futarisIRCcloud has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
futarisIRCcloud has joined #glasgow
_whitelogger has joined #glasgow
_whitelogger has joined #glasgow
<esden>
Damn I got distracted hard... anyways. The per board difference of not having "via in pad" vs "via in pad" on PCBWay is $1.80 per board vs $2.00 per board. Considering how expensive the overall BOM of the Glasgow is that is really not a big difference.
<esden>
hahah! ok I am dumb... the difference is bigger than that it is $2.96 with via in pad. I should learn how to do basic arithmetic.
<esden>
So it is $1.20 increase in the per board price. Considering the BOM is roughly $60 at the moment this is definitely significant but still we could consider that. :)
<whitequark>
hmm
<esden>
Just plugged via without the overplating would set the per board price at $2.43 which is $0.63 per board increase over the base price.
<whitequark>
i guess that's an option
<whitequark>
we don't need overplating for those vias, right
<esden>
I don't think so. We might get away with "doing nothing" I would consider doing that first. And see if there are issues at all. I did that in the past, and it really depends on how good the solder stop on the back side of the board was how well that worked out.
<esden>
I was just curious of how much it would cost to "do it right" :D
<esden>
I am at the moment curious where the "anchoring vias" will go. If we can find a smart way to hide them next to the pads that would be great, but maybe we need to make coupons with different pads and test the "rip off strength"?
<esden>
It turns a bit into a research project :D
<esden>
But might be worth doing to learn something for the future...
<esden>
on the other hand ... we all will move on to USB-C in the upcoming year or two... so the question is: is it worth it?
<whitequark>
you are relying on the anchoring power of solder in those vias, right?
<esden>
there would be no solder in those vias, I just hope the via plating will increase the adherence of the pad to the substrate. This is what might need to be tested if we want to make sure...
<esden>
the vias are tented and under the solder stop next to the pads... the rendering is inaccurate
<esden>
there is a copper pour that creates a big surface together with all the shield pads. So there is a bigger overall surface area and there are vias to anchor it to the layers below.
<esden>
Not sure if it does anything but
<esden>
it might be worth it? :D
<whitequark>
hmm
<esden>
yeah that is how I feel about it too :D
<whitequark>
i kinda doubt via plating has any reasonable adhesion to the *pad*
<whitequark>
substrate, yes
<whitequark>
on the other hand... maybe it does
<esden>
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
<esden>
But maybe I should just try to get some of the connectors from LCSC that have those tabs... and use them so that people stop asking the same question over and over again. :D
<esden>
Although as I said before, I am surprised that people break them off... seems to be just brutal treatment of your hardware to me. But what do I know. :D
<esden>
Anyways all that said I do not know what the right path forward is. :/
<_whitenotifier-1>
[GlasgowEmbedded/Glasgow] whitequark pushed 3 commits to master [+1/-0/±3] https://git.io/fjL19
<_whitenotifier-1>
[GlasgowEmbedded/Glasgow] whitequark 431cada - applet.memory.onfi: increase wait states to 3.
<_whitenotifier-1>
[GlasgowEmbedded/Glasgow] whitequark aaa0c07 - protocol.onfi: new protocol.
<_whitenotifier-1>
[GlasgowEmbedded/Glasgow] whitequark bdb299f - applet.memory.onfi: parse and use ONFI parameter page.