Re: [psas-avionics] Strong opinion on 0603 vs 0402 for LGR, and future boards?
Nice, thanks for the link Chris- Do you know what frequency they specify their AC Dielectric curves at? I haven't spotted it on the data sheet yet... On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Chris Andrews wrote: > Murata has all of their passive component data on their website: > http://ds.murata.co.jp/software/simsurfing/en-us/index.html > > This includes: > > S parameter files (which show self resonant frequency) > Capacitance derating as a function of voltage (for capacitors) > > I've found this to be a great resource. > > -Chris > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Doug Ausmus wrote: > >> I didn't see anyone bring this up, and I'm not sure which dielectrics and >> types are being used, and at risk of stating what is likely trivially >> obvious to the electronics designers in this august group , but when >> using MLCC and going to smaller size capacitors (X5R and X7R, others) don't >> forget to re-check the dielectric voltage-dependence curves. For your chip >> film caps, this is far less an issue. >> >> Here is some info and references, just in case some of your >> non-electronics designers want to check it out: >> >> Although this article is testing with higher valued caps, here's a nice >> graph showing how the smaller chip sizes increase this effect over larger >> sizes: >> http://www.edn.com/design/analog/4402049/2/Temperature-and- >> voltage-variation-of-ceramic-capacitors--or-why-your-4-7-- >> F-capacitor-becomes-a-0-33--F-capacitor >> (Figure 1 and Table 2) >> (From the following original article:) >> https://www.maximintegrated.com/en/app-notes/index.mvp/id/5527 >> >> Most everyone is aware of the DC bias dielectric effects, but note that >> AC waveforms have some dielectric effects as well, but exert their effects >> in the opposite direction, to a point and are, of course, frequency >> dependent (I am not sure if these AC dielectric effects are also >> size-dependent or not, but it would be logical they might be): >> http://catalogs.avx.com/SurfaceMount.pdf >> (PDF page 128, [doc page #127]... Figures 2, 3) >> >> :-) >> Doug >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Andrew Greenberg >> wrote: >> >>> > Are there any places where we need to be concerned about wattage? >>> >>> Yep! There are two cases that we won't switch packages: one where >>> wattage is a problem (so far, no cases of this on the LGR board) and one >>> where the capacitance value is too high for an 0402 (anything greater >>> than about 1 uF). In these (and other cases I'm sure I missed) we'll >>> leave the larger packages. Other than that, the "jelly bean" parts can >>> be switched to 0402. >>> >>> OK, everyone seems to agree it's a "go", so now OreSat's default package >>> size is now 0402. I think this makes sense. >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> -- >>> --- >>> Andrew Greenberg >>> >>> Electrical and Computer Engineering >>> Portland State University >>> http://www.ece.pdx.edu/ >>> a...@ece.pdx.edu C: 503.708.7711 >>> --- >>> >>> ___ >>> psas-avionics mailing list >>> psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu >>> http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics >>> >> >> >> ___ >> psas-avionics mailing list >> psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu >> http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics >> >> > ___ psas-avionics mailing list psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics
Re: [psas-avionics] Strong opinion on 0603 vs 0402 for LGR, and future boards?
Murata has all of their passive component data on their website: http://ds.murata.co.jp/software/simsurfing/en-us/index.html This includes: S parameter files (which show self resonant frequency) Capacitance derating as a function of voltage (for capacitors) I've found this to be a great resource. -Chris On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Doug Ausmus wrote: > I didn't see anyone bring this up, and I'm not sure which dielectrics and > types are being used, and at risk of stating what is likely trivially > obvious to the electronics designers in this august group , but when > using MLCC and going to smaller size capacitors (X5R and X7R, others) don't > forget to re-check the dielectric voltage-dependence curves. For your chip > film caps, this is far less an issue. > > Here is some info and references, just in case some of your > non-electronics designers want to check it out: > > Although this article is testing with higher valued caps, here's a nice > graph showing how the smaller chip sizes increase this effect over larger > sizes: > http://www.edn.com/design/analog/4402049/2/Temperature- > and-voltage-variation-of-ceramic-capacitors--or-why- > your-4-7--F-capacitor-becomes-a-0-33--F-capacitor > (Figure 1 and Table 2) > (From the following original article:) > https://www.maximintegrated.com/en/app-notes/index.mvp/id/5527 > > Most everyone is aware of the DC bias dielectric effects, but note that AC > waveforms have some dielectric effects as well, but exert their effects in > the opposite direction, to a point and are, of course, frequency dependent > (I am not sure if these AC dielectric effects are also size-dependent or > not, but it would be logical they might be): > http://catalogs.avx.com/SurfaceMount.pdf > (PDF page 128, [doc page #127]... Figures 2, 3) > > :-) > Doug > > > > On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Andrew Greenberg wrote: > >> > Are there any places where we need to be concerned about wattage? >> >> Yep! There are two cases that we won't switch packages: one where >> wattage is a problem (so far, no cases of this on the LGR board) and one >> where the capacitance value is too high for an 0402 (anything greater >> than about 1 uF). In these (and other cases I'm sure I missed) we'll >> leave the larger packages. Other than that, the "jelly bean" parts can >> be switched to 0402. >> >> OK, everyone seems to agree it's a "go", so now OreSat's default package >> size is now 0402. I think this makes sense. >> >> Andrew >> >> -- >> --- >> Andrew Greenberg >> >> Electrical and Computer Engineering >> Portland State University >> http://www.ece.pdx.edu/ >> a...@ece.pdx.edu C: 503.708.7711 >> --- >> >> ___ >> psas-avionics mailing list >> psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu >> http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics >> > > > ___ > psas-avionics mailing list > psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu > http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics > > ___ psas-avionics mailing list psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics
Re: [psas-avionics] Strong opinion on 0603 vs 0402 for LGR, and future boards?
