Start a new topic

4-pin connector too close to the edge...

A little note...

The UART interface connector is located too close to the edge of the board. When the installation of the display in the housing, I must to leave a gap of at least 5 mm or more from the edge of the display to the wall of the case. This increases size of case and adds a border around the active display area, which is not always looks harmonious. In compact housing I compelled fluster the wires to the connector (see photo).

I propose to move the interface connector away from the edge.



case2.jpg
(216 KB)
case.jpg
(141 KB)

2 people like this idea

Those whom will make such a decision (as was stated earlier) will be informed of the request.

From here on out, the only thing that can be done is wait to see what they have decided.


We will of course post again when and if more is known

"even a little change can became very expensive..."


Very?.. You could just add the pads for soldering the second (duplicate) connector. It does not need to reconfigure the automatic Assembly line. You will need to update just two of the photomask (for one side copper layer and solder mask) and electrotesting. The user can solder the connector itself.

Regardless of design decision, they would need to exhaust supplies of existing design before a new revision is possible.

It also wouldn't make sense to go through expensive continuous retooling.  So such a revision could never be so soon.

I would say all who bought such a display do also use it as it is, besides the very few who are able to resolder ...

even a little change can became very expensive. New PCB layout, testing, new certificates, even the readjust of the whole automated manufacturing process is not a cheap one and must be done with care ... ... ... and makes only sense for a given quantity ...

 

Itead would probably customize to the user when order is big enough

Interesting!  I wonder how many people actually access it that way?

One option, which I know would increase cost a bit, would be to have two connectors wired in parallel... one facing the side and the other facing the rear.  That way the user could choose whatever works best for their application.

 

anyhow you do, there is always the one out who like it different ... for such a product, we need to care for the majority ...

Factory set it to point outward because users requested it to be accessible via port through case


Getting back to the connector discussion... I had the same problem. 

What I ended up doing was desoldering the connector from the board, bending the pins a bit, and soldering it back into place so it pointed toward the rear instead of the side of the board.

It's not supported as well now but I think it'll be okay as long as I don't put too much force on it.  I wish the factory had done the connector that way to begin with!

 


1 person likes this

every request is taken seriousely ... but it is still the better and more universal solution, when the enduser just care a bit about the quality of power-sources he use ... because that's under his control ...

Thank you for listening. My job is to offer )


Than limited to a lower threshold of power supply? By step-up converter for LCD matrix, or something else?

 

The USB 1.x and 2.0 specifications provide a 5 V supply on a single wire to power connected USB devices. The specification provides for no more than 5.25 V and no less than 4.75 V (5 V ± 5%) between the positive and negative bus power lines (VBUS voltage).


Even if it is convenient ... not every manufacturer implemnts things within specifications ... and that's something out of our control, what endusers finally may have and use ...


The best designed PCB won't help a lot, when the enduser just use the most cheap unshielded cables ... and to run your hardware always on its theoretical limits or even assume that a maximum theoretical limit can be used permanently can already be the reason why something just don't work as expected ...


You surely can design your PCB in a way, that most issues are handled, you also can use more accurate and low tolerant components ... and you can do this all very excessive and with open end ... but keep in mind, finally the end-user also must pay for this all ... and I have my doubts, that he will ...


So, the real magic is to find a good valued balance between your product itself and the price you can offer ...



Yes, but you must admit, for desktop and handheld devices powered by USB very convenient. Power supplies with current up to 2A can be found in every home. If any components in the device require a different supply voltage (not +5V), they can be connected to the step-up or step-down voltage regulator. But the requirement of stable +5V - a few ties the hands of the developer of such devices.

isn't this a reason, why we recommend a stabilized external 5V 1/2A power plug ...


honestly, when we talk about USB interfaces to use as plain power source, you must face the fact, that not every manufacturer who implement the USB interface is 100% USB specification conform ...


    - 5V can be in a range from 4.2 up to 5.3 V, I even already saw 5.8V ... and it is still called USB ...

    - USB 1.x states 500mA max. but this is not always the real truth, especially when a manufacturer use a cheap internal USB hub to give you the illusion of many USB ports ...

    - even the quality of your used cable will influence your connection ...


so, USB is among the most bad solution to drive such displays. It will work well for smaller ones, but the bigger they became, the less they will work well ...



And display is very very noisy on power!


Okay, I'm done with criticism :) Overall, the project is very good. Well done!

Login or Signup to post a comment