Hi! Just finished soldering up the adapters I got here, and I LOVE Them. Thought I'd jump in with a quick question/confirmation, and a thought. The confirmation/question is: I can just omit the TO-92 regulator altogether if I choose to use my beefy TO-220 LM2937ET-3.3 and pump that voltage into pin 1 of the connector, correct? I think I need to do this as I am using the Xbee Pro XSC which has whopping TX power....
The footprint of that module is also about 1/4" longer on the bottom end, and it covers the entire area of the regulator and cap. While the reg can fit just exactly beneath the board, I am having to use a different cap as the supplied unit prevents the XSC from seating.
Also - looks like pin 6 is different on the XSC - probably won't get any D1 LED action as pin 6 is the CONFIG pin on the XSC... but I digress.
Lastly - if there were a SM version of this board, I'd buy that! But I know what you mean about soldering skills - I've seen people post pics of projects that look a little like a barbecued turkey leg. Scarey!
Thanks for a great kit!
Dave X
XBee Pro adapter current
Moderators: adafruit_support_bill, adafruit
Please be positive and constructive with your questions and comments.
-
- Posts: 12151
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:21 pm
Re: XBee Pro adapter current
yup "3V" is input or output
just solder the cap to the other side if you need more space
just solder the cap to the other side if you need more space
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:19 pm
Re: XBee Pro adapter current
How about designing the board to accommodate both TO-92 and SOT-223? Anybody who wants to use a higher power regulator has that option. Also, the dropout for the LD1117 is 1.1v@100ma!
- ericwertz
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:18 am
Re: XBee Pro adapter current
One solution might be to parallelize two of the TO-92 VRegs, which would keep it through-hole. The output traces could be cut between two extra through-holes where the ORing diodes would go if one wanted to add the second VReg. It looks like the XBee supply can handle a modest one-diode drop from 3.3V, as long as the supplies don't sag much lower.
Basically the supply section would be VReg1out to a serial pair of through-holes joined by a trace, in parallel with another similar VReg2out path. If one wants the second supply, one cuts the two traces between the through-hole pairs, jumpers them with their ORing diodes, and installs the second VReg.
It would certainly require not-insignificant extra board space for the second VReg and the two extra jumperable lead-outs. Perhaps too high a cost if only 5% of the people are going to want the second supply. The extra VReg and pair of diodes could be sold a la carte, but everyone would be forced to buy the extra real estate.
Interested parties could even cut the output trace on their single VReg, install a jumperable 2-pin header (if the diode through-holes were on standard centers) and measure their actual current in-line, be they anal enough to want to do so.
This all might be design overkill compared to just going up to a TO-220, if through-hole is still priority#1. Now that I think of it, it might be easier (and smaller) to just come up with a layout that can grok either a TO-92 or a TO-220.
Basically the supply section would be VReg1out to a serial pair of through-holes joined by a trace, in parallel with another similar VReg2out path. If one wants the second supply, one cuts the two traces between the through-hole pairs, jumpers them with their ORing diodes, and installs the second VReg.
It would certainly require not-insignificant extra board space for the second VReg and the two extra jumperable lead-outs. Perhaps too high a cost if only 5% of the people are going to want the second supply. The extra VReg and pair of diodes could be sold a la carte, but everyone would be forced to buy the extra real estate.
Interested parties could even cut the output trace on their single VReg, install a jumperable 2-pin header (if the diode through-holes were on standard centers) and measure their actual current in-line, be they anal enough to want to do so.
This all might be design overkill compared to just going up to a TO-220, if through-hole is still priority#1. Now that I think of it, it might be easier (and smaller) to just come up with a layout that can grok either a TO-92 or a TO-220.
Please be positive and constructive with your questions and comments.