MentalDragon Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 Subscribed... please put me in line for one of these as a tester or final product. Link to comment
The Propagator Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 Has anything came to fruition yet as far as a fully assembled prototype ? Link to comment
FishOnTheBrainCoral Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 this sounds way cool i will def be willing to be a beta tester for you all! ill keep an eye out on this! Link to comment
jm82792 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Well when the code and schematics become available I'd like to buy a PCB, the parts if included and start to tweak it. Link to comment
neanderthalman Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 The problem with SMD in this situation is you're looking at incredibly small pin spacing for the average hobbyistto assemble. Yea, I can do solderpaste and throw the unit into a reflow oven but very very few people have access to that type of equipment. If this were to be a manufacured design that would be mass produced, then I would've opted for SMD. Pick and place, reflow and even overall size would be significant cost reduction over through-hole design. The typical assembler of these units will be running with a cheap 10 dollar solder iron from Radio shack, the wrong solder (not eutectic 37/63 .031" diameter or less) from their kitchen table. They will be impatient and bridge around 40% of the connections. They will immediately want to power the unit up blowing it up, risking shock and fire. For those reasons, SMD design is not advised. Russ ( Yea, I'm the one doing the CAD work on the schemes and boards) Yea..... Did you bother reading my post before responding? I explained how to do it without reflow. Using a technique that anyone can use, with any electronic-appropriate solder, of any thickness. Bridging is not a problem - bridging is done intentionally, then fixed. You're talking about soldering like it's some kind of special, arcane skill that only you possess. It's not, and soldering SMD components is not outside the skill of anyone who would attempt this project in the first place. And LOL at "shock and fire" from a low-voltage SMD processor. Seriously, you really pulled out all the stops on this one. What the hell are you thinking? I'm glad I quoted your shame so it will be enshrined here forever. Link to comment
jm82792 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Well being a noob who has never soldered SMD, but go to spark fun and see. SMD doesn't seem that hard unless your trying the really difficult and small parts. Yea it takes time and a good iron but it looks like anyone can do it. Link to comment
mabviper Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Truth be told, neanderthalman, soldering smd will present more problems for the end user than through-hole. If a person's soldering experience is minimal, no matter how large the pitch might be, it's still more challenging than through-hole. Also, cone shaped tips, the ones you get from hobby, cheap irons, aren't really that smd friendly. Link to comment
hcsceo Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 Out of total curioisty,the stats "seem" almost the same on the arduino mega, the clock speed, memory everything but the number of pins. What am I missing, why is it better ? I know the code can easily be ported and I'm wondering, I'm not against the change by any means. The only reason over the chip used on the Mega is the DIP configuration. Although SMD is possible, DIP is preferred for the average person who is going to build this deal. If you haven't done much work with an iron DIP components make life easier. The biggest problem with mounting SMD processors is heat. Too much and you have a dead chip. By the time you find out you have a dead chip there is no easy way to replace it. With DIP you can use all the heat you want to mount the socket and the chip goes in later. It is also easy to replace if you get into an issue that the chip goes bad. I think we all can agree that SMD can be done but for the average Joe that hasn't built much with an iron I believe DIP is a better choice. Has anything came to fruition yet as far as a fully assembled prototype ? Yes I have two completed working prototypes. The programmer has one and I have the other. Both are completly hand wired and took about a week each to do. It has been functioning for over a month and is doing well. Firewolf4 is completing the PCB design and hopefully I'll have some samples done with the final PCB done on my CNC. Link to comment
hcsceo Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 And LOL at "shock and fire" from a low-voltage SMD processor. Seriously, you really pulled out all the stops on this one. What the hell are you thinking? I'm glad I quoted your shame so it will be enshrined here forever. You seem like a smart guy. When you are ready to spend a year of your life and your own money to develop something you are going to give away to a community you love then you'll have some respect from those of us doing the work. Yes SMD can be done by the average Joe but DIP can be done easier and more accurately by a person with less experience. You are welcome to take our design once complete and published and make a completely SMD version. I'd welcome it and would be happy to see the completed work. Steve Truth be told, neanderthalman, soldering smd will present more problems for the end user than through-hole. If a person's soldering experience is minimal, no matter how large the pitch might be, it's still more challenging than through-hole. Also, cone shaped tips, the ones you get from hobby, cheap irons, aren't really that smd friendly. +1 Link to comment
