Potential Renard64 Changes

[P. Short]

Here are some potential changes to the Renard64 board for 2008, based on experience gained over the last year.

1) Increased the board size by 1 inch (2.54 cm) in each dimension, moving the components further apart.

2) Added extra mounting holes.

3) Relocated the channel number labels.

4) Added DE-9 RS232 input connector (in parallel with the RJ45 input connector), as well as a jumper that should be installed when it is used.

5) Changed power and zero-crossing circuitry so that (with an external 12VAC CT transformer) the board can be self-powered without requiring the Ren-T board. The power and zero-crossing input is through the spade lugs (or 5.08 mm terminal blocks) in the upper left corner of the board. This is the only source of zero-crossing (through the H11AA1). This is meant to simplify the use of the board, and to beef up the power input circuit so that the on-board regulator can be used when the PICs are programmed for PWM operation.

This design needs to be further reviewed and prototyped prior to any coop buy. And, of course, this design could be ignored in favor of the old design (although I do not think that both designs should be available at the same time).

--

Phil

[Wayne J]

I like these changes. Especially 4 & 5 ( and #2 :P )

A question about the power. The input comes from an off board transformer, and this provides ZC and power for that board. Will a second board daisey chained also require it's own transformer for power? Does that answer depend on the size transformer used? In the notes, an alternate power supply could be used, so a small transformer could then just supply the ZC for both boards chained together, and the ps supply both boards with direct connections to each board, correct?
:)

[P. Short]

If you had a 2A transformer, you could put a 'Y' in the cables to connect it to two boards simultaneously. The cap and diodes are really sized to provide only the 1A that each board needs.

As for the second question (alternate power supply), the answer is yes.

--

Phil

[RavingLunatic]

Does this mean no more build "options" to worry about? I say AMEN to to that!

The most confusing thing about the current design is the 3 configuration options and then the need for the Ren-T and it's different options.

I like all the changes so far.

Along with Wayne's comments, it appears that the new design only is daisy-chaining the data signal. Power and ZC all stay on-board, correct? Which also means pins 3,7,& 8 on the RJ45 IN/OUT jacks now serve no purpose, correct?

I don't have a problem with that and it probably will cut down on headaches if you don't try to pass the ZC signal from board-to-board. I seem to recall a few posts during the show build up that a few folks were having problems with the ZC being passed board-to-board over a distance.

Phil, have you looked into a different vertical RJ45 connector? Current one is a bit pricey. It seems that the Renard24 uses 571-5564161 and is about $1 each cheaper, will it fit?

[P. Short]

RL,

Yes, the cheaper connector couldn't be used on the previous rev because it was too big. So this board would cost less, the cheaper connectors will work.

And reducing the build options was certainly one of my main goals, so much confusion introduced by all of the options.

This design still passes the power and zc signals from input to output, so that it can be freely placed in a chain of previous Ren64s or Ren8s. But it doesn't make any use of those signals, just passes them on.

--

Phil

[shocker]

i like the idea of no more rent but on the pcb i dont see the max232 and convertion for 485,

[wjohn]

the 232/485 conversion is already there ( and has been since V1 (XA).

Phil and I have discussing this for some time, and we both felt an easy construction REN64 was needed

John.

[Wayne J]

That topic has been discussed with several of us. Simplification was needed to help with troubleshooting and eleminate different options that can get very confusing during assembly and setup.
I think Phil has come up with something much better.

[Macrosill]

Phil,
Is there a specific off board transformer that must be used for the ZC and power? Or any 1amp AC walwart? Does it need to have any special characteristics?

I like all the proposed changes. I vote for the new design.

[zaker]

I agree on simplifying the setup. Took a lot of reading back and forth with the Ren64 & Ren-T. Too many 'optional' choices.

Mounting holes are good also! My Ren64 is hot glued on the bottom end to hold it down.

tom

[wbuehler]

Nice

I always love to get someting new to try

Bill

[P. Short]

Brian,

It doesn't use a wall-wart, it uses a 12VAC, 1A CT transformer. They will usually have five leads...two AC input leads, three output leads.

But if wall-warts are what people desire in place of the discrete transformer, it is possible (with some research) to change the board to accommodate that instead.

--

Phil

[Macrosill]

That might be an easier solution for most. I am just thinking out loud.

[P. Short]

That's why I posted this topic, rather than just doing it. That idea has floated through my head from time to time, but usually leaves before I remember to write it down or do anything about it.

