Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList
Thread
'[PIC] Weight of packages'
2009\05\25@163232
by
Chris McSweeny
Does anybody have info on the weight of different packages? Mainly
interested in DIP8 and SOIC8, though info on other packages would be
interesting. Have a very weight critical application, hence also considering
going PCBless and soldering connections straight to device pins (are any
other 8 pin packages feasible to hand solder to?)
2009\05\25@165503
by
Marcel Duchamp
Chris McSweeny wrote:
> Does anybody have info on the weight of different packages? Mainly
> interested in DIP8 and SOIC8, though info on other packages would be
> interesting. Have a very weight critical application, hence also considering
> going PCBless and soldering connections straight to device pins (are any
> other 8 pin packages feasible to hand solder to?)
It varies a bit. DIP8s come in from 1.0 to 1.5 gms while SOIC8s are
about half that.
So, blimp? kite? micro-uav? other?
2009\05\25@165702
by
Spehro Pefhany
At 04:32 PM 25/05/2009, you wrote:
>Does anybody have info on the weight of different packages? Mainly
>interested in DIP8 and SOIC8, though info on other packages would be
>interesting. Have a very weight critical application, hence also considering
>going PCBless and soldering connections straight to device pins (are any
>other 8 pin packages feasible to hand solder to?)
No guarantee that this is the same as uChip, but here is one data point:
www.hittite.com/content/documents/environmental_datasheets/s8g_sige_e-data_sheet.pdf
(nominal 0.07443gm for SOIC-8) or around 13,400 pieces in a kg.
Of course it would be easy enough to measure if you have a good scale (maybe
measure 10 or 100 pieces).
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
spam_OUTspeffTakeThisOuT
interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
2009\05\25@172045
by
Chris McSweeny
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Marcel Duchamp <
.....marcel.duchampKILLspam@spam@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> So, blimp? kite? micro-uav? other?
>
Thanks for the info. I'd be tempted to go with the DIP for the ease of
soldering straight to package - just got to decide whether that's worth a 1
to 1.5% hit on total weight based on figures given (though that might be a
little less if I cut off the 3 unneeded legs!) Certainly the guys involved
in this all have scales which weigh to 0.1g (unlike me - and neither do I
have 10 SOICs hanging around - might be able to rustle up a fair number of
DIP8s).
You're heading in the right direction, but need to keep guessing!
2009\05\25@173228
by
Alex Harford
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Chris McSweeny <cpmcsweenyKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Marcel Duchamp <
> .....marcel.duchampKILLspam.....sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> So, blimp? kite? micro-uav? other?
>>
>
> You're heading in the right direction, but need to keep guessing!
High altitude balloon?
If you need someone with an accurate scale, try your local *ahem*
pharmaceuticals merchant. :P
2009\05\25@173859
by
Herbert Graf
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 22:20 +0100, Chris McSweeny wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Marcel Duchamp <
> EraseMEmarcel.duchampspam_OUTTakeThisOuTsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > So, blimp? kite? micro-uav? other?
> >
>
> Thanks for the info. I'd be tempted to go with the DIP for the ease of
> soldering straight to package - just got to decide whether that's worth a 1
> to 1.5% hit on total weight based on figures given (though that might be a
> little less if I cut off the 3 unneeded legs!) Certainly the guys involved
cut off all the legs and dead bug it, can easily save a few fractions of
a gram that way! :)
2009\05\25@184950
by
Marcel Duchamp
Chris McSweeny wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Marcel Duchamp <
> marcel.duchampspam_OUTsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> So, blimp? kite? micro-uav? other?
>>
> You're heading in the right direction, but need to keep guessing!
Rocketry?
2009\05\25@185858
by
Chris McSweeny
Since you're having fun, rather than reveal all, but to stop you going way
off track, I should just point out that you were almost there with one of
your first guesses :-)
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Marcel Duchamp <
@spam@marcel.duchampKILLspamsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Rocketry?
2009\05\25@191025
by
olin piclist
Chris McSweeny wrote:
> I'd be tempted to go with the DIP for the ease of
> soldering straight to package
Huh? So with SMD packages you solder less "straight to the package".
You've got this backwards. SMD packages are going to weigh less, take less
board space, and be easier to solder.