neanderthalman Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I fully agree that DIP is easier to solder. No real argument there. Only wanted to let you know that it was possible using common tools/supplies and how to do it, should you really need that SMD processor in the end. I may be interested in a kit myself, so I'll be tagging along. You seem like a smart guy. When you are ready to spend a year of your life and your own money to develop something you are going to give away to a community you love then you'll have some respect from those of us doing the work. I already did it pal. Spent years developing an easy and cheap DIY automatic water changer. Gave the final design out to NR last spring. You can drop the holier-than-thou attitude. I've been where you are now. Link to comment
jm82792 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I have to agree, I was soldering DIP stuff when i was 13. Well I'll be looking forward to when the code comes out and many other riddles I don't know of that I could implement into my little temperature controller and timer arduino project. Link to comment
Firewolf4 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Yes, I did read your reply. And yes this is a low voltage application but that does not prevent shock hazard and/or fire. Ever throw a wrench across a car battery? If you leave it, you have an explosion. So a car battery is way too powerful? Short out a 9V battery with thin wire ( like standard lead thickness) Burn hazard, fire hazard. What will this device be controlling? Low voltage components? I think not. Standard 120V typical 15-20A circuits Many users won't have these on CGFI circuits and with line voltage being present, Yes, there is even the potential of death. I personally have no use for your seething distain and sanctimonium. I dont care if you laid out the IBM 4004 on a breadboard. The AVERAGE builder of this does not have that high of a level of competancy. Yea..... Did you bother reading my post before responding? And LOL at "shock and fire" from a low-voltage SMD processor. Seriously, you really pulled out all the stops on this one. What the hell are you thinking? I'm glad I quoted your shame so it will be enshrined here forever. Link to comment
neanderthalman Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 ...and I don't care for your holier-than-thou elitism and dismissive attitude. Car batteries explode from a combination of hydrogen production and extremely high short circuit current potential. It's a very different case than a tiny lead getting burned off an SMD component. A pin of that size will be vaporized before it becomes a genuine hazard. There's a reason that low-power, low-voltage circuits are exempt from the code - they simply do not have the reasonable potential for hazard. Pointing out a ridiculous situation that could create a hazard only points out the ridiculousness of the point you're making. If you have to try in order to make it dangerous - then it isn't really dangerous, now is it? That, and you're implying that you'd have 120v on SMD pins, which is wholly incorrect. You'd be controlling all of your 120V via relays, optocouplers, or triacs, effectively isolating it from the SMD component. They'd all still be DIP. You've been spouting bullshiat since you first replied, and I'm sorry, but I'm calling you out on it. These are the facts, none of your inflated ego and nonsense. Had you replied with "yeah, it can be done - but I think we're better off with the DIP to make it easier", you would have been both correct, and polite. Instead, you came out with the most dismissive, insulting, and egotistical response you could have possibly come up with. Biatching about reflow and specific thicknesses of eutectic solder? WTF dude. I think you're doing great work with this controller - but NR doesn't need the attitude - alright? Link to comment
mabviper Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Sigh, the only holier-than-thou elitism and dismissive attitude I see certainly doesn't come from either one of the developers. At the worst case scenario, soldering smd (voltage regulators, MCUs various ICs, etc) can potentially short VDD and GND with a resistance of say 0.5ohms. At 3.3V, you're already looking at 6.6A and 10A at 5V. Now, let's say your wall adapter can't handle the current load, it can blow and potentially create a fire hazard. Seriously, these guys are doing a good thing. Let's try to leave all personal things outside the thread. I, for one, can't wait to have access to the hardware and try my hand at open-source software develepment ^^. Link to comment