The research that I spoke of is actually selecting an inexpensive wall-wart that is readily available. Any ideas?

--

Phil

[Wayne J]

You know... with soooo many wal warts floating around, this could lead to trouble (thinking out loud)
"hey, where's that wal wart I saw the other day, I bet it will work"

I think trying to keep to specific parts is best, if we want to simplify things. The other, only opens another can of worms.

[Trip]

As a newb looking at Ren64 as my front running choice right now, getting rid of the rent looks great and eases some of my worries about difficulty. I have great interest in the direction this option is going now.

[P. Short]

Wayne,

Right now I would specify the Xicon 41FG010 transformer (12.6VAC CT at 1A).

As yet I haven't found a wall-wart that I think would be suitable for specifying. It would need about 6.3V AC output at 1A.

--

Phil

[P. Short]

There is another set of changes that I'm thinking about, but have not implemented.

At the moment I have an untested firmware for Renard that would accept DMX512 input, rather than the current proprietary protocol. So, it might be useful to change the RS485 pinout to agree with the DMX standard. The current firmware revisions would still work with this new board. The biggest complication that this hardware change would introduce is if someone would need an adaptor cable to swizzle the pins if they wanted to have the DMX512-compatible board in the same chain as one of the older Renard boards.

--

Phil

[Wayne J]

Wayne,

Right now I would specify the Xicon 41FG010 transformer (12.6VAC CT at 1A).

As yet I haven't found a wall-wart that I think would be suitable for specifying. It would need about 6.3V AC output at 1A.

--

Phil

Would this 6.3v transformer go along the same lines as the Tamura transformer was with the Ren-T? Would ZC be reliable?

[P. Short]

Wayne,

You're talking about the wall-wart? It would not have the problems that were encountered with the 6.3V Tamura transformer on the Ren-T because the H11AA1 used for the zero-crossing circuit bypasses the power rectifiers.

--

Phil

[Wayne J]

ahhh, I forgot about the H11AA1. ;)

[Macrosill]

There is another set of changes that I'm thinking about, but have not implemented.

At the moment I have an untested firmware for Renard that would accept DMX512 input, rather than the current proprietary protocol. So, it might be useful to change the RS485 pinout to agree with the DMX standard. The current firmware revisions would still work with this new board. The biggest complication that this hardware change would introduce is if someone would need an adaptor cable to swizzle the pins if they wanted to have the DMX512-compatible board in the same chain as one of the older Renard boards.

--

Phil

That sounds promising, I think!

The only pitfal is the cost of the DMX dongle. But this would open up the realm of adding DMX devices easily.

[RavingLunatic]

Renard going DMX?

Now that brings up new questions:

1) Firmware: Will the first pic have it's own firmware with the address?
Theory: First pic sees it's address in the DMX data stream and starts processing the data stream and uses the first 8 values itself and then passes on the next 56 data values to the rest of the pics. The rest of the pics have firmware that just picks off the first 8 values of data passed to it and then passes the rest to the next pic.

2) Board layout: Will a jumper be added to have the incoming data also go to the output RJ45 jack direct (for DMX mode) for the next DMX device instead of being output from the last pic? My understanding of DMX is that all the devices need to see the entire DMX data stream to be able to determine which data is for their address.

[P. Short]

RL,

It's still only 3/4 baked, but I had both of those items in mind. Right now I'm thinking that the address would be stored in the internal PIC eeprom, and there would also be some indication in the EEPROM of the other PICS that they should behave in the manner that you indicated.

--

Phil

[tconley]

Phil,
as far as the connector would it be possible to use a set of jumper to orient the input and output pins. So for dmx they are on one side and for renard the other. I have have specialized cables. Or maybe even rocker switches would work but they would cost more.

[RavingLunatic]

It's still only 3/4 baked,

A 3/4 baked idea is much better than a 1/2 baked one. :lol:

Will you be able to maintain the PWM, Non-PWM and DC Build options in the firmware?

I would imagine that the dimming options wouldn't change just the communication protocol but I thought I would ask to verify.

[P. Short]

RL,

Yes, that is the objective. Right now I am aiming to have the polarity, pwm and non-pwm options on a per-channel basis (perhaps programmed through a configuration utility), although the DC option would still be an across-the-chip option through a #define statement in the source. But I'm trying to come up with a method of handling that on a per-channel basis as well.

That said, I'm less interested in going forward with the DMX option because of the Lynx-Freestyle that RJ is promoting. No need for semi-redundant projects.

