Thoughts on PCB Manufacturing and IC Package Choice

Go To Last Post
43 posts / 0 new
Author
Message
#1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Okay, so I've got a new project that has some annoyingly conflicting requirements. I'm working on a processor module that needs to be both compact and inexpensive ( of course ). The processor is tentatively selected ( an NXP ARM ) and, as always, comes in two packages, each of which seems to support one of the requirements. In a LQFP-144 I would be able to use standard 6/6 board rules and, thus, be able to get boards made just about everywhere. The problem is that I'll shatter the desired size requirements ( by a factor of 2x or more ) if I go that route. On the other hand, there is a BGA package ( 100-pin, 0.8mm pitch ) that will make size constraints all but easy, except that I'd have to go, at least, to 5/5 rules with smaller than standard drill holes and a minimum of 4-layers. I don't have any experience with board houses to handle that sort of thing and, besides, we'll only need a half-dozen of the boards at the very most. The project is for a small University that sits in the middle of three of the five most impoverished counties in the state. Needless to say, there are not huge funds available.

So, I guess there are a few questions.

1) Any pointers on reasonable PCB fabs that can handle fine(-er) pitch design rules without the cost for prototypes becoming astronomical.

2) Ideas about the best way to "prototype" with BGA packages that require more signal layers and tighter design rules.

3) Any completely new ideas... The requirements are for:
2x I2C buses
1x CAN Controller
1x Device USB
Real-time Clock
>128MB RAM
>256MB Non-Volatile Memory
Computational loads are only moderate. The problem is the need for extensive storage and random memory access ( sadly, the XMega EBI only gets me within an order of magnitude for the RAM, 128Mb[its] vs the needed 128MB[ytes] ).

Martin Jay McKee

As with most things in engineering, the answer is an unabashed, "It depends."

Last Edited: Mon. Mar 13, 2017 - 05:55 PM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Do both approaches need to be implemented in 4 layer board?
Remind Your client of the first rule of design ( any two out of three)

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

For prototyping, I think there are BGA to pin adaptor boards. Given that you have no high speed parallel busses, something like that ought to work.

Can you do something with a small serial RAM (like FRAM) in maybe a SOT23 package (assuming such exists)?

Jim

Jim Wagner Oregon Research Electronics, Consulting Div. Tangent, OR, USA http://www.orelectronics.net

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Would a COM (Computer-On-Module) or SOM (System-On- Module) be fit form and most function?
These, and the popular low price and/or open boards, get the BGAs on something general then add your custom I/O (CAN).
The custom I/O board or carrier board may be a 2-layer PCB.
Some of many SOM and COM makers are: Gumstix, Crystalfontz, partners of Atmel.

Olimex's OLinuXino are free(dom) and open hardware (ARMv5, ARMv7-A, Eagle PCBs) and software that can be modified per needs; the Allwinner A13 version is a QFP ARMv7-A.

Ref.
The biggest-little revolution: 10 single-board computers for under $100 by Cabe Atwell (EDN; August 21, 2013)
Atmel SAMA5D3 Partners

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Freescale i.MX233 (ARMv5) has a QFP.
OLinuXino iMX233 Micro is a 2-layer PCB.

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

3) Put the LQFP-144 on the back(4-layer) with it's capacitors and perhaps the memory chips also, and all other parts on top, still using 6/6 rules, that will reduce board real-estate, price is another matter(could let the board manufacturer populate on side and you do the other?).

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Quote:
>128MB RAM
>256MB Non-Volatile Memory

If you only need a dozen then do not bother with designing your own size constrained board as this is not worth it (especially with no experience). If you really need it small then perhaps you could use some smartphone for that?

Quote:
Freescale i.MX233 (ARMv5) has a QFP.

Unfortunately the QFP version supports only 64MB memory. It is the BGA169 version that has 128MB support. And iMX28 is even harder.

Quote:
The processor is tentatively selected ( an NXP ARM )

Which one?

The only cheap option for 128MB ram memory is DDR. With SRAM that would cost a fortune. SDRAM is more expensive than DDR.

No RSTDISBL, no fun!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

A BeagleBone Black & CAN cape might get you where you want to go. It could certainly handle all of the memory requirements. The USB Device capability is also present, though it can be trickier if you need something non-standard.

Could put a processor on a custom cape to handle any real-time requirements you might have.