neanderthalman Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Ugh - do you ever wonder why a lot of us don't help out as much anymore? It's this exact sort of thing. I offered a bit of information that they clearly didn't have. How to solder SMD components at home. Safely. The response? I got spit in the face for my trouble, and this Firewolf character came out with the attitude that he was the only person in the world who knew a damn thing about electricity. There were many ways to handle it, but he was downright rude, and I'm calling him out on it. In the case you've creatively fabricated mabviper, you'll vaporize the little 0.5ohm bridge long before you overheat the power supply. You've also completely ignored the internal resistance of the power supply in your calculation. As I've already said: Pointing out a ridiculous situation that could create a hazard only points out the ridiculousness of the point you're making. If you have to try in order to make it dangerous - then it isn't really dangerous, now is it? This is why circuits powered from a class II transformer, less than 30V and 100VA, are not covered by electrical codes in most jurisdictions - they have insufficient capacity to present a danger to the public. This is precisely the situation on the processor (it has no 120V on it, FYI). Link to comment
hcsceo Posted September 29, 2009 Author Share Posted September 29, 2009 I don't really want to get into arguments over design details of the project. This is why I choose to leave the entire project closed until it was complete, as it would just go faster. I believe Neanderthalman is correct on his original post that SMD is possible by the home user and he also understands the reason we choose through hole specifically for this project. In a traditional sense he is also correct that 120v should not come into contact with the controller via the relays because of the isolation with the octocouplers. However, what I believe Firewolf was trying to explain is the potential for firehazard and shock via high voltage and high amps through the tank. Because many people choose not to use GFCI or grounding on their power systems for aquariums the potential for firehazard or shock via a short in a High voltage device in the tank is not only possible but has happened. A broken glass heater, a cut line on a powerhead, potting that is compromised in pumps exposing the leads, or even a light falling into the tank all have the potential to complete a circuit to the controller via the probes in the tank creating a shock or firehazard to the end user via the controller exposing all pins on the processor to 120v. This is one reason pool and fountain controllers are subjected to ETL or UL testing. The same dangers posed to swimmers or users of fountains are identical to the users of aquarium related products. Sadly simple devices required of swimming pools to ensure safety, like GFCI and proper grounding, are not required of aquariums. I'm not saying ETL or UL listing is required for aquarium products (as we know many are not) but it is important to plan for the safety of all using the product well in advance. There currently is a plan in place to submitt this product for ETL certification, which to my knowledge should be one of the first controller products to do this. If I have been "holier-than-thou" you have my apology, it is important that all constructive dialog is explored so creative juices continue to flow and everyone is happy with the end product and safety is first on our minds. Steve Link to comment
ls7corvete Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Let them argue. Its your design, do what you like. We are all impressed by your work. Link to comment
Firewolf4 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I have to agree with Steve, it's not that I'm calling all home builders of this incompetent. On the contrary, I believe many could put 9001 and 9006 soldering standards to shame. But as knowing manufacturing for end users and PCB design therein, I have to look at it from the point of safety first, simplicity second. I've interviewed enough technicians over the years to never believe that everyone can solder. So I believe this could be made with SMD's, definitely. Do I expect to hear of multiple problems due to SMD? I think that goes without saying. So for now, lets get the unit functioning with through hole and then we can start looking at an SMD version. I really don't feel I have to comment in regards to the "holier - than- thou" attitude aside from saying I have my own personal reasons leading my decisions. Link to comment
M@rine_lover Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Can't wait to see the end product lol ! Any update ? Link to comment
hcsceo Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 No updates right now. Firewolf is working on the final PCB layout and I'm getting the CNC tweaked to mill the boards. I do have some artwork for the logo design. Let me know what you think. Link to comment
NeveSSL Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Ha! I love it! Especially being a diver. Brandon Link to comment
davidr2340 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 That's an awesome logo bro... I LIKE IT!!! Link to comment
1337TANKHAX Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Hah I dig the logo. It's good to see that this project is beginning to come full circle finally! Link to comment
theatrus Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Looking forward to seeing this in action. I had my own abortive attempt at this project awhile ago which I never did get around to finishing: http://www.opencoral.com/ And hello everyone, new member on Nano-Reef. My 90gallon of course does not qualify as a nano Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.