I didn't see anyone bring this up, and I'm not sure which dielectrics and types are being used, and at risk of stating what is likely trivially obvious to the electronics designers in this august group , but when using MLCC and going to smaller size capacitors (X5R and X7R, others) don't forget to re-check the dielectric voltage-dependence curves. For your chip film caps, this is far less an issue. Here is some info and references, just in case some of your non-electronics designers want to check it out: Although this article is testing with higher valued caps, here's a nice graph showing how the smaller chip sizes increase this effect over larger sizes: http://www.edn.com/design/analog/4402049/2/Temperature-and-voltage-variation-of-ceramic-capacitors--or-why-your-4-7--F-capacitor-becomes-a-0-33--F-capacitor (Figure 1 and Table 2) (From the following original article:) https://www.maximintegrated.com/en/app-notes/index.mvp/id/5527 Most everyone is aware of the DC bias dielectric effects, but note that AC waveforms have some dielectric effects as well, but exert their effects in the opposite direction, to a point and are, of course, frequency dependent (I am not sure if these AC dielectric effects are also size-dependent or not, but it would be logical they might be): http://catalogs.avx.com/SurfaceMount.pdf (PDF page 128, [doc page #127]... Figures 2, 3) :-) Doug On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Andrew Greenberg wrote: > > Are there any places where we need to be concerned about wattage? > > Yep! There are two cases that we won't switch packages: one where > wattage is a problem (so far, no cases of this on the LGR board) and one > where the capacitance value is too high for an 0402 (anything greater > than about 1 uF). In these (and other cases I'm sure I missed) we'll > leave the larger packages. Other than that, the "jelly bean" parts can > be switched to 0402. > > OK, everyone seems to agree it's a "go", so now OreSat's default package > size is now 0402. I think this makes sense. > > Andrew > > -- > --- > Andrew Greenberg > > Electrical and Computer Engineering > Portland State University > http://www.ece.pdx.edu/ > a...@ece.pdx.edu C: 503.708.7711 > --- > > ___ > psas-avionics mailing list > psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu > http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics > ___ psas-avionics mailing list psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics
Re: [psas-avionics] Strong opinion on 0603 vs 0402 for LGR, and future boards?
> Are there any places where we need to be concerned about wattage? Yep! There are two cases that we won't switch packages: one where wattage is a problem (so far, no cases of this on the LGR board) and one where the capacitance value is too high for an 0402 (anything greater than about 1 uF). In these (and other cases I'm sure I missed) we'll leave the larger packages. Other than that, the "jelly bean" parts can be switched to 0402. OK, everyone seems to agree it's a "go", so now OreSat's default package size is now 0402. I think this makes sense. Andrew -- --- Andrew Greenberg Electrical and Computer Engineering Portland State University http://www.ece.pdx.edu/ a...@ece.pdx.edu C: 503.708.7711 --- ___ psas-avionics mailing list psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics
Re: [psas-avionics] Strong opinion on 0603 vs 0402 for LGR, and future boards?