--

Phil

[RavingLunatic]

Phil,

Sorry that you're lossing interest in the DMX mode upgrade. I kinda liked the idea of a board that could be used in either Renard or DMX mode.

Seemed like a great transistion board that a user could start with in Renard mode and once they felt they could afford the DMX dongle they could switch with a simple (?) firmware change.

Oh well!

The other mods for the Renard64 will still be muchly appreciated! Thanks as always for the outstanding work/effort that you do for the community.

[notyou]

As someone who is planning for a first year of animating in 2008, I would definitely be interested in this Renard64 with the suggested changes.

I've decided the [current] Renard64 is the design I want to go with, but am still slightly confused from all the options in order to make multiple Renard64's work (looking at using 2 or 3). The proposed changes -- from my perspective as a newbie -- make it much more appealing and simplier to use and setup.

Based on the replies, though, I am wondering what options I would have for powering 3 [new] Renard64's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the options would be:

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*a. Purchase 3 transforms ( Xicon 41FG010 transformer ) @ ~5.00 each, and connect one to each board. These would be wired to a single 120VAC plug.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*b. Find a transformer like the above Xicon, but rated for 3Amps -- then split the output into each board. Such an example would be RadioShack 273-1511. Would 3A output be okay even if just using 2 boards?

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*c. ???

Would a feasible suggestion be to utilize the power and ZC signals that are passed between the boards? A previous post in this topic said that this design passes the signals, but doesn't use them -- what is the reasoning for this, and/or would it make powering multiple boards easier?

Also, I do like the idea of a walwart to power as well, but I would recommend if going this route to be VERY specific about the rating of the wallwart, and provide at least one example one. Additionally, if an output range would be acceptable for the board, provide that as well (in case a wallwart with the exact specs cannot be found).

I currently have no control boards, so I would be willing to help and/or test a new design if needed.

- Jay

[P. Short]

There aren't any options anymore, LOL.

In practice, your alternatives a and b are both fine, although wire lengths should be kept short for 'b'.

The signals are passed between the boards to make it easier for the older boards to be freely intermixed with the newer boards. This doesn't affect things as far as powering the proposed new Ren64 boards, since the cap and regulator parts aren't capable of powering more than one Ren64 board.

As for wall-warts, I haven't found any that I like yet, and am tending away from that design.

--

Phil

[MonteryJack]

I like the Transformer onboard for power.

I think it would better standardize the configuration and keep the individualizations down to a minimization.

Just my 1/2 cent worth.

I look forward to testing.

[Sean Bowf]

I like the Transformer onboard for power.


MontereyJack, I don't think the transformer is on board. It is the only component that would NOT be on the board.

Phil, what is the purpose of taking away the idea of daisy chaining a single power and ZC signal in favor of having a transformer for each controller (or one large one for all of them)? Just thinking out loud, but doing this would require 115VAC at each controller, where, if my understanding is correct of the old one, everything from the first controller was passed to all the downstream ones. Not a big deal...I am betting most folks that are going for a 64 channel board have their controllers all right next to their computer (Olsen replacement). Just trying to understand how this change makes it easier, better, or cheaper.

As to a standard...as I have mentioned before, I like the idea of a standard...wished we had one long ago. Last time I mentioned it, it was kind of shot down in favor of adaptability for individual application.

As to DMX, if this happens, would it be better to add another non-RJ45 connector to the board for that option?? Then there "should" not be any problem with folks plugging an old and new board together with RJ45s (thinking of the other option of changing the pinout of the in/out RJ45s and the problems it may cause). Using the RJ45 option if using renard firmware, and the other connector if using DMX.

Sean

[P. Short]

That's what I wanted the old one to do, but it didn't work out in practice. The power never could really be daisy-chained, at least not for any distance over CAT5. The current draw was really too high with the LEDs in place and PWM firmware that each board had to be near a PC power supply to get +5V anyway. Also, people have been very limited in how many Ren64 controllers could be daisy-chained, since they tended to be used with 50 ms update intervals or faster.

At this point I've dropped the idea of making any hardware changes to support DMX. If I (or anybody else) ever release any DMX firmware for Renard, people will need to have some sort of adapter pigtail.

--

Phil

[notyou]

What would be the reason(s) for leaving the transformer off the board, especially since a specific one is being specified? Is it the size of the board, proximitely to components, etc?

This could even help in meeting your design goal of reducing setup options, and if everyone uses the same transformer in the same configuration it would help in the troubleshooting of problems as you mentioned.

