You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I appreciate that it won't be tugged around by stiff cables, but the weight might be too much. Not sure how expensive it is to take out that material vs the cost of shipping additional weight (probably not much). Anyway, if you choose to reduce weight, I would leave some material directly underneath the connector so that there is no flex in the PCB when pressure is applied.
Tangentially related but perhaps worth discussing at this point: how should we attribute version/revision to mechanical designs like enclosures? Presumably in the same way we do PCBs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We should mill out material to accommodate the debug header, in case we end up populating it for troubleshooting purposes and end up wanting to put it in a case later, at which point the debug header won't be accessible until the case is removed once again. I add that last clause to clarify that I'm not advocating putting an open slot for the debug header.
I appreciate that it won't be tugged around by stiff cables, but the weight might be too much. Not sure how expensive it is to take out that material vs the cost of shipping additional weight (probably not much). Anyway, if you choose to reduce weight, I would leave some material directly underneath the connector so that there is no flex in the PCB when pressure is applied.
Tangentially related but perhaps worth discussing at this point: how should we attribute version/revision to mechanical designs like enclosures? Presumably in the same way we do PCBs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: