|
I don't get it, why is the program called I2Cset when the chipset doesn't use I2C but rather SPI?
|
|
|
|
What does being on the board even entail at this point?
I wonder if board members are entitled to some stipends payable in IXC? Do we have a final Counterparty/Coloredcoin-like feature we can agree on? Vlad, what does Jeffrey think about it? And Cinnamon? What about Mark? I think people has given 25k ixc bounty to see something fulfilled, and soon. Correction, 15k ... someone else promised an addition 10k... forgot who it was. |
|
|
|
I got 8 chips on my boards........ My thought would be say modular chip docks like a cpu so one chip frazzles itself you just nip out the chip and swap it for another. Bobs ya uncle back in business. And during test you can have a bank of them in test ditch or put aside dead and low hash chips ship best of batch use the slow/unresponsive chips to test alt settings send out to prospective people to use as reference or build on see what they can do with it.
The BGA chips won't let you do that because they require intimate contact with the thermal vias. As in must be soldered. The chip is too fragile to use a pressure plate to press down on it hard enough to run at full power. But - there *is* a low-temp solder made expressly for futzing around... How it would impact later assembly/lifetime don't know but ja, there needs to be some kind of performance binning done with these. Hmm... can't you design a board that routes the vias to the top of the board so you can place a heatsink? |
|
|
|
What does being on the board even entail at this point?
I wonder if board members are entitled to some stipends payable in IXC? |
|
|
|
AMT_Miners, ISAWHIM and anyone else interested in best practices when it comes to pcb layout & EMC issues - here is link to one of the best references I've come across yet. http://www.emcfastpass.com/rightfirsttime/Not is only how-to but also strong on the WHY. Do you think you would be able to design a new board using the reference design available from Bitmine? You just need to increase the number of A1 chips from two to four (or even eight). Could I using that as a starting point - and being a reference design that is all it is - certainly. Do I have the time needed - hell no. You are looking at at least 2-3 weeks solid spent checking/specing the parts and then doing board layout. Between Opium, ISAWHIM and me we probably have most everything covered to do it I'd think. Our company is booked solid until next Feb and part of it involves orders for 3 next-gen system I've designed. Taking things off the bench and starting the 1st prototype of it next week when a few structure parts come in. That and why re-invent the wheel? BMch and AMT have already done what is needed to take the A1 from testbed to a real miner, they just seem to have fallen down on implementing it right. That should be changing. Being that the ref board on Github is all I have to go on so far it strikes me that at least 1 thing is missing from it - coms to the Vdd regulator for tweaking the voltage. Also, where does 5VMAS that feeds the regulator chip come from? Don't see any 5v lines called out on the I/O connectors... Well just a suggestion about creating a new board... you know that the A2 chip set has identical pin layouts.. so if we want to get serious about mining then we could source our chips directly from Innosilicon and save a bundle. I inquired with them and a single A1 chips is around $45. So if you go with your own created boards and maybe a mineral oil (or immerssion)... and then locate yourself beside a hydro-electric damn, then you have a good chance at being profitiable with Bitcoin mining! |
|
|
|
AMT_Miners, ISAWHIM and anyone else interested in best practices when it comes to pcb layout & EMC issues - here is link to one of the best references I've come across yet. http://www.emcfastpass.com/rightfirsttime/Not is only how-to but also strong on the WHY. Do you think you would be able to design a new board using the reference design available from Bitmine? You just need to increase the number of A1 chips from two to four (or even eight). |
|
|
|
It is possible to get the driver to do this. It is one reason I am requesting docs on the driver. If it is using the standard A1 driver then I would just need to modify it. But I am largely working blind with the driver side now. I have been reading up a bit on driver coding as its not my strength. But I got enough of a handle on it I think I can make it run a delay just long enough for the hardware to initialize properly.
How much have you read up on the A1's actual chip coms? I see in the pdf on github there are a lot of chip-level detect/response options. Out of my range on the software coding end there but see a lot of possibilities in the command list... We did rewrite the driver a bit, but moreover wrote in an easy to use i2cdetect app which allowed us to try and set all boards to a specific voltage through the trimpot. For what ever reason, our version of the board (could be the trimpot, could be something else that we never figured out) did not allow the settings of the trimpot to be remembered, hence the default voltage ended up resulting in .92-.94. By creating this extra script, we were able to set all boards at once. It was later implemented in bitmines UI update. command as follows: amt-setup amt-setup dpot (5c-64 seems to be the safe zone) depending on the board, components used, heatsink. Where bitmine programs all boards right off the line, we didn't have the luxury. depending on your board - 5c (higher voltage value) 64 (lower voltage value) 63-64 worked best on pb boards. In an attempt to try anything, we did a few hundred boards with led, hoping for a better solder between the chips. scale 5a -5b - 5c -5d- 5e 5f - 60 -61 -62 -63 -64 amt-setup dpot 5d amt-setup apply (you've just set a new value - prior to hashing, take a dvm place black to ground and red to any cap next to a chip, you'll get the core voltage) amt-setup mode amt-setup mode 16000:720000:2000 this is the under clocked default mode which should be in mode 1. scale ( 0 - 1 -2 ) correlates to (power saver, nominal, turbo) set a new mode amt-setup mode 1 16000:720000:2000 amt-setup apply amt-setup mode 2 16000:760000:4000 amt-setup apply The script also allows for redressing boards among a few other tools which came in handy when individually diagnosing/testing each board on different lots which came out. As we discovered the variation in board performance, and couldn't set the voltage directly on the trimpot, this was the only alternative we could come up with. After we implemented this the initial overall board success went from 2 out of 10 to 4-5 out of 10 off the line, the rest resulting in no chip chain detected from the line, and and extra 20-30% of the successful 40%-50% of new boards off the line, resulting in no chip chain after 2-3 minutes of hashing as well. So out of 10 boards produced, 2 survived. Why didn't we stop running them and figure out the problem? We had been constantly met with "Our advise is to keep running, we will address the problems and fix the boards as soon as we understand the problem but since some do work, don't you think you should just ship the ones that and get to the bad ones later". At the time he had a point, it was more important to deliver. Still looking 100's of bad board daily btw. Things like that were followed by promises of fixing bad boards among several other things. Anyway, for those of you which have a dvm and know what your doing please play around with the amt-setup options. Reggie is an example of someone that it go it to work with those tools. In general, we didn't publicize that script in such detail because it allows for direct overclocking, and overclocking leads to RMA anyway which you put it. Quoted for future reference. So the dpot setting must be performed every time on startup up? Does this work for the case were "no chip chain after 2-3 minutes of hashing as well"? |
|
|
|
Mmm. Guess we gave them somethings to chew on for a while  I requested some driver info so I can get these things working. That is my hold up at the moment. I might be able to get it working without the driver info, I am still working at it. Why do you need a new driver when a couple of folks supposedly don't have a problem running the system? Because some of us do... That is like windows saying, why patch windows, it works for a few... xD That assumes that the hardware is different, don't we have the same hardware? |
|
|
|
Mmm. Guess we gave them somethings to chew on for a while I requested some driver info so I can get these things working. That is my hold up at the moment. I might be able to get it working without the driver info, I am still working at it. Why do you need a new driver when a couple of folks supposedly don't have a problem running the system? |
|
|
|
Can you post an example with inputs and outputs? I get the idea of using multisig outputs as inputs, I assume similar to this transaction for example, right? User A sends some BTC dust to a "2 of [redeemerA, redeemerB, XCP data] multisig" output which is not a XCP transaction in that sense, but once this 2-of-3 output is spent to anywhere, the data becomes active? Yes, that looks right.... but what I'm saying is that [redeemerA, XCP data] looks different from [redeemerA, redeemerB, XCP data]. So the Counterparty Code should take into consideration this difference. |
|
|
|
 Here is the back side.... doesn't appear to have any layer improperly exposed. At least that bit of boards looks covered. Remember they dis say that many - not all boards had the uncovered via fault. Center left is a major no-no that thu-hole for screws is way way too close to those covered vias either side of it. Pressure IS going to cause faults in the screen layer. Yes very close. Is thermal paste conductive? |
|
|
|
Here is the back side.... doesn't appear to have any layer improperly exposed. |
|
|
|
[quote author=FrictionlessCoin link=topic=569769.msg6823734#msg6823734
What are you saying here? The manufacturer had exposed vias that assumes the use of a thermal transfer pad.... was a thermal transfer pad used?
No I take it as the signal and power vias were left uncovered leading to them shorting. Only the thermal xfr vias should be bare. And - due to the thickness of the green/red screen layer that is supposed to seal the boards one damn well better make sure that something bridges the resulting gap between the sinks and the thermal vias. [/quote] Well if they were indeed shorting... that problem would have been identified with initial testing. Don't tell me that these systems where shipped without testing??! If the layer where improperly exposed, then one could have easily made temporary fix by taping the exposed parts. |
|
|
|
Got my order on the way for my plexi-bending stuff... should be here by friday. I will get it setup, and make two cases. One for the full-size 5-card standard design, and one with the 3-card mini design.
Then I will throw everything back into the tower, and show the heat-shroud thing. (Just can't show it running, since I only have a PSU large enough to run 3 cards, and I am down to 2 running cards at the moment.)
Now I have to go to work... I will look for more sources for low-profile, multi-fin heat-sinks when I get back. (I am trying to stay away from the thick heat-sinks, as those just retain heat. You need lots of thin fins, for the greater surface area, to reflect the heat off the aluminum, and into the humidity in the air.)
Also looking for some sheets of thermal-transfer pads, that I can cut-up to match the plates on the PCB's. As opposed to solid shims.
We'll mail you out what we've been using on the first 300 boards before the manufacturer changed the board's mask on the bottom. Basically produced 300 boards with exposed via's in all areas and assumed a thermal transfer pad would be enough to protect against potential shorts. Pic coming shortly. ETA on the Technobit boards? Do you even plan on compensating customers with the Technobit board? The only reason we are trying to debug these boards is because we are trying to salvage what little we got from you! You sent us junk and we are trying to debug the junk. |
|
|
|
How will you add Multisig if you are need to use Multisig to encode the payload?
I was talking about adding support for multisig inputs (which right now is not supported). The data is encoded via multisig outputs. Are you talking about encoding data within P2SH transactions? Sidenote: public keys in scripts must be valid public keys (ECDSA point, public key prefix), in standard multisig outputs this is not