Jeff Nichols

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Brutte wrote:
Unfortunately the QFP version supports only 64MB memory. It is the BGA169 version that has 128MB support. And iMX28 is even harder.
Thankful that Crystalfontz did the SOM work on that.
CFA100362 Linux SOM (Crystalfontz)

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

pixel2001n wrote:
Could put a processor on a custom cape to handle any real-time requirements you might have.
There are apparently four RTOS on a BeagleBoard (FreeRTOS, QNX, Xenomai, SYS/BIOS) though adding another MCU for the real-time functions is the usual way.
Some ARMv5 can dual boot Linux and some RTOS.
BeagleBoard, Registered Projects
Installing Xenomai on a BeagleBone
SYSBIOS Targets, Platforms, RTSC for BeagleBone. (Texas Instruments)

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

It is cool to have BGA on such PCB but the price is IMHO exaggerated. It is 99$ for a iMX + ram? Kind of overpriced and slow beagle-bone. Plus you need a base board for that.
That BOM is under 10$ (at 1k).

No RSTDISBL, no fun!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

fleemy wrote:
3) Put the LQFP-144 on the back(4-layer) with it's capacitors and perhaps the memory chips also, and all other parts on top, still using 6/6 rules, that will reduce board real-estate, ...
Another option is AVR32 UC3C0 (QFP144).
Meets all requirements except for non-volatile storage (UC3C does not have a NAND flash controller; UC3A3 does plus SD interface but no CAN); therefore likely an on-board microSD socket.
IIRC there are two third party UC3C boards.
AT32UC3A3256, Parameters (Atmel)
AT32UC3C0512C, Parameters (Atmel)
Edit: Added UC3A3.

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

Last Edited: Mon. Sep 2, 2013 - 03:25 PM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

mckeemj wrote:
2) Ideas about the best way to "prototype" with BGA packages that require more signal layers and tighter design rules.
Seems FPGAs are more likely to come in BGAs with a "large" (1mm) pitch.
For a System-On-Chip (SoC) feature some FPGAs have enough digital resources to contain a processor, SDR or DDR DRAM controllers, NAND flash controllers, etc.

PCB - The TopoR autorouter states improved BGA escape and reduced PCB size and layers.
TopoR : Competitive Advantages

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Brutte wrote:
That BOM is under 10$ (at 1k).
A rule of thumb is BOM price times three or four to sell.
Plus a 6-layer PCB, covers some of the industrial temperature range whereas BeagleBone does not, does not have BeagleBone's production volume, and very likely some NRE cost.

The MCU manufacturers will subsidize the design and production of open or free(dom)-and-open boards to get them design wins for proof-of-concepts and first prototypes that likely will lead to design wins for production (low rate or high rate).
Last week I spoke with a young man who stated his father was a part of the Texas Instruments design team for the BeagleBoard.

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Seems like it was a poor night to choose to sleep! Lots of great ideas. Some notes...

I've certainly considered spec-ing in a computer-on-module. It would solve most of our issue in one fell swoop. The only remaining issue would be training students on a new development system. Then again, that was going to be a problem anyway. Sadly, the general consensus is that anything other than Arduino is too difficult to understand. Of course, the application is not solvable with an Arduino ( not the Uno, nor the Due,or ChipKits ) because of the memory requirements so it is a moot point. There is going to be some non-Arduino code if the project is going to get off the ground.

Basically, the issue is that there are robots being built at the school that are capable of maneuvering and avoiding obstacles under Arduino control, but much of the sensor information is being discarded and there is no mapping capability. The board being designed is supposed to allow SLAM ( Simultaneous Localization and Mapping ) capabilities. the map, is the reason such large memory resources are required. However, the sensors are all ( in the grand scheme of things ) rather slow so computational requirements can be relatively minimal. Also, while there is need for non-volatile memory, it is needed only for storage of the map, no code need run from it, so a serial interface chip or even an SD card would be possible. I'm not all that troubled about that.

The current thought is to use an LPC4337 with DDR. Really, the processor is overkill ( M4/M0 dual-core device with both cores running up to 204 MHz ), but it has the required memory interfaces and comes in packages closest. Thinking about it, there is also a 1.0mm BGA available ( LBGA256 ). It wouldn't save as much space as the 0.8mm package ( TFBGA100 ), but it would trim a half-centimeter, which is nothing to sneeze at. A fair amount of that package could be left unconnected as well, so, perhaps, routing wouldn't be any more difficult.