>From the specifications seems that because of the smaller size soldering can become an issue. - Nikolay On Sunday, October 9, 2016, Ed Steinberg wrote: > Are there any places where we need to be concerned about wattage? > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 9, 2016, at 12:31 PM, K Wilson > wrote: > > Even with 0402 we can access the shunt resistors. In addition with 0402 > we also move closer to the single board LGR/system controller option. > > I don't see any reason not to go with 0402. > > - K > > On Oct 9, 2016 11:56 AM, "Andrew Greenberg" > wrote: > >> Hey everyone, >> >> Glenn added a reflectometer to the LGR, and in doing so, he introduced a >> bunch of 0402 components to an existing 0603 board. I've been itching to >> move to 0402 just because it gives so much more room for routing, and >> it's something I think we should move towards, especially for future >> boards. The SDR GPS boards, for example, already use mostly 0402. >> >> Any strong opinions? It'll take about 20 minutes to switch the whole >> board to 0402, I'm tempted. Any strong reasons not to, and make that our >> standard? >> >> Pros: >> - Way better passives packing for future boards >> - Vaguely better RF performance, maybe >> - Standardizes on a single size to have around >> >> Cons: >> - Harder to hand place, but definitely doable. >> >> Would love to hear thoughts! >> >> Andrew >> >> -- >> --- >> Andrew Greenberg >> >> Electrical and Computer Engineering >> Portland State University >> http://www.ece.pdx.edu/ >> a...@ece.pdx.edu C: >> 503.708.7711 >> --- >> >> ___ >> psas-avionics mailing list >> psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu >> >> http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics >> > ___ > psas-avionics mailing list > psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu > > http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics > > ___ psas-avionics mailing list psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics
Re: [psas-avionics] Strong opinion on 0603 vs 0402 for LGR, and future boards?
Are there any places where we need to be concerned about wattage? Ed Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 9, 2016, at 12:31 PM, K Wilson wrote: > > Even with 0402 we can access the shunt resistors. In addition with 0402 we > also move closer to the single board LGR/system controller option. > > I don't see any reason not to go with 0402. > > - K > > >> On Oct 9, 2016 11:56 AM, "Andrew Greenberg" wrote: >> Hey everyone, >> >> Glenn added a reflectometer to the LGR, and in doing so, he introduced a >> bunch of 0402 components to an existing 0603 board. I've been itching to >> move to 0402 just because it gives so much more room for routing, and >> it's something I think we should move towards, especially for future >> boards. The SDR GPS boards, for example, already use mostly 0402. >> >> Any strong opinions? It'll take about 20 minutes to switch the whole >> board to 0402, I'm tempted. Any strong reasons not to, and make that our >> standard? >> >> Pros: >> - Way better passives packing for future boards >> - Vaguely better RF performance, maybe >> - Standardizes on a single size to have around >> >> Cons: >> - Harder to hand place, but definitely doable. >> >> Would love to hear thoughts! >> >> Andrew >> >> -- >> --- >> Andrew Greenberg >> >> Electrical and Computer Engineering >> Portland State University >> http://www.ece.pdx.edu/ >> a...@ece.pdx.edu C: 503.708.7711 >> --- >> >> ___ >> psas-avionics mailing list >> psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu >> http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics > ___ > psas-avionics mailing list > psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu > http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics ___ psas-avionics mailing list psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics
Re: [psas-avionics] Strong opinion on 0603 vs 0402 for LGR, and future boards?
Even with 0402 we can access the shunt resistors. In addition with 0402 we also move closer to the single board LGR/system controller option. I don't see any reason not to go with 0402. - K On Oct 9, 2016 11:56 AM, "Andrew Greenberg" wrote: > Hey everyone, > > Glenn added a reflectometer to the LGR, and in doing so, he introduced a > bunch of 0402 components to an existing 0603 board. I've been itching to > move to 0402 just because it gives so much more room for routing, and > it's something I think we should move towards, especially for future > boards. The SDR GPS boards, for example, already use mostly 0402. > > Any strong opinions? It'll take about 20 minutes to switch the whole > board to 0402, I'm tempted. Any strong reasons not to, and make that our > standard? > > Pros: > - Way better passives packing for future boards > - Vaguely better RF performance, maybe > - Standardizes on a single size to have around > > Cons: > - Harder to hand place, but definitely doable. > > Would love to hear thoughts! > > Andrew > > -- > --- > Andrew Greenberg > > Electrical and Computer Engineering > Portland State University > http://www.ece.pdx.edu/ > a...@ece.pdx.edu C: 503.708.7711 > --- > > ___ > psas-avionics mailing list > psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu > http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics > ___ psas-avionics mailing list psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics
[psas-avionics] Strong opinion on 0603 vs 0402 for LGR, and future boards?
Hey everyone, Glenn added a reflectometer to the LGR, and in doing so, he introduced a bunch of 0402 components to an existing 0603 board. I've been itching to move to 0402 just because it gives so much more room for routing, and it's something I think we should move towards, especially for future boards. The SDR GPS boards, for example, already use mostly 0402. Any strong opinions? It'll take about 20 minutes to switch the whole board to 0402, I'm tempted. Any strong reasons not to, and make that our standard? Pros: - Way better passives packing for future boards - Vaguely better RF performance, maybe - Standardizes on a single size to have around Cons: - Harder to hand place, but definitely doable. Would love to hear thoughts! Andrew -- --- Andrew Greenberg Electrical and Computer Engineering Portland State University http://www.ece.pdx.edu/ a...@ece.pdx.edu C: 503.708.7711 --- ___ psas-avionics mailing list psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics
