Renard4p4

[RavingLunatic]

Renard 4 plus 4, a smart DMX capable SSR

Looking for another set of eyes (or more) to see if I have missed anything on the board.

There is nothing new or cosmic about this board, just repackaging a proven system for my use. Not worried that anybody else likes the idea, I just want some of the experience board builders to tell me if I screwed it up somehow.

The board:

It is basically a Renard 4 with on-board SSRs and has provision to connect to a standard DIYC SSR (COOP or OZ) to get another 4 channels via EXT SSR header.

On-board reprogrammable via PGM header (not currently on the schematic)

JP1 & JP2 are to choose either to allow the output of the pic to go out or to let the input data signal to go out (DMX mode)

The board is this size so I can get some test boards made using the mini board option from ExpressPCB.com.


IF this works like I want, I want to try these future mods/improvements:

1 – Put on the Renard16 voltage regulator setup so I can make use of the DPS
2 – Make it about ½� inch shorter if possible. Want to be able set it in a 4� PVC pipe.
3 – Would love to get away from the external oscillator and go internal for DMX mode only. Might keep it the way it is so it could be used either way, not too sure at this moment.

[Wayne J]

I cannot comment on the design, but use of a ground plane may help with the size ( #2 mod), as well as reducing the chance of any noise.

Looks good though, I like the expandable 4 channels. ;)

[scorpia]

must say i like this idea.

would it be worth changing the pins for the extra 4 outputs to allow a rj-45 socket on there.

Shouldnt take up any more board space if your carefull and would make adding an external ssr a non issue.

edit: without double checking it looks like yet another rj45 pinout for the input serial signal. is it the same as something else or is this pinout differnt again.

Peter

[RavingLunatic]

would it be worth changing the pins for the extra 4 outputs to allow a rj-45 socket on there.


I'll take a look and see if I can squeeze it in.



edit: without double checking it looks like yet another rj45 pinout for the input serial signal. is it the same as something else or is this pinout differnt again.


It should be the same as the Renard16.

I think that while I'm squeezing the SSR RJ45 on the board, I'll also see about putting on the Renard16 voltage regulator setup.

[aussiephil]

RL

Technical note on the opto/triac gate resisitor.
All application notes on the usage of opto's and triacs have the resistor from AC hot going to pin 6 of the opto and pin 4 of the opto going to the triac gate.
The resistor is there to limit the Opto's peak current in a condition of non-conduction of the triac or when hign inductive loads are used.

Sean's board is actually different to the published 2.4 SSR circuit as well, the circuit is drawn as per app notes but the board has been made with the resistor between the MOC and the triac gate.

I know that doing it per the app notes makes the board layout just a little harder.

Phil

[RavingLunatic]

Phil,

Feedback duly noted and will correct. I based my design on existing operating designs, Sean's SSR and the Renard16 (which does half with the resistor on pin 4 and the other half with the resistor on pin 6). So it seems to work either way but as you say going by the App notes would be best.


Sean's board is actually different to the published 2.4 SSR circuit as well, the circuit is drawn as per app notes but the board has been made with the resistor between the MOC and the triac gate.


Not that it matters but I don't think I've ever seen a schematic for Sean's board posted.



I know that doing it per the app notes makes the board layout just a little harder.


Actually for my design it will be cleaner/easier. So thanks :D

[P. Short]

The MOC outputs are symmetric...doesn't matter if they are swapped. Likewise, it doesn't matter which MOC output has the resistor on it. What is not symmetric are the triac pins...MT1 and MT2 are not swappable.

--

Phil

[aussiephil]

Phil,

This is not meant to be auguementative......

I would agree that for the use that the community puts the SSR boards to, controlling for the most part purely resistive loads (incandescant lights) that the positioning of the resistor in a practical implementation would seem not to matter.

The point i made to RL was about the placing of the resistor with regards to the application notes by the optocoupler/triac manufacturers.
Regardless of technical issues, the positioning of the resistor in different fashion to the app notes does lead to a level of confusion for technical people who may be entering the hobby.

My last breadboarded SSR board that was quickly put together had the triac pins swapped around... guess what... it still worked. So that tells me that MT1 and MT2 can be swapped in the real world.

Please note that i have not made this point in any of the previously pinned threads on SSR's and i only raised it with RL has he is making a brand new board with a fresh layout and it would be good to see it align with the app notes as quite obviously the existing boards function.
I would humble suggest it may matter, and it certainly does matter when designing snubbing circuits.
The Moc outputs are still MT1 and MT2 and if they matter on a triac then why not on a MOC?

Now lets address something else that is buried in one of the app notes about this little resistor, i think it was fairchilds, where they clearly state that this resistor is not mandatory for resistive loads of less than 200 watts. I have read this at least twice, probably quoted from the same document. Now as the recommended limit for the SSR boards is 1A per channel at 115v this is 115w, certainly less than 200w.
For LED based lights that draw considerably less than this there may be considerable advantage to actually reducing the default values and i for one would like to see more research done on this.

Respectfully yours
Phil (Aussiephil)

[P. Short]

It's hard to discuss this without pictures...

In my view application notes are not definitive, they are simply there to help and provide a starting point for designing circuits using the given parts. So there are usually a lot of different (and correct) ways of using the parts beyond what appears in the app note. I think that this is true regardless of whether the app note is a separate document or a section in the datasheet for the part.

The reason that I said that the MT1 and MT2 of the triac are not symmetric is that only one of this terminals (MT1) is involved in turning the triac on and off (the gate voltage and current are defined wrt MT1). The MOC doesn't have a gate terminal, so the output terminals are symmetric. I suspect that your example involved swapping more than just MT1 and MT2, that there was some change in the gate drive circuitry as well as MT1 and MT2.

--

Phil

[mrpackethead]

It's hard to discuss this without pictures...

In my view application notes are not definitive, they are simply there to help and provide a starting point for designing circuits using the given parts. So there are usually a lot of different (and correct) ways of using the parts beyond what appears in the app note. I think that this is true regardless of whether the app note is a separate document or a section in the datasheet for the part.
Phil

And that does'nt just apply to Triacs! People will find all sorts of ways of using something that the original designers never thought of, that is for sure!!

Regards

A.

[ErnieHorning]

For normal operation of a TRIAC, we operate in quadrants 1 & 3, which are referenced to MT1. If you reference to MT2, you’re actually operating in quadrants 2 & 4. Quadrant 4 always takes more gate current and will turn on at a higher voltage, therefore not symmetrical. You cannot use the 4th quadrant with inductive loads. This is probably not so important for just on/off, but it is for dimming. Some TRIAC’s cannot be operated in quadrant 4 at all and may be destroyed if allowed to.

[ben]

For normal operation of a TRIAC, we operate in quadrants 1 & 3, which are referenced to MT1. If you reference to MT2, you’re actually operating in quadrants 2 & 4. Quadrant 4 always takes more gate current and will turn on at a higher voltage, therefore not symmetrical. You cannot use the 4th quadrant with inductive loads. This is probably not so important for just on/off, but it is for dimming. Some TRIAC’s cannot be operated in quadrant 4 at all and may be destroyed if allowed to.

Ok, I do not know what MT1 and MT2 are. I was reading along and understood most of it then aI read this. IT was like the Panuts teacher talking to Charlie brown. Waah wah wah waaa

Ben

[RavingLunatic]

Ok, I do not know what MT1 and MT2 are. I was reading along and understood most of it then aI read this.

They are the other 2 leads on the traic. The ST datasheet refers to them as A1 and A2.

Attached is some light reading for your educational development. ;)

[ErnieHorning]

Attached is some light reading for your educational development.
LOL I was trying to stay away from those. Unless you live that kind of life, they're probably as useful as a star chart.

MT1 & MT2 are just the AC I/O pins for a TRIAC. An SCR is similar to a TRIAC except that an SCR can only operate in one direction. A TRIAC is sort of like two SCR’s connected backwards to each other, which would be symmetrical. Because of the way the two SCR’s are placed on the same silicone chip in a TRIAC, they won’t be symmetrical. The reason why, is more of an atomic explanation that you can delve into elsewhere if you really got to know.

[ben]

LOL I was trying to stay away from those. Unless you live that kind of life, they're probably as useful as a star chart.

MT1 & MT2 are just the AC I/O pins for a TRIAC. An SCR is similar to a TRIAC except that an SCR can only operate in one direction. A TRIAC is sort of like two SCR’s connected backwards to each other, which would be symmetrical. Because of the way the two SCR’s are placed on the same silicone chip in a TRIAC, they won’t be symmetrical. The reason why, is more of an atomic explanation that you can delve into elsewhere if you really got to know.

Ok, I have seen some stuff about them and have looked at the data sheet on Mouser but I never came full circle with it. Thank you and RL.