In the end, if the processing module is being built, it seems absolutely necessary that the board be ( a minimum of ) 4-layer. I don't wish to even consider attempting SDRAM or DDR on a 2-layer board and, as mentioned, getting anywhere near the memory requirements with SRAM would be exorbitant to say the least.

Since I have more or less ultimate control, I think I am going to recommend a stop gap measure -- do the initial implementation with something like the BeagleBone and a minimal daughter board, and develop the software in that environment. Then, once it has been integrated into a couple of the larger test robots, design new hardware that will actually fit in the smaller robots it's ultimately targeted at.

In the end, we may just have to settle for a 4-layer, dual side loaded, board with the LQFP-144 and a size larger than desirable. With proper jostling of things in the robots we should be able to fit something up to, about, 100mm x 60mm, which would be easily achievable ( better would be, 50mm x 40mm and that's a heck of a squeeze with the LQFP-144 ).

I see it as both a blessing and a curse that there are so many options available. I hadn't thought of an FPGA as an option for this board ( not sure why as I've got some other projects on the back-burner that use them the same way -- as a custom SOC ). Well, back to crunching numbers and looking at options. Thanks for the input!

Cheers,
Martin Jay McKee

As with most things in engineering, the answer is an unabashed, "It depends."

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Quote:
The current thought is to use an LPC4337 with DDR.

Either SRAMs, PSRAMs or SDRAMs. LPC43xx does not support DDRs.
And even if it did - the one in LQFP144 has only 16 address lines, only 16 bit data width and only one CS.
Bummer.

No RSTDISBL, no fun!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

mckeemj wrote:
In the end, we may just have to settle for a 4-layer, dual side loaded, board with the LQFP-144 and a size larger than desirable. With proper jostling of things in the robots we should be able to fit something up to, about, 100mm x 60mm, which would be easily achievable ( better would be, 50mm x 40mm and that's a heck of a squeeze with the LQFP-144 ).
Thanks for the sizing requirement.
Unfortunate that 60mm dimension is not 72mm; otherwise, the Pico-ITX form factor would fit and a lot of options.
If enough space in the third dimension then could stack PCBs; there are some very short board-to-board connectors and also FFC/FPC.

LQFP-144 :
AVR32 UC3A3 has a BGA144 (0.8mm pitch) package.
SDR SDRAM controller (128MB), NAND flash controller, SD controller.
No CAN controller but that can be added via SPI.
SDR SDRAM - could find it only in TSOP.
Any SAM3 that could work?
No; SAM3 and SAM4 do not have a SDRAM controller.
Ref.
Pico-ITX (Wikipedia)
pico-SAM9G45 (Mini-Box, 100mmx80mm)
A10S-OLinuXino-MICRO-4GB (Olimex, 102mmx81mm, free(dom)-and-open, Debian; at Mouser; take that and remove what's not needed)
Muliti layer Ice breaker (AVR Freaks; last post contains the layer reduction done for Olimex's Allwinner A10 design)
AT32UC3A3256, Parameters (Atmel)

Edit: added UC3A3.
Edit: answered my question :wink:

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

Last Edited: Thu. Sep 5, 2013 - 07:19 AM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Brutte wrote:
If you really need it small then perhaps you could use some smartphone for that?
That's starting to look like a good idea!
TV news here yesterday stated that some US retailers are reducing the current iPhone to 99USD; showed a short video of the supposed new iPhone.
Some feature-phones may have enough storage and there's a resale market (very good prices).

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Seems like the raspberry pi would meet your needs except having a CAN bus, but you could always glue on a SPI/uart CAN chip or a cheap MCU with CAN as supplement. I am not sure what the status of the datasheet for the raspberry PI CPU is, I read that parts of the datasheet are under NDA or some crap like that.

http://www.indiegogo.com/project...
That might also work, again with a supplemental CAN chip.

Personally, necessity is the mother of all invention. Give the students a plain vanilla arduino and challenge them to make the project work.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I thought about the Raspberry PI as well. It has more peripherals than would ever be needed, but it is quite inexpensive and would certainly do the job. Smartphones too ( or even, potentially, a very small tablet ) could be interesting. I've yet to give any of those the thought they deserve. The Iteaduino Plus looks very interesting too. I especially like the "core" module that they have there. It still pushes the size constraints somewhat, but it is, potentially, a bucketload of processing capability and it has the advantage of being swappable to new hardware easily.

The more I look at the problem, the more it seems like a ready made processing module is the way to go. Something that runs full Linux would be even better as development could be the same as their more normal PC based assignments.

