recommendation including the resist and paste masks.

> I don't like mechanical power switches for high reliability devices, nor
> for rechargeable batteries.

There's nothing to prevent you from soldering a jumper across the pins
to hard-wire the board 'on'.  If you're using the connector for the LiPo
as we plan, pulling the battery would become the choice for a hard
shut-down.  Keith's comment about hard switches is actually a NAR
requirement that the circuits to the e-matches be interruptable with a
safe/arm switch... there's no requirement that there be power switches.
I like having them, and am willing to pay for good switches and know how
to mount them to avoid thrust-related spurious issues.  [shrug]

At this point, we're waiting.  Parts order from Digi-Key and the stencil
are likely to get here first, raw boards not promised to ship until the
5th... hoping they're earlier than that, but we'll see.

Bdale


_______________________________________________
psas-avionics mailing list
psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu
http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics

Reply via email to