Ok - "think" I understand this better. The C_K (Dan) BLF 3.1 version here on OSHPark is now 100% - no objections? I see he's got the "voltage divider", i.e. the R1 and R2 resistors, totally independent of the diodes, either standard Nanjg or zener. So to do proper voltage monitoring, you will have to remove the 0.25v subtraction because it's no longer in the monitoring circuit. So this will effect all voltage monitoring that was previously based on the standard Nanjg layout, but in theory you should be able to do voltage monitoring with the zener mod configured.
Another issue I see is the e-switch is wired to pin #3 (PB4) of the ATtiny13A where previously we mostly used PB3. But you don't have to use his provide labeled SW+ pad, so I don't see a big problem there.
Also, there is no reverse polarity protection coming in on pin #7 of the ATtiny13A as there was before - I don't "think" this is a problem. Anyone care to comment?
Well I need to order more boards in all sizes, so, I think these latest from C_K are the best way to go. I was hoping for some feedback/comments before ordering... What he has listed in post #114 sounds awesome.
Hey you think you could update with a digikey parts list for those new boards? Wonder if RMM will sell a updated kit soon too. I’m going to start making these too- looks like slapping lipstick on a pig really. Too expensive having them reflowed but I like supporting mountain.
My in-law is a contractor and does a lot of soldering. He had something else to do one day and asked one of the other guys to solder some boards up. He came back and the guy didn’t even solder the base- like big solder balls on all the ics xd Nothing was soldered. I thought that was funny- he called other day.
Wait - what do mean exactly by these new boards? The C_K boards, rev 3.1 shown as 3.0? (Confusing to say the least...)
The C_K boards are just a different layout than the standard BLF v1.0 boards, so it's the same exact parts list.
As far as I know, the parts list I link to in the OP at the very top (4th line) under the July 12th comment is the latest parts list and will apply to the C_K 3.1 boards as well. comfy re-posted the identical parts list link in post #92 for some reason, but he's got a very good explanation and description of the parts and the OTC option (OFF Time Capacitor) listed in that post #92 - please refer it to for more details.
Richard (RMM), as far as I understand now, does not use the same BLF 17DD or C_K boards - he's got his own versions, to his preferences, but they are close to the same thing, same parts list I believe.
I think the current state is 3 current sets of boards:
the standard BLF DD 1.0 boards as listed in the main OSHPark thread, by Mattaus, Comfychair, and Warhawk-AVG
RMM's versions, layout to his preferences
C_K's versions - latest rev is 3.1 but pictured as 3.0 on OSHPark
In my opinion, it looks like C_K's are the best, but the latest 3.1 versions are not actually tested, but C_K is very confident (100%) in them. I ordered C_K's boards but won't know of any issues or details til I get them and work with them.
Just to point out- yes I forgot to change the silkscreen on the board (still says 3.0) but the OSHPark upload is titled 3.1.
As Tom says I’m totally confident these work (Obviously I’ve designed a few other pcb’s, this is actually one of the simplest designs). I also still have a large quantity of 1.0’s left on hand- if anyone ordered a set of 3.1’s and they don’t work perfectly I will swap you for 1.0’s (one final time- you’ll never have to take me up on this).
Ah ok… Thanks Tom and CK- It does get kind of confusing because reading posts and you said something about voltage spikes using 100 ohm resistor over 130. It looks like the one from RMM is 100 ohm. I didn’t know if the parts actually changed. So the divider will allow you to run a MT-G2 with voltage monitoring. That sounds pretty cool to me
Well there’s not a lot to give feedback on, BLF17DD is already pretty well established.
The GND plane work makes sense. Overlapping a plane with thermals for the low-power components with a plane which does not use thermals for the power components is a sensible way to handle things. The dirty secret is that leaving off thermals for the power components is really more of a style thing than anything else anyway. I think that you could use thermals for the entire board and not find a measurable difference in output. Still, nice work.
I don’t like R1, R2, C1, D1/R3, or OTC. They are all 0603 size (except D1/R3) and I’m not down with that. D1/R3 is just using that tiny SMD diode footprint, eww. I know a lot of us do reflow, but there’s plenty of space to use fullsize pads IMO. Hand soldering, rework, etc suffer with unnecessarily tiny pads.
The implementation of stars is misrepresented by the OSH Park render, but I think it looks like a good idea. That said, and without having used it, I’m not sure how functional this implementation of the idea is. Both exposed copper areas are very small which may make it difficult to deposit enough solder to get it to bridge cleanly. The placement of the circle is not really consistent across the 3 points where it is present, and since it’s such a small area on one side of star 2 and 3 there may be a risk of one side not being present at all due to manufacturing tolerances. Since there is space for it it would be more ideal to implement these jumpers in this way: Solder Jumpers
As has already been pointed out, I don’t know why there is a SW+ on Pin3. It’s not an issue though, AFAIK, because the OTC cap pad gives the appropriate Pin2 connection for SW+. Maybe Cereal_killer is thinking of a modification of the Dual Switch firmware which I’m not aware of.
All the connectivity tweaks seem reasonably well thought out - large GND via, adjustable BAT+ spring pad, doubled vias for BAT+ and LED-. Nothing that interferes with anything, all potentially useful in one way or another.
I find that all components have been set back a reasonable distance from the edge of the board. The next big tweak is to stop using an off-the-shelf library part for the FET. I find the existing library parts to be much larger than necessary. This would save a lot of space on top and make it easier to support a 0805 sized OTC without interfering with driver ledges or an SOIC8 clip.
I prefer C_k’s C1 placement in his “dd V3.1” board versus Mattaus’s C1 placement in the latest “DD V1.0” board. It’s not a big deal and it’s probably inconsequential in this case, but I’d say it’s definitely superior.
That reminds me - Cereal_killer: you forgot to update the silk, the boards still say V3.0!
Overall I see no show stoppers. I wouldn’t expect any either, so no surprises. Some here are proponents of setting 0805 sized components on 0603 sized pads, I’m not. That’s my biggest beef by far (since I rarely/never use stars).
eh, guess I’m a little late to the party in mentioning that
Cereal_killer’s board does not use either resistor (100 Ohm or 130 Ohm). Neither do the “DD V1.0” versions which Mattaus and Warhawk-AVG put up.
It’s worth pointing out that the RMM boards you refer to were both designed before the FETs and gate resistors - scope images thread where the new cap position was worked out. That’s why both boards are positively littered with unnecessary resistors - it’s also why “RMM17DD_V2” still has the old cap position and after-diode voltage divider. On the “RMM17DDZ_V2” board the voltage divider is fed directly from BAT+ but the C1 location is still behind where the diode would be if you built it as a regular (non-Zener) driver. Anyway my point is only that RMM’s versions were laid out to his preferences several months ago. I could be wrong, but I assume his current preferences would be very similar only without all the unnecessary resistors and with the C1 position change.
Yeah I see that difference from CK version here. Well I have a couple of RMM boards here. It looks like the voltage divider is put after the diode on this one. CK it’s strait to batt like you said wight. Ok I get it now. So wight what if you just put in 0805 in there. Would that be a better solution. I just want something that doesn’t break. Had the FET go out on one of my 17DD recently. I dunno how it just got stuck open at ~50% to ground. The gate doesn’t work anymore
EDIT I think after some reading… Just going to replace that 100 with the 130ohm on mountains driver. That spike Tom is talking about is interesting to me. There’s no other reason I can see why that would happen to the fet other than the gate was bombed?
thanx wight for the info and review! Didn't know the pads are for 0603's, not 0805's. His OSHPark listing indicates to use 0805 size parts. I see the RMM version boards listed under Mattaus's project listings on OSHPark but not sure where else they were described - maybe buried in the RMM sale thread.
I’m sure that Cereal_killer’s intention is still for you to use 0805 sized components. They will sit on those smaller pads and can be soldered to them. I would use 0805 sized pads for those components. (An alternative would be simply transitioning to 0603 sized components to place on those 0603 sized pads, but I don’t see why I’d bother. I’d rather just use 0805 on 0805 pads.)