External CAN would certainly not be an issue. In the grand scheme of things, CAN is not all that fast to begin with and we are not using any particularly fancy controller features. It's just got to exchange some fairly simply frames. We're moving toward CAN more for the noise resilience than for speed ( the current robots are using fairly extended I2C buses... yes, there are issues! I did warn them. ).

What I have convinced people to do, for now at least, is to develop the algorithms to a more complete point on a PC before deciding on a final on-board hardware configuration. The sizing is somewhat flexible, but 100mm x 72mm would certainly be stretching it beyond the breaking point ( one new robot design is about 150mm x 80mm x 40mm aside from its wheels, this has to hold the motors, motor drivers, batteries, mapping board, and other sundry sensors ).

I am almost tempted to go back to my first thought which was to build up a ChipKit compatible board with extra memory attached or, better yet perhaps, an Arduino Due clone using one of the SAM3x devices that has an EBI. It would limit map storage to a couple orders of magnitude less than the real target, but that should be sufficient for a first run to develop the basic algorithms and, intriguingly, it would allow the team to stay with the same development environment they are used to, which would speed the ramp-up time on the project. Later, something like a Cortex-A9 SOM or something could be substituted when the capabilities of the less ambitions board were exceeded. Until then, it would be easier to learn and use less power ( not a major issue at the moment, but you never know ).

While it is true that necessity is the mother of invention, data is data. It can be compressed( sometimes ) but it must be stored somehow. There are some amazing things that a plain Arduino can do -- there are simply some it cannot. Already the robots are navigating quite well within the confines of doing so without the ability to permanently store an extended map. The area that should be stored ( ideally ) is around 1km x 1km with a resolution of <= 0.1m. Using a uniform grid ( roughly 10^8 points, minimum 800Mb ) for the occupancy map, that's a huge memory for smaller embedded devices. Using a quadtree, it is much more approachable -- smaller by, perhaps, two orders of magnitude; but an Arduino, stock, just can't handle it.

Martin Jay McKee

As with most things in engineering, the answer is an unabashed, "It depends."

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Maybe just put a Bluetooth module and have a tablet/smart phone do all the heavy calculations. BT to serial modules are like $8 bucks these days.

More exotic and cooler would be wifi + embedded webserver, and have a tablet/smartphone do the heavy lifting using javascipt.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

mckeemj wrote:
... ( one new robot design is about 150mm x 80mm x 40mm aside from its wheels, this has to hold the motors, motor drivers, batteries, mapping board, and other sundry sensors ).
Don't give up on BGAs.
The demo version of TopoR may either cut it for your design or show a no-go for inexpensive PCB design rules.
MCU makers are cognizant about a reasonable 4-layer PCB design goal.
Pushing some MCU to its max should work and be nearly instant-on though a SoC will allow room for growth and use of Linux.
A problem with an off-the-shelf use of a SoC in a COM or SOM form factor is the "wasted" space for unused functions.

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

mckeemj wrote:
1) Any pointers on reasonable PCB fabs that can handle fine(-er) pitch design rules without the cost for prototypes becoming astronomical.
PCB-POOL's design rules seem to be the best for prototypes.
May want to trial by hand a via in a BGA pad field.
PCB-POOL, Products | Technology

Colorado -
Advanced Circuits in Aurora.
Maybe some design rule negotiation and pricing for faculty at Colorado colleges.
Advanced Circuits, Student Program

BGA - There's hope for 0.8mm pitch.
EE Bookshelf: PCB Layout for BGA Packages (AN10778) (Adafruit Industries, NXP; July 5, 2012)
BGA escape via dimensions at 0.8mm pitch? (StackExchange)

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

OSH Park may be a possibility for a PCB fab.
IIRC the mega2560 BGA part in the following is a 0.8mm pitch:
Please Sanity-Check My BGA Fanout (DipTrace Forum, 11 Mar 2013)

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

For your memory problem, have you considered just using a single "partionned" micro SD card? Why do you need volatile memory anyways? All you really need to do is create a scratch file on your SD card and use it as RAM. Once you figure that out, just size the processor you REALLY need (most likely one of the bigger industrial AVR's will have everything you need; otherwise a smaller ARM7TDMI or Cortex will). Will you need to perform lots of floating point maths or anything like that?

