On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Slichter, Daniel H. (Fed)
wrote:
> http://suddendocs.samtec.com/testreports/hsc-report-seam-seaf-07mm_web.pdf
>
> There is too much crosstalk in FMC connectors (~40-65 dB typical @ 3 GHz) for
> us to use them for the RF/analog daughterboards. Recommend dedicated
On Monday, 28 March 2016 6:30:52 PM HKT Slichter, Daniel H. (Fed) wrote:
> Thus for the two examples above, using digital connectors with a 9 mm or 11
> mm total stackup height would give 250 um axial misalignment (.010"), which
> is a typical tolerance one would want to use anyway with SMP.
>
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Sébastien Bourdeauducq wrote:
> On Monday, 28 March 2016 6:30:52 PM HKT Slichter, Daniel H. (Fed) wrote:
>> Thus for the two examples above, using digital connectors with a 9 mm or 11
>> mm total stackup height would give 250 um axial misalignment (.010"), which
>
> If 65 dB between neighboring channels is the requirement, then
> comprehensive board level shielding appears to be required.
Yes, this will be necessary. See my previous emails.
___
ARTIQ mailing list
https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq
> > OK. Then mixing SMP with something else is fine IMO.
>
> The other connector can well be FMC. We need at least ~40 signals other
> than the analog ones going to the cards. A bunch of different power supplies,
> SPI control lines, identification buses, switching, attenuation settings etc.
>
How about something like this for board-to-board connector for power/digital?
Allows 11 mm stackup, can do 40 pins in relatively small footprint,
well-engineered mezzanine connector:
https://www.samtec.com/products/qse
There are of course many more options than just this, but just to show the
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Slichter, Daniel H. (Fed)
wrote:
> Yes, FMC could work but it's overkill in terms of pin count; one might be
> able to find a smaller footprint connector with fewer pins, which would be
> advantageous. Frankly something as dumb and cheap as 2 mm pin headers woul
Let me make clear that I don't have any specific opposition to FMC for the
power/digital signals. The only reason for considering other types of
connectors would be either if the desired stackup height is not doable (this is
unlikely -- one .224" bullet e.g. corning A1A1-0001-02, plus two male
> There are FMC-type connectors with much smaller number of pins (SEARAY
> series) Greg
Sure. I think Robert wants to use the particular ones that are in the VITA FMC
standard, for longevity purposes. I happen think that pin headers are the
cockroaches of board-to-board connectors; they will s
> FMC has mounting height of 8 or 10mm.
> Other heights are also possible in case of SEARAY series, but one must order
> large number of them Greg
FMC per VITA 57.1 standard is 8.5 mm stacking height or 10 mm stacking height
(see section 3.4). You can get the SEARAY connectors (of which FMC comp
ARTIQ team,
I noticed that the ARTIQ 1.0 release candidate is no longer in sync with
the commits on the github release branch when installing through the conda
main channel. Conda currently downloads commit id 1c9b8a1 from 10 days ago.
Should we be pulling the latest code from git for testing of r
For slow control signals and supplies one can use standard 2.54 golpins and
headers.
I saw such solution in the RF group at the university. They pass RF using
dedicated board to board coaxial connectors, rest is transmitted over standard
pin headers.
Greg
-Original Message-
From: ARTIQ
FMC has mounting height of 8 or 10mm.
Other heights are also possible in case of SEARAY series, but one must order
large number of them
Greg
-Original Message-
From: ARTIQ [mailto:artiq-boun...@lists.m-labs.hk] On Behalf Of Slichter,
Daniel H. (Fed)
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 10:39 PM
Let's talk about RTMs.
I see your point about connector placement, but one can always use patch panels
for RF signals and have them available from front side.
I proposed RTMs because:
- they can be used immediately with existing OSHW carriers like AFC/AFCK. So we
could have working solution with
There are FMC-type connectors with much smaller number of pins (SEARAY series)
Greg
-Original Message-
From: ARTIQ [mailto:artiq-boun...@lists.m-labs.hk] On Behalf Of Robert Jördens
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 1:01 PM
To: Sébastien Bourdeauducq
Cc: Grzegorz Kasprowicz ; artiq@lists.m-la
On Friday, 25 March 2016 12:24:02 PM HKT you wrote:
> * whether or not we use Zynq remains to be decided.
> **The price difference is not that high (a few tens of $) and we get
> plenty of CPU power
Yes, but Zynq chips are annoying to program (even if we do not use the ARM
cores) and more propri
One can always use 2mm or 1.27mm pin headers.
1.27 are quite fragile, but 2mm should be fine and are easily available.
Greg
-Original Message-
From: Slichter, Daniel H. (Fed) [mailto:daniel.slich...@nist.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 11:34 PM
To: Grzegorz Kasprowicz ; 'Robert Jördens
I can agree that FMC is not the best idea in case of RF stuff.
There are multipin RF board 2 board coaxial connectors which can be used for
plugin modules. And such modules can be easily shielded using i.e. Wurth
shields or EZ-Shields from Harwin that can be easily customized.
Greg
-Original
On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 11:30:09 PM HKT Aaron Hankin wrote:
> Conda currently downloads commit id 1c9b8a1 from 10 days ago.
> Should we be pulling the latest code from git for testing of release
> candidate or is this behavior unintentional?
We will make another release candidate soon which will
19 matches
Mail list logo