Secondly, help me understand one of your previous posts (I've been styding and self-teaching myself electronic design, and this forum has renewed that spark). You are specifying a 12.6VAC, 1amp transformer, but then you mention you would use a 6.3VAC, 1amp wall wart if something suitable was found. Why the difference -- would it be because the wallwart would bypass the need for the on-board regulator?

- Jay

[P. Short]

Board size is the main reason for leaving if off. It might be possible to fit the transformer on if the board is completely re-designed, but that is not my intention now.

The point of the wall-wart is that if one could have been found, it would have reduced wiring complexity. Plug it in versus all the steps that are needed for an external transformer. The on-board regulator is used in both scenarios.

--

Phil

[P. Short]

Here is the latest revision, pretty much what I intend to go with. The major changes from the last revision is that the transformer has been changed to 6.3VAC@1A, and the resistors and zener diode pads have been changed to a .4" spacing.

P/S Voltage Calculations

6.3VAC * 1.414 = 8.9V Peak (input to bridge rectifier)
- 2*.4V = 0.8V (2 diode drops)
8.1V (peak output from bridge rectifier)
-1.5V (ripple across .0068uF cap, 50 Hz = I*delta-T/C).
6.6V (minimum voltage going to the regulator)
-.65V (estimated maximum dropout voltage for L4940V5 @ 1A)
5.95V

=> margin is 0.95V at 50 Hz, greater at 60 Hz.

This margin is necessary because capacitor tolerance, power line variations and wiring drops were not taken into account (although the current requirements are a bit pessimistic).

Power dissipation on the regulator at full load ~ 2.5W (1A * ~2.5V). At an ambient temp of 25C the internal junction temperature will reach 150C without a heat sink, so a heatsink is recommended. An inexpensive one like mouser 532-6022PB should work, although I still need to check for mechanical fit.

--

Phil

[Walden]

I cant wait this is what im going to invest in for next year.

[wjohn]

looks great, Phil

[Sean Bowf]

Hard to see the pic well enough to follow out all the traces (and I am in front of a 22 inch monitor). I guess I need to stick around more so I can keep up on this stuff. :wink:

U5 is the RS485 receiver, U4 would be the transmitter...

I take it U6 is the ZC detector. I noticed C3 takes the ZC signal to the 5V trace. What is the purpose of that?

What is the component below C3? Looks like it says R4 or R14...is it a resistor between power and ground?? What for??

What is the component to the left of R7?? (between R7 and the oscillator)

The jack to the right of J4 that is flush with the edge of the board...what is it for? Looks like it is tied to the input of the RS485 receiver...I take it this is the RS232 input, if used??

D3 and D4 look like they take the negative part of the AC sine wave to ground. What happens if it was just left with D1 and D2 as a half wave rectifier? (curious)

Sean

[P. Short]

Sean,

1&2) The part that is on the ZC signal is R14, not C3. The silkscreen is a little bit off in that area. The upper component of the two is R14, the bottom component C3 is a bypass cap. I'll have to fix the silkscreen.

3&4) The component to the left of R7 is a 2-pin jumper block. When the jack to the right of J4 is used for RS232 input, there will need to be a shunt installed in that jumper block. I'll have to update the silkscreen to add a reference designator.

5) D1-D4 form a full-wave bridge rectifier, allowing the board to be powered from a 6.3VAC CT transformer. If your suggestion was followed (D3 and D4 omitted), then a 12.6 VAC center-tapped transformer could be used to power the board (if the CT was connected to ground on the board). In the interests of simplicity (one BOM, one set of instructions) I do not intend to do that. I think that this is what you were 'curious' about.

--

Phil

P.S.

Thanks for spending the time to look at it closely.

Phil

[Sean Bowf]

Phil, why is it necessary to take the negative part of the AC sine wave to ground?? Not trying to say not to do it...trying to understand why it is done.

Thanks for your explanations,
Sean

[P. Short]

Sean,

That is what is known as a full-wave bridge rectifier, and is the usual way of connecting a simple (no center-tap) transformer. The other textbook way of connecting this type of transformer is to use one diode, but this only results in half-wave rectification (only half of the sine wave is provides power).

There are two standard ways of obtaining full-wave rectification (power is provided on both halves of the AC cycle). One way is to use a center-tapped transformer and two diodes, where the center-tap is used for the ground reference. This is very common, although it doesn't make efficient use of the copper and iron in the transformer (half of the transformer is 'idling' on each half-cycle).