Ben

[RavingLunatic]

Just posting a different layout of the Ren4p4 for someone in a different thread.

Just wanted to keep all the layouts in a single thread.


Also included the .pcb files for anybody who wants to run with this idea.

[Aurbo99]

Raving,

A few questions for you.

Any restrictions for mounting holes or board size?

on the Renard4P4 (ExPCB).pcb drawing. you have an input bottom left of the board for power, its backfeeding power up the IN Rj45.. is this correct?

[RavingLunatic]

Any restrictions for mounting holes or board size?


No, didn't have any specific requirements in particular. The original idea was just to try keep it as small as possible.

I'm sure that any others who might be interested might have some ideas of what enclosures they might want to put it in and that would dictate their size restrictions.




on the Renard4P4 (ExPCB).pcb drawing. you have an input bottom left of the board for power, its backfeeding power up the IN Rj45.. is this correct?

It was on the first version of the board with the idea that you could inject power (+5V) directly to the board instead of running it thru the CAT5 as an option.

Did away with it in the second version when I changed the board to use the Ren16 voltage regulator setup.

[P. Short]

Am I looking at the extension SSR connector right? The standard setup that I've been using is to put power (+5V) on pin 1 and drive the PIC output low to turn the opto on. There doesn't seem to be power on pin 1 of the extension SSR connector.

[RavingLunatic]

And that is why it is always best to have others look at the board layouts before you get too carried away. You are correct Phil, a missing trace.


Steve - if you run with this, don't forget to run +5V out to pin 1 of the Ext SSR connector.

[Aurbo99]

Where's Xmus when ya need him..

I hate re-inventing the wheel.

Have him cut off half the circuit from his Ren16 design and you get a Ren8 on board with all the ZC, bells and whistles..

Now modify that modified circuit if you must to port 4 outputs to an RJ45 instead of onboard SSR's..

Anyone have a .pcb file of Xmus' Ren16 handy?


Yes I know, just leave half the Ren16 unpopulated and you get the same effect, but you cant just cut off half the pcb to make it smaller.

[mwo040]

Maybe we can get Frank to modify a ren24 to have 4-8 on board and 8-16 off board. I think it would be nice to have that as an option too.

[wjohn]

it would be possible to make the REN16 a REN8 (+) fairly easily. I have the design already in Altrium and slicing the board by 1/2 would not take long. The question I have is what interest would there be for such a board.

We would end up with REN8(+) REN16, REN24 and REN64 boards.

[mwo040]

it would be possible to make the REN16 a REN8 (+) fairly easily. I have the design already in Altrium and slicing the board by 1/2 would not take long. The question I have is what interest would there be for such a board.

We would end up with REN8(+) REN16, REN24 and REN64 boards.

The advantage I see gives us a good board for roofline lights, arches and multi color mini trees among others by keeping extension cords short but using SSR's to run to spots farther away. This was talk of a really versatile beginner board giving the best of both worlds while keeping extension cords costs down. I had almost 500 dollars worth of extension cords for my ren24 on my yard this year because I had so many different distances to cover and no way to daisy chain many lights off 1 outlet or 50-100 ft extension cord.

[Aurbo99]

I'm game for the Ren8,

Put me down for at least 10 pcbs =)

Already have the 16's and 64's, but the 8 will fit a blank area for me (Arches, Strobes, etc)

[wjohn]

ok, so this does not become a long term design, and we can get to a board quickly,

do we need a 8 + 8 . aka a REN16 with 8 local and 2 SSR ports

or a 4 + 4? aka 1/2 a REN16 with 4 local and one SSR port?

[mwo040]

8+8 would be great for me. I would be in for 6 pcbs. I think this fills a great gap. I would even be in for some at the 4+4.

[toy keeper]

It would depend mainly on the board cost, but I would be looking at a possability of up to 20 4+4's for my self and I have some other friends who are also interested as well. I don't know how many they would want yet, but will know more around the 1st.

[ukewarrior]

4+4.

I don't see much advantage over other available boards with the 8+8.

[Wayne J]

I have been developing a Renard 8 design for the last 2 months. I was waiting til I was complete with the development phase before announcing what I was working on but all this interest in a Renard 8 has prompted me to share now. I have the proto boards on order and don’t expect any issues to pop up. So production boards should be able to be ordered by mid to late Feb.

