Cefiar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Connectors: Due to RAMPS cramped design, the
> connectors are all over the board, instead of
> purely at the edges. This is particularly true of
> the stepper motor connectors. Also, they're not
> locking type connectors, and no provision was made
> so you could use any sort of locking connector on
> the PCB (mainly by adding extra space around the
> connectors - which there isn't room for as the
> designed is cramped. Another example is the D8 and
> power connectors being too close, which means you
> can't use the Phoenix-style screw connectors used
> on the power on the D8/9/10 connectors as well,
> without chopping a piece out of one of the
> connectors.
>
> Voltage inputs: As per RAMBo, it makes sense to
> have 3 voltage inputs. One that supplies the
> Heated Bed output, one that supplies all the other
> MOSFET outputs (eg: fans & nozzle), and one that
> supplies all the Motor driver boards. This way,
> you can run 12V on your hot end/fans and 24V on
> your motors and heated bed easily, or even have
> different PSU's for all 3.
With UDOO, now on the horizon, I am looking again at RAMPS/Due. The RAMPS is cramped connector wise because it fits the layout "inside" the Arduino header pins. RAMBO is not limited by Arduino layout, plus has a larger board area.
It is difficult to route power tracks through the header pins, so they would need to be routed "outside" of the Arduino footprint. RAMPS extends the shield a small amount at the lower side. I think for UDOO this would overlap with some of its connectors, but I guess which ever way the board is extended it will cause problems for some people. My preference would be to extend the board at the upper side.
However, the requirements to add more connectors and at same time improve the layout appear incompatible, unless a much larger board is used. It would be possible to use surface mount headers, thus freeing up board space on the top, but I am wary of using SMT headers mainly because of mechanical strength. It is all to easy to rip pads off the board when de-mating boards.
If there are ways to improve the layout while retaining the Arduino footprint, I would be glad to hear them. I will try to post some possible designs soon.
I will also update the reprap wiki to capture the suggestions that have been made for improving RAMPS, and also provide links to the various designs that people are working on.
The attached image shows what I have currently, it is very similar to existing RAMPS 1.4.
[attachment 14138 RAMPS-FD.png]
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Connectors: Due to RAMPS cramped design, the
> connectors are all over the board, instead of
> purely at the edges. This is particularly true of
> the stepper motor connectors. Also, they're not
> locking type connectors, and no provision was made
> so you could use any sort of locking connector on
> the PCB (mainly by adding extra space around the
> connectors - which there isn't room for as the
> designed is cramped. Another example is the D8 and
> power connectors being too close, which means you
> can't use the Phoenix-style screw connectors used
> on the power on the D8/9/10 connectors as well,
> without chopping a piece out of one of the
> connectors.
>
> Voltage inputs: As per RAMBo, it makes sense to
> have 3 voltage inputs. One that supplies the
> Heated Bed output, one that supplies all the other
> MOSFET outputs (eg: fans & nozzle), and one that
> supplies all the Motor driver boards. This way,
> you can run 12V on your hot end/fans and 24V on
> your motors and heated bed easily, or even have
> different PSU's for all 3.
With UDOO, now on the horizon, I am looking again at RAMPS/Due. The RAMPS is cramped connector wise because it fits the layout "inside" the Arduino header pins. RAMBO is not limited by Arduino layout, plus has a larger board area.
It is difficult to route power tracks through the header pins, so they would need to be routed "outside" of the Arduino footprint. RAMPS extends the shield a small amount at the lower side. I think for UDOO this would overlap with some of its connectors, but I guess which ever way the board is extended it will cause problems for some people. My preference would be to extend the board at the upper side.
However, the requirements to add more connectors and at same time improve the layout appear incompatible, unless a much larger board is used. It would be possible to use surface mount headers, thus freeing up board space on the top, but I am wary of using SMT headers mainly because of mechanical strength. It is all to easy to rip pads off the board when de-mating boards.
If there are ways to improve the layout while retaining the Arduino footprint, I would be glad to hear them. I will try to post some possible designs soon.
I will also update the reprap wiki to capture the suggestions that have been made for improving RAMPS, and also provide links to the various designs that people are working on.
The attached image shows what I have currently, it is very similar to existing RAMPS 1.4.
[attachment 14138 RAMPS-FD.png]