Quote:
2x I2C buses
1x CAN Controller
1x Device USB
Real-time Clock
>128MB RAM
>256MB Non-Volatile Memory

From that description, a 8$ AT90CAN32 plus a microSD socket and card would work out just fine for you. Or any other USB enabled AVR with enough SRAM and flash plus an external CAN controller.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I have tended to lean away from using an SD card as a swap space mostly because I dislike the idea of writing it continuously during operation. But, honestly, given the fact that there is only need for ~128MB, it would be easy to install an SD card an order of magnitude larger size, and the built-in wear leveling algorithms... it may just make sense. Doing it that way, it would be pretty easy to get away with something like the LPC11C series. It would be a bit short on SRAM, but it would be doable. If not, moving up to a larger device in the PIC32 range ( which has the advantage of remaining ChipKit compatible ), or careful selection of an Atmel SAM3 ( for Arduino Due compatiblity ), would be a noticeable improvement in processing capabilities without going over board either.

Were it simply me implementing things, I wouldn't use any floating point, I'd do it all fixed point. Given that it will NOT be me doing much of the code, however, I would expect that there will be plenty of floating point usage. Still, it is fairly slow ( as I've said ), so I don't believe there is a need for hardware floating-point support.

The other constraint that I do have to remain aware of ( and tends to reduce my list of choices ) is the need for two I2C controllers. This requirement comes about more from logistical requirements than from electrical and is a result the use of many devices that have the same addresses. By partitioning the busses, it is possible to reduce those issues. It is possible that one of the busses could be a master only bus and be guaranteed to be in a single-master environment, in which case, as software I2C would be perfectly sufficient -- I'm still awaiting confirmation however.

Martin Jay McKee

As with most things in engineering, the answer is an unabashed, "It depends."

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

If you can make do with 64MB ram (you won't have a graphics system to support anyways), how about a Carambola 2? Nice small unit, and you even get WiFi on it.

CPU AR9331, 400 MHz
Memory 16 MB Flash and 64 MB DDR2 RAM
Frequency 2.4 GHz
Max output power 21 dBm
Wireless standard 802.11 bgn
Antenna (port) U.FL connector
Power supply 3.3 V, power consumption 0.5 W
Available interfaces USB host/slave, serial port, 2 x Ethernet, i2S,
SLIC, SPDIF, 23 x GPIO
Size 28 by 38 mm
Software OpenWrt

Enough GPIO to BitBang several extra I2C as well.

http://8devices.com/media/files/...

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

mckeemj wrote:
I have tended to lean away from using an SD card as a swap space mostly because I dislike the idea of writing it continuously during operation. But, honestly, given the fact that there is only need for ~128MB, it would be easy to install an SD card an order of magnitude larger size, and the built-in wear leveling algorithms... it may just make sense.
"I still don’t have a straight answer on why some cards perform better under this test and others fail miserably. Ultimately, however, every card I’ve encountered eventually corrupts the filesystem after enough cycles, it’s just a matter of how long. I feel comfortable if I can reliably get to ten thousand ungraceful reboots-while-writing before failure." - Andrew (bunnie) Huang
MicroSD card FAQ (bunnie's blog)
"- Pre-tested under continuous and discontinuous power scenarios to minimize your risk." - Spansion
Spansion(r) Flash File System (brochure)

Fixed point - AVR32 UC3 has a fixed point math library.
DSPLIB 32-bit fixed-point operators example Documentation (ASF)

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

mckeemj wrote:
The more I look at the problem, the more it seems like a ready made processing module is the way to go. Something that runs full Linux would be even better as development could be the same as their more normal PC based assignments.
Another Atmel SAMA5D3 SOM:
MYC-SAMA5D35 CPU Module (MYIR Tech)
68mm x 45mm
Industrial temperature range.
2 TWI.
85USD from its maker though there is a US distributor.
Software can be Linux4SAM or Debian 7 though Atmel has a software package for SAMA5D3 (drivers and such) if one wants to bare board or use a RTOS.

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

What i've posted was wrong or what ..?????

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Sorry For that

Last Edited: Mon. Mar 13, 2017 - 11:15 AM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1

@NikhilSingh

 

Your post appears to be an exact copy of:

 

http://electroiq.com/blog/2005/0...

 

Why didn't you just post a URL?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

As interesting as it may be, do you really think this addresses the OP's Question?

 

Even if it does, it's 4 years late!

 

But the clincher is that it's just a verbatim copy of this: http://electroiq.com/blog/2005/0...

 

Hence, I call SPAM!

 

 

Edit: Cliff beat me to it!