********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
2009\05\25@191255
by
olin piclist
Alex Harford wrote:
> If you need someone with an accurate scale, try your local *ahem*
> pharmaceuticals merchant.
Or just ask Microchip how much their packages weigh in lids, bags, hits, and
whatever.
********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
2009\05\25@191624
by
William \Chops\ Westfield
2009\05\25@193220
by
Marcel Duchamp
|
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
>>> I'd be tempted to go with the DIP for the ease of soldering
>>> straight to package - just got to decide whether that's worth a 1
>>> to 1.5% hit on total weight based on figures given
>
> You may find that overall weight savings is reduced slightly and
> reliability and ease of construction is MUCH increased by using SMT
> components on a thin/small PCB. At least this seems to have been the
> conclusion off in the micro-indoor-RC area. Wire is surprisingly
> heavy, for instance.
>
> http://www.oyajin.jp/~toko/pic/0071/index.html
>
> cgi.ebay.com/Printed-circuit-board-0-0062-Copper-clad-25_W0QQitemZ320131965057QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item4a895a2081&_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116
>
> BillW
>
That 0.0062 material on ebay looks ideal! As Bill mentioned, wire is
heavy and the first time you have to rebuild, you will really wish you
had a pc layout. 1/162 of an inch... what is that, about 157 microns?
Sweet! Make the wings out of it with solder traces to act as ribs...
2009\05\25@215708
by
Vitaliy
Chris McSweeny wrote:
> Since you're having fun, rather than reveal all, but to stop you going way
> off track, I should just point out that you were almost there with one of
> your first guesses :-)
Fly-powered RC plane?
2009\05\26@070828
by
Chris McSweeny
|
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:16 AM, William "Chops" Westfield
<KILLspamwestfwKILLspammac.com>wrote:
>
> >> I'd be tempted to go with the DIP for the ease of soldering
> >> straight to package - just got to decide whether that's worth a 1
> >> to 1.5% hit on total weight based on figures given
>
> You may find that overall weight savings is reduced slightly and
> reliability and ease of construction is MUCH increased by using SMT
> components on a thin/small PCB. At least this seems to have been the
> conclusion off in the micro-indoor-RC area. Wire is surprisingly
> heavy, for instance.
>
Yeah, but I still need to use wire to connect to my PCB - the only
components on which would be the PIC and a decoupling cap - since it will be
interfacing between two existing commercial PCBs. Meanwhile wire doesn't
have to be heavy - not if you use magnet wire as all the micro builder do.
That and I'd be using my existing standard PCB material, as I'm not about to
invest in special stuff for this project - going PCBless also significantly
decreases my development time.
I suppose it's not that weight critical an app compared to some - going in a
50g heli (some micro planks are far lighter than that).
How does the smaller pin spacing of an SMD make it easier to solder straight
to package than a DIP, Olin?
2009\05\26@080541
by
Tamas Rudnai
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:16 AM, William "Chops" Westfield
<RemoveMEwestfwTakeThisOuTmac.com>wrote:
> You may find that overall weight savings is reduced slightly and
> reliability and ease of construction is MUCH increased by using SMT
> components on a thin/small PCB. At least this seems to have been the
> conclusion off in the micro-indoor-RC area. Wire is surprisingly
> heavy, for instance.
>
That's very true. This small device I have made eights around 6 gramms and
the heaviest part is the cable + the 2x3 header:
http://www.rudonix.com/devices.html
I think it could have been made in a different way shrinking the PCB and
also if I were using the 0.8mm PCB instead and a light weight cable and
maybe one channel filtering only then the whole lot could have been half of
it easily, maybe even more. Also you can use different type of material for
PCB that coudl have different weight, like
http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/sinodel/product-detailrqsEOTwUEtVF/China-Flexible-PCB.html
Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com
'[PIC] Weight of packages'
2009\06\04@181611
by
Chris McSweeny
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Chris McSweeny <spamBeGonecpmcsweenyspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:
> Does anybody have info on the weight of different packages? Mainly
> interested in DIP8 and SOIC8, though info on other packages would be
> interesting. Have a very weight critical application, hence also considering
> going PCBless and soldering connections straight to device pins (are any
> other 8 pin packages feasible to hand solder to?)
Just in case anybody is interested, I ended up ordering 10 of each
(AVRs, not PICs - 4 times higher effective clock speed/instruction
rate/timer resolution in an 8 pin package wins yet again). DIPs
weighed 6g for 10 (0.6g each), SOIC didn't even register a single
gram, so <0.1g each. I wouldn't necessarily trust the accuracy of the
scale that much, but convinced the DIP are at least 4 to 5 times
heavier than the SOIC and 0.6g is a significant amount of weight in
the context.
2009\06\05@033157
by
Tamas Rudnai
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Chris McSweeny <TakeThisOuTcpmcsweenyEraseMEspam_OUTgmail.com>wrote:
> Just in case anybody is interested, I ended up ordering 10 of each
> (AVRs, not PICs - 4 times higher effective clock speed/instruction
> rate/timer resolution in an 8 pin package wins yet again).
>
AVR is more modern architecture let's say and is great, however, that 4x
faster marketing stuff is not really true. That's only the MIPS they are
talking about (for example to add two 8 bit numbers in two RAM locations
storing the results in a RAM location takes almost the same time so we can
say that PIC is 4x more effective). Also as if you take a look at the
datasheets the tradeoff for the higher MIPS is to consume more power -- as
far as I can see from the datasheets both PIC and AVR consumes the same at
the very same MIPS (so AVR runs off 1/4 FOSC than PIC) -- but then PIC is
faster by it's architecture (especially 18F and enhanced midrange).
Anyway, AVR is not bad at all and most probably I will do few projects with
that in the near feature, however, simply I just did not bite that 4x
marketing meat.
Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com
2009\06\05@132249
by
Chris McSweeny
|
|
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Tamas Rudnai<RemoveMEtamas.rudnaiTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Chris McSweeny <
cpmcsweenyEraseME.....gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Just in case anybody is interested, I ended up ordering 10 of each
>> (AVRs, not PICs - 4 times higher effective clock speed/instruction
>> rate/timer resolution in an 8 pin package wins yet again).
>>
>
> AVR is more modern architecture let's say and is great, however, that 4x
> faster marketing stuff is not really true. That's only the MIPS they are
> talking about (for example to add two 8 bit numbers in two RAM locations
> storing the results in a RAM location takes almost the same time so we can
> say that PIC is 4x more effective). Also as if you take a look at the
> datasheets the tradeoff for the higher MIPS is to consume more power -- as
> far as I can see from the datasheets both PIC and AVR consumes the same at
> the very same MIPS (so AVR runs off 1/4 FOSC than PIC) -- but then PIC is
> faster by it's architecture (especially 18F and enhanced midrange).
>
> Anyway, AVR is not bad at all and most probably I will do few projects with
> that in the near feature, however, simply I just did not bite that 4x
> marketing meat.
Tamas - you have to bear in mind I have and use both. Have however all
but left behind PICs for 8 pin applications at least (where I'm also
almost certain to be using an internal clock), since the 4 times
faster is very true, not just marketing. If it was just marketing I
wouldn't be interested, but I can very definitely time things to 4
times better precision and do all the normal calculations and
processing I want to 4 times faster.
Not even sure where you get your example that the PIC is 4 times more
efficient. For PIC I have:
movf XX
addwf YY
movwf ZZ
3 cycles
For AVR:
LDS r16,XX
LDS r17,YY
add r16,r17
STS ZZ,r16
7 cycles
so only just over twice as efficient, but that of course is only if
you ignore that you don't have to use RAM so often with an AVR (I had
to look up the AVR instructions I use the memory access ones so
rarely) More often than not you can keep everything in the 32
registers you have available, hence that becomes:
mov r18,r16
add r18,r17
2 cycles, ie more efficient!
I understand others have different requirements - they might need lots
more data, so end up using RAM all the time - and not wanting to start
another PIC/AVR religious war, but for my requirements the AVR really
is 4 times faster (or more, since everything is in registers I never
have an instruction to fetch or store), and certainly for this
application that's important. The 12f683 actually has a capture
function the AtTiny25/45/85 don't which would be very useful, but
given the lower timing precision available I'm putting up with having
to do that in SW.
Chris
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009
, 2010 only
- Today
- New search...
