greeeg

Members
  • Content count

    559
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

greeeg last won the day on March 20

greeeg had the most liked content!

About greeeg

  • Rank
    Level 3

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://gregdavill.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Australia
  • Interests
    Electronics
  1. This project was put on hold over the holidays. It's always a busy time, plus the club doesn't hold meets over summer. But I have just completed another 10 units. More of the same, but thought you guys might enjoy some more photos. I couldn't get the same batteries as the last batch, which were 650mAh, these have much smaller 220mAh. But this still provides about 4 hours of run time. The uBlox GPS modules are a huge improvement. Even without the SAW filter in the RF path and the sub-optimal PCB size compared to the antenna. These find more GPS satellites faster than the G.top modules, plus they also use glonass which doubles the visible satellites.
  2. I would say that for a typical application the cost COULD pay itself off VERY quickly with time saved debugging. Of course it does depend on what you do. Often hobbyist/small commercial projects that's not so true. I personally have a OpenBench Logic Sniffer. (Which is compatible with Sigrok) I've really only used it a handful of times, The best example from my use case was reverse engineering an old B/W LCD module that I wanted to use in my project. But typically I'm much more productive with a Scope. (But of course limited to 4 channels.)
  3. You should try some larger needle tips. My pickup tool is a small DC motor pump + PVC tubing and Luer-loc syringes, I've found switching to larger diameter tip enables me to pickup larger parts TSSOP and 32 pin TQFP.
  4. I personally Haven't used it on my router, but I've installed it and looked around, FlatCam might be a good choice, Takes PCB gerbers directly (Can use any EDA tool) And it generates isolation tracks around your copper in G-code. Cross platform too! http://flatcam.org/
  5. For typical 3d milling I've had great success with Fusion 360 (free for hobbyists and small <$100K/yr startups) (windows only) for creating G-code. You'll then need to feed that G-code into Mach-3 to actually run your machine. I doubt having the part submerged in water is a good idea. (also tub doesn't look big enough) From my understanding coolant's main purpose it to extract heat as-well as remove chips from the cutting area. A submersed part will not aid with the chip evacuation. Lastly I believe that the spindle will require water cooling, but that is a completely separate cooling loop from the part coolant. This is purely to cool the spindle motor itself.
  6. It's weird that they do that, given that I believe it all comes from digikey's warehouse. I just got a new (to me) air filter (a purex fumecube 2). and I bought a Hakko Fume extractor nozzle to pair with it. Hakko obviously wasn't designed for the Purex and didn't fit....so I had an excuse to 3d print an adapter + cap. Already love it, it's great being able to look right over your work and not have to worry about flux smoke. The Hakko arm moves around easily but stays pretty rigid as you can see. I'm sure future me will be grateful in avoiding smoke damage to my lungs.
  7. I have used sample programs in the past as a Hobbyist back in high school. I don't believe that it was strictly against their T&C back then. But given the growth of electronics over the past 5 years I can see a samples program getting out of hand. Pretty sure all the big companies require .com corporate emails. Personally I don't understand samples. Surely the couple of dollars worth of chips is almost a drip compared to the NRE costs of a typical commercial project?
  8. @@yyrkoon Double sided alignment - I believe that you can use some form of holes and pins to re-align the PCB. This may have gotten better, but I never had a good workflow. Your CNC probably needs a nice fixture plate to make this reliable. Plated Through holes - Fair, enough. (This is a show stopper for me) Small SMT parts - I haven't seen a milled PCB that went below 0.65mm pitch TTSOPs. You should be fine for SMT passives. Commercial solutions - I was talking about a commercial PCB prototype plotter. My only experience was with this (http://www.lpkf.com/products/rapid-pcb-prototyping/circuit-board-plotter/protomat-s63.htm) (From memory, roughly a $20K machine.) Prototype being different from final design increases the total time spent designing, and if you're using high speed signals (USB, LVDS, 50 Ohm transmission lines) Really depend on the design and board geometry. I feel like I'm in the same boat as @Fred, And my opinion is biased against cheap in-house prototyping. Personally fabricating PCBs is not fun for me, designing / assembling and testing are the parts I find fun. So I'm more than happy to pay for someone else to do it reliably and work on another aspect of the project while I wait. I really like the results from @terjeio's laser plotter, I think that's a much better solution than milling.
  9. My personal opinion is not worth it. Based on the following points Double sided boards are not easy No plated through holes Most of my designs are fully SMD (0603 or smaller) often with QFNs or TTSOPs DIY setups require ALOT of time to tune/setup Commercial solutions are VERY expensive (paying for the time to develop a reliable machine) Minimum space is size of cutting bit (typically >0.4mm) No soldermask Prototyped designs are significantly different to Fabbed designs This might seem like I'm complaining about things that don't matter. But if you compare a milled PCB and a professionally fabbed PCB from a batch Chinese service, they're worlds apart. I've played with Toner transfer, photosensitive ink transfer, and milled PCBs. Out of all photo-sensitive was the best most repeatable, but my lab space is not setup for making PCBs. It just takes me too long to setup and pack down all the equipment. Photo-sensitive has the advantage that the same process repeated will give you a solder mask. We have a LPRF ProMat S63 at uni, it's an amazing machine. But the upfront cost and cost for PCB blanks and operating costs (broken bits mostly) don't make it an attractive offer. I would much rather timeline a 5 day wait for PCBs from china into my projects. Just my thoughts, If your prototypes are primarily single side, with larger components. Or if you use alot of through hole parts. It should be a good fit.
  10. P1_7, P1_6, P2_4, P2_3 are all connected to LEDs as your schematic shows. If you are using pull-downs on these pins you will probably have a small current flowing through these LEDs. Likely not enough to light them, but larger than the power drawn by the MSP430.
  11. Isn't this still producing the wrong result?? After negating , if you add you'll get an overflow.... (~BIT0) + (~BIT5) == (~0x01) + (~0x20) == (0xFE) + (0xDF) == (0x1DD) If you insist on negating within brackets then you should be using AND operations to receive the required result, not ADD. (~BIT0) & (~BIT5) == (~0x01) & (~0x20) == (0xFE) & (0xDF) == (0xDE)
  12. Achieving ultra-low power can sometimes take a bit of work. It might be helpful to see a circuit diagram. If you have a pull-down resistor with a logic HIGH applied you will have power loss through that resistor (for example your serial lines?) Are there any other parts fitted on your custom PCB? Just having the debugger connected adds additional power loss, even when the MSP is in LPM4.
  13. @@veryalive Yes. Take a look a little further down. The single user license can be installed on up to two PCs.
  14. I'm curious about this snippet of code. Your use of brackets is confusing to me. Particularly these 3 lines. To me this feels like it will be performing function A. Which results in an overflow. Is this your intent? A. (~BIT0 + BIT5) == (~0x01 + 0x20) == (0xFE + 0x20) == (0x11E) == 0x1E <- After it's put into a 8bit register B. ~(BIT0 + BIT5) == ~(0x01 + 0x20) == ~(0x21) == 0xDE Doesn't look related to your issue. But still looks like a bug.
  15. Polyurethane parts have come up nicely. Main advantages of this method of rapid prototyping Part cost is low these use about $0.05 of polyurethane resin. Parts can easily be coloured using dyes. (as demonstrated) Very little time needed for each cast (about 5 minutes) 1-2 Hour cure time 1-1 replica to original part. Of course you need to invest the time and money to make the silicone molds to begin with. So for a single part 3d printing is often the preferred approach. The parts are a perfect fit over the button and LEDs.