It’s not really clear what is going on with your malfunctioning driver. What do you mean 50, is the LED about 50 as bright as normal? Do you no longer have modes? Is there continuity between LED- and GND while the driver is turned off?
I’m not certain what you mean by “bombed”. That resistor is in place to protect the MCU from FET, not the other way around. What spike are you referring to? Please link me and provide a post number.
It’s the FET but I haven’t tried measuring LED- to GND when off… I tried a few other things though including a new driver wired to the FET to eliminate the mcu
The pads are for 0603’s, but as I was saying to fellfromtree I’m sure the intention is to continue using 0805’s. This does work and is done by others here as well. I do not enjoy soldering 0805 on 0603 pads: there is no exposed pad at all with the component in place so hand soldering is more difficult and inspecting the joint is impossible. There’s also significantly less solder present, so less surface tension keeping things in place while the solder is molten, regardless of the scenario (initial reflow, hand soldering, rework, etc). The upsides (as I see them) are that you can achieve a much higher component density and ensure that there is less wiggle-room for components.
RMM’s board was never really described very much, the only mentions of it I know of are from the Oshpark projects thread in the past week or so. Over there RMM said that it was never really a big deal so he never mentioned it - just a couple of tweaks he asked Mattaus to make vs the current versions at the time.
Wight I think pretty much answered all the questions (I’m really sorry I dont have more time to post, I have literally been so busy the last month now the only time I have to answer emails is sitting on the can lol).
The 0603 pad’s are the correct size for 0805 parts, I use those common part’s from the sparkfun library and they are extremely oversized. I do all my boards like this and use all 0805 parts. As for the D2PAK (the FET) part, thats my own .lbr part, it is the correct width and only slightly taller (to allow space to solder wire’s above the tab.
About the “stars”, using the negative circle of mask is a new way for me, I had been using a 1mm thick line to expose 2 edges to jumper, I dont have any of these yet (and I dont use stars anyway, I just change my code as desired) but I’m willing to bet they work. As previously explained (and then mentioned by wight) the way oshpark render’s the mask is by adding another layer of gold color, it’s is the exact opposite of what really happens in fab- anywhere you see gold color in the render there will actually be nothing, mask is applied everywhere EXCEPT those spots.
The SW+ via is on pin3 (star3) cause thats what I change my code to use, I had forgot I changed my code when I did that [sorry], its a simple pin assignment swap to change your’s (or you can continue to solder direct to the MCU’s leg for pin 2 or whatever stock STAR FW uses). I prefer the via cause it makes for a physically stronger connection as well as allowing hookup from the bottom in a piggyback application.
Again sorry I cant sit around and answer questions and “hang out” with you guy’s all day (you know I love ya all) but right now flashlight’s are literally supporting my family of 5, I’m working on them about 10-12 hours every day (and its been like that since school started back up for my kid’s in August), I just dont have much of any free time and when I do I dont want to spend it sitting in front of my computer talking about flashlights lol…
Hehe good deal Cereal :)… I might shoot some guys over your way if I can’t figure out the RGB thing
Wight it’s mentioned in the op of this thread. I didn’t know what it means either but he mentioned a spike, maybe to the mcu I’m thinking, but that could in turn maybe end up at the gate from the pwm pin? I dunno I’m still wet behind the ears
What RGB stuff are you working on? Tho I wont be releasing my code open source I do have a much more simple open source RGB project I’m working on (does not allow ramping of the individual colors, that will be staying proprietary, I am selling my driver’s however, I’ve just created a sales thread for them the other day) It will simply be a few white modes, then a fixed brightness level for the individual colors (can be changed in the code, but not changed from the working light) then a RGB (fixed brightness) mode (and maybe a strobe, if I feel like it)
Probably best to PM me, already a lot going on in this thread (also note, the open source RGB stuff is very low on my priority list, probably be a few months)
Oops, updated the OP with: reduce a voltage spike flatten the peak. Think that makes betters sense? It's what I meant , at least that what the o-scope graphs look like.
, at least that what the o-scope graphs look like.