What I have done is used the same input circuit as the Ren64 XC design but added an on-board transformer for creating the Zero Cross and VDC. The opto/triac side of the board has on-board neutrals so there is no need to have an external neutral bar or wire splices. Each extension cord or light set just plugs into its own terminal block.

What results is a completely self-contained Renard based controller. No need for external power or Zero Cross.

Currently, RL is working on complete wiki pages to support this board so that all users will have information from the basics of what the board is, to ordering parts, assembling the board and even troubleshooting if things go wrong.

The BOM will be comprised of the best selection of parts to ensure availability and to keep the overall cost as low as possible. There will even be a substitution page available to use when the primary part is “out of stock” and the member needs to get a part to replace it.

Below is a screen shot of the finished board. The board measures 3.3” x 6”.



http://jamesfamilychristmas.com/files/RenSS8.gif

http://jamesfamilychristmas.com/files/Renard SS8 V1.gif

[phenagan]

Very nice! Thinking about it, it wouldn't be that hard to make a variant of this one with 4 channels on board and 4 remote. You'd have the power supply, ZC, etc. right there on the board without having to worry about external components.

[mwo040]

looks like whatever design that is produced there will be a lot of interest. Thank you all for your hard work.

[wjohn]

Nice work Wayne,

I'll put something down next week for a 4 + 4.

John.

[wvengineer]

very nice design wj...

especially the use of the ground plane under the oscillator ans all the rs485 for shielding...

looks rock solid..

[Aurbo99]

Nice layout Wayne,

These will work nicely for my Arches.

[toy keeper]

My only complaint is the size. With the power supply added in, instead of an external source, there is no way I'd be able to stuff it in to a duplex box. Other than that it looks great.
Scott

[mwo040]

My only complaint is the size. With the power supply added in, instead of an external source, there is no way I'd be able to stuff it in to a duplex box. Other than that it looks great.
Scott

It looks like with the power supply it would fit in a triple box though. I like it Thanks WayneJ

[Warlock]

Sweet design Wayne J...I wanted 8 channels for my leapers and this is exactly what I am after.
Thank-you
Joe...

[toy keeper]

Well, I've been working on a home etch version of the ren4+4 that will fit the duplex package. So far I'll only need a few jumpers on the top side to do a single sided board. I will post it up after I have put a couple together and tested.

[Penfold]

Hey Wayne does your Ren 8 have the ability to transfer a 5V out to let say a Ren 16 or Ren 64? If not could that option be added with a Jumper pin (header) and shunt option?

[P. Short]

Penfold,

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. If you are thinking to use Wayne's board to supply +5v logic power to one of the other boards, the supply on that board does not have sufficient excess capacity to also provide DC power for one of those other boards. Or are you talking about something else?

[Penfold]

Yeah, I was suggesting something along those lines. I know that you can send 5V through Cat5 and was thinking it was possible to kill two birds with one stone so to speak. I use nothing but Ren24s in my display, but I have seen several posts asking if it's possible to send power from one Ren board to another (Ren 24 to Ren 64).

Granted I am not an Electrical Engineer or Electronics Engineer, but I thought it would be possible to carry low 5V current to power subsequent boards. I just thought it was possible.

[ErnieHorning]

It’s possible, it’s just not probable. The regulators on these boards can’t support much more than they were meant to.

[P. Short]

You can often substitute higher-current regulators.

The problems in this case are the capabilities of the transformer and of the filter caps, and possibly the wire resistance. You could substitute larger transformers and large capacitors (and maybe higher-current diodes), but they would not fit on the board. You would have to mount these parts off-board and use discrete wiring to connect them, which would look ugly and probably be prone to breaking.

And it would always be very dicey trying to power a Ren64 from a Ren16, much more so than the other way around.

[scorpia]

One other problem with running 5v over cat 5 between the units would be voltage drop from the cable.

That i think was one of the reasons for running a higher DC voltage before the regulator on the ren-16 boards.

If you feed in 12v dc and it drops to 10.5 it will still regulate fine.

Peter

[toy keeper]

I've been working on a home etch version of the 4+4 and am almost ready to etch the 1st batch. All I think I need is a couple of caps in there now but space is getting tight in the 2.1 x 3.6 inch area I've allowed myself.
Here is how it looks so far.
http://www.toykeeperslair.com/sjcasto/christmas/home%20etch%204%20plus%204.jpg

Keep in mind this is for a photo etch style so you are looking at the traces through the board. I think I managed it with only 5 jumpers.