Top Tips:

  1. How to properly post source code - see: https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment... - also how to properly include images/pictures
  2. "Garbage" characters on a serial terminal are (almost?) invariably due to wrong baud rate - see: https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/serial-communication
  3. Wrong baud rate is usually due to not running at the speed you thought; check by blinking a LED to see if you get the speed you expected
  4. Difference between a crystal, and a crystal oscillatorhttps://www.avrfreaks.net/comment...
  5. When your question is resolved, mark the solution: https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment...
  6. Beginner's "Getting Started" tips: https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment...
Last Edited: Mon. Mar 13, 2017 - 09:59 AM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I'm just trying to understand, if it is spam, what does it gain the poster?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Yes, it's very strange - seems pointless as a real post, but also pointless as spam!

 

Maybe there are (or were meant to be) some links hidden in there?

 

Maybe he's just trying to give the impression of being bona fide before starting on the spam ...

Top Tips:

  1. How to properly post source code - see: https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment... - also how to properly include images/pictures
  2. "Garbage" characters on a serial terminal are (almost?) invariably due to wrong baud rate - see: https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/serial-communication
  3. Wrong baud rate is usually due to not running at the speed you thought; check by blinking a LED to see if you get the speed you expected
  4. Difference between a crystal, and a crystal oscillatorhttps://www.avrfreaks.net/comment...
  5. When your question is resolved, mark the solution: https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment...
  6. Beginner's "Getting Started" tips: https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1

awneil wrote:

Maybe he's just trying to give the impression of being bona fide before starting on the spam ...

 

We see this a lot of a forum I admin. A new sign-up posts something that resurrects an old post with a reply comprised of something that is a cut-and-paste from elsewhere. Sometimes it contains added embedded links; sometimes the posters signature contains links, and sometimes it all looks OK until the next post which is pure processed pork. We have a simple policy there; if it smells of pork the poster gets their account deleted.

#1 This forum helps those that help themselves

#2 All grounds are not created equal

#3 How have you proved that your chip is running at xxMHz?

#4 "If you think you need floating point to solve the problem then you don't understand the problem. If you really do need floating point then you have a problem you do not understand." - Heater's ex-boss

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

He has me intrigued - I'm going to wait and see what comes next before I press the big red "DETONATE" button!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Sorry I know what i was doing & that was not correct

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

awneil wrote:

As interesting as it may be, do you really think this addresses the OP's Question?

 

Even if it does, it's 4 years late!

 

But the clincher is that it's just a verbatim copy of this: http://electroiq.com/blog/2005/0...

 

Hence, I call SPAM!

 

 

Edit: Cliff beat me to it!

Thanks for Posting that link ...once i thought i could post that link or not ...i don't want to violate the rules you've made.

 

Well Said Mr. Perfectionist :- You are so clever by the way ......Simply Awesome ....

Bravo Bravo

Last Edited: Mon. Mar 13, 2017 - 11:21 AM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Brian Fairchild wrote:

awneil wrote:

Maybe he's just trying to give the impression of being bona fide before starting on the spam ...

 

We see this a lot of a forum I admin. A new sign-up posts something that resurrects an old post with a reply comprised of something that is a cut-and-paste from elsewhere. Sometimes it contains added embedded links; sometimes the posters signature contains links, and sometimes it all looks OK until the next post which is pure processed pork. We have a simple policy there; if it smells of pork the poster gets their account deleted.

.....You just said it all ......Even i'm a bit lunatic as well ...Just a Bit

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

 

I deleted a spam post attached to the 2013 thread and now look what has happened.

 

In future I will lock such old threads to prevent digging up the dead.

 

Please don't add to this thread. In a couple of days I will delete everything posted in 2017 and then lock it.

 

Moderator

 

Ross McKenzie ValuSoft Melbourne Australia

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

clawson wrote:

@NikhilSingh

 

Your post appears to be an exact copy of:

 

http://electroiq.com/blog/2005/0...

 

Why didn't you just post a URL?

Sorry For that .....it won't happen again ...otherwise you're there ....Who knows everything & everybody ...I'm just just cALL AWAY...ONE CLICK AWAY ...SORRY eVERYONE.

FELLING AWESOME ...REALLY WHEN PEOPLE STARTS TALKING About you...It feels amazing. Not for good reason but yeah i'm there in your head right now...don't worry i won't bite & buzz..

Sorry for all this Fuzz & buzzzz

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 2

... think I'll stop this here smiley

:: Morten

 

(yes, I work for Atmel, yes, I do this in my spare time, now stop sending PMs)

Topic locked