The other way doesn't use the center-tap on the transformer, but uses four diodes instead. This is the method used on the Ren64 board right now. It makes better use of the copper and iron in the transformer, so the transformer could potentially be 1/2 of the size of the one in the previous scheme. Although this doesn't seem to be born out with Mouser's pricing - the Xicon 41FD010 (6.3VAC) costs $6.81 in single quantities, the 41FG010 (12.6VAC) costs $5.85). What's interesting is that the 41FW300 (multiple output voltages at 3A) costs only $5.23, although it weighs 2 pounds).

This information can be found in all elementary electronics textbooks, and is probably explained far better than what I've done.

--

Phil

[notyou]

Instead of using four diodes (D1-D4), could a diode bridge be used? This would do the same thing, provide a more compact layout, and have half as many solder points. Not sure of which one or the cost difference, as I don't know which the ratings for D1-D4 are.

I would vote to keep the full-wave scheme, since it opens up possible options for powering multiple Renard64 boards from one transformer (one of my concerns earlier in the post). The Xicon 41FD030 is only a few cents more then the 41FD010, but puts out 3A.

BTW - the Xicon 41FW300 outputs at .3A (300mA), not 3A.

[P. Short]

The main reason for using discrete diodes is that they can be cheaper than a bridge, and are available as Schottky diodes (I'm relying on the lower voltage drop of Schottkys). Although I admit that I haven't actually looked for Schottky full-wave bridges.

--

Phil

[wjohn]

Phil,

the first Beta Board arrived yesterday and I have it running on the bench with PWM software and LEDs fitted. I am short a few components (Resistor arrays and some LEDs), however it is working on all 64 channels.

The board is powered from an external transfomer, rated at 6.3VA @ 1 AMP. The board has been tested with RS232 via the DB 9, and via the RJ45 IN. You can see the screw dowen terminals in the top left hand corner of the board and the ZC signal is provided by the H11AA1 just below the power terminals.


All is looking for the next version of the RENARD64.

[daviddth]

Looks great John. Cant wait to see one in the "flesh" :)

[andyb]

Looking forward to one of these boards for 2008 (my first year).

[PacMang]

i waiting till these are avaliable and picking three up for 2008

[wjohn]

For those who are willing, PM me in the next 24 hours (Midnight Wed - Australia) and I will try to arrange a Test PCB for you. the details are in the WIKI. you will just need to cover the board development costs (share).

After Thursday, I am on vacation for 2 weeks in FIJI (no internet and no cares)

[WakeFan]

If I've read all this correctly, there are no "optional" parts. Everything, including regulator needs to be installed leds or no leds, and I will need a Xicon 41FD010 transformer (6.3VAC CT at 1A) per board. How does the connection from computer to board change? or does it?

[Wayne J]

No, no optional parts, except the LEDs and associated resistors.
The transformer I think is a Xicon 41FD010 - 6.3VAC - 1A (although any brand should work)

To connect to the computer DE9 pins 3 and 5 to pins 3 and 5 on your serial port, and install the shunt on JP1.

[WakeFan]

Should have mentioned, I need to go about 35ft from computer to controller. I the de9 still the way to go?

[Wayne J]

yes, you should be fine.

[WakeFan]

OK, hopefully last question. On the transformer to board connection, which two wires go to board, or do all three connect somehow to the board?

[Wayne J]

OK, hopefully last question. On the transformer to board connection, which two wires go to board, or do all three connect somehow to the board?


Use the two secondary wires, and leave the CenterTap wire off.

[P. Short]

Might be a good idea to put a wire nut over the end of the CT wire or do something else to keep it from touching things.

--

Phil

[mrpackethead]

Any chance of adding onboard DMX to the design?

[BillyBob54]

Transformer Question.

Understand that 6.3 VAC / 1A power is required. Is using "1/2" of a 12.6 VAC 1A CT transformer OK? Inefficient, yes; but OK? And if that is OK, can the other half be used to power a second REN64XC board? I suspect you would have to go to at least a 2A transformer. I ask because I have a 12.6 1A CT lying around.

[P. Short]

Yes, you can use 1/2 of a 12.6VAC CT transformer (inefficient, but OK). However, do not use the second half of the transformer because you would more or less short out the transformer and diodes (through the ground wire between the boards). I haven't gone through all of the 'logic', but I'm not sure there is any safe way to hook it up like that.

--

Phil