Jaguar 0.7-alpha release candidate discussion

[DeuceEFI]

Sorry for the long delay from my work on the Jaguar 0.6-alpha...

I have attached the .pdf files for you to help me review the changes to the Jaguar 0.7-alpha PCB design.

The TODO list shows the changes that have been made from the 0.6-alpha to the 0.7-alpha design:
https://github.com/DeuceEFI/Jaguar/blob/dev/TODO.md

I know the git hash shows as XXXXXXXX in these files, this indicates that this design is still under development.
Once we get through the first round of review I will update the git hash on the schematic and the PCB design.

These files along with a couple .png images of the proposed PCB can also be found in my github repository at:
https://github.com/DeuceEFI/Jaguar/tree/dev/docs

Thank you for your assistance

[DeuceEFI]

The git hash of the changes referenced in the first post: e1b44c7ddb49081a9c94160d5d65e2dcbfbda4d0

Note: make sure you are looking at the "dev" branch to view the 0.7-alpha proposed changes and not the "master" branch which shows the 0.6-alpha PCB design.

[Fred]

Great work, Andy! :-)

FYI: I've reviewed these myself and am currently happy with them, but I'm tired and short on time and familiarity breeds contempt. So more eyes is going to benefit anyone buying/using one of these in future! Get stuck in! :-)

Fred.

[TonyS]

Hi Andy,

1) What was the reason for this change -
•Changed output LED protection diodes from 1N4148 package to 1N4004 (or other 1N400x) package.

My only minor concern is that the 1N4148 is a fairly fast recovery diode while the 1N400x series are "slower" and typically used for general 50-60Hz AC recification purposes.

2) What advantage is there to using the rather unique VNS3NV04D dual-lowside driver as opposed to single output protected devices (other than pcb area)?
I only ask because there were some other posts were individuals had some difficulties obtaining "unique" components.

Thank you for being so dedicated to this effort and the exceptional quality of your work!

TonyS

[DeuceEFI]

TonyS,

Thanks for taking the time to look over my design changes, I really appreciate the feedback.

1) What was the reason for this change -
•Changed output LED protection diodes from 1N4148 package to 1N4004 (or other 1N400x) package.

My only minor concern is that the 1N4148 is a fairly fast recovery diode while the 1N400x series are "slower" and typically used for general 50-60Hz AC recification purposes.

1) Some builders have had the 1N4148 component fail mechanically due to the small leads on the glass bodied switching diode and they requested the larger rectifier diode package for the option of installing them rather than the smaller glass bodied package.

2) What advantage is there to using the rather unique VNS3NV04D dual-lowside driver as opposed to single output protected devices (other than pcb area)?

2) I used the VNS3NV04D SO-8 dual low side MOSFET in the place of the SOT223 to make room for the option of having an SO-8 single high side MOSFET (for GM/Mazda factory fuel pump relay circuits) along with 4 low side MOSFETs. My goal is to keep similar parts of the same footprint, so like the injector MOSFETs are all DPAK packages, all the relay MOSFETs are SO-8 packages.

I only ask because there were some other posts were individuals had some difficulties obtaining "unique" components.

One of the difficulties that I and other people ran into was trying to use the DigiKey part numbers in my BOM while DigiKey and ST Microelectronics were changing over from old stock without the lead-free certification to the now standard lead-free (Pb Free) certified products. I initially ran into this issue with the VND7NV04 and the VNS3NV04D while working on another project only to find out a few weeks later that the ST Microelectronics part numbers had changed to designate the difference in their products going lead-free this in turn caused Digikey to change their part numbers resulting in the frustration with the parts availability. Now that ST Microelectronics has gone to the lead-free product we should be OK for the future to use these parts.

Cheers,

[johntramp]

Hi Andy,

Good work on what you have put together. I haven't much add, it all looks pretty good.

Changed Port P silkscreen text on back (through hole component) side from Port P0-3 to Port P3-0 since that matches the physical order of the pins. - DONE 11/28/2013

Looks to me like this is still backwards on one side:


I feel some of the connection points' annular rings may be lacking a bit of meat. Eg, the HSD pin is 0.4826mm thick, whereas all the other components are about 0.6mm. However, I don't know what a good width is for a mechanical connection.

Cheers

[johntramp]

Here's an odd trace.

[DeuceEFI]

Good work on what you have put together. I haven't much add, it all looks pretty good.

Thanks, it is really starting to come together

Changed Port P silkscreen text on back (through hole component) side from Port P0-3 to Port P3-0 since that matches the physical order of the pins. - DONE 11/28/2013

Looks to me like this is still backwards on one side:

This got reverted when I re-ran the netlist tool after changing the LSDs and adding the HSD. I fixed this once more as of git: 9d7273cc95167fc70eb4992572cb7a9a92eaddc1

I feel some of the connection points' annular rings may be lacking a bit of meat. Eg, the HSD pin is 0.4826mm thick, whereas all the other components are about 0.6mm. However, I don't know what a good width is for a mechanical connection.

I think I follow what you and Fred were talking about on IRC regarding the drill hole versus solder pad size. Making the solder pads larger would require more heat to get the solder to flow nicely which could cause problems with the insulation melting on the wire.

I have also fixed the odd traces on the bottom of the PCB and on the top of the PCB near the via for PK4 as of git: 3c4915e1ecc29ce2a5e1e0148ba53dc8370af1d1

[Fred]

[Rickster]

Lookin' good guys!

Small beans:
I noticed that the ft232 schematic had notes regarding JP3 and JP4. I did not see those noted anywhere on that schematic? Only on the injector schematic...

Perhaps a brief note explaining what R55 is/can be used for?

Excellent work!

I WILL be building one of these in the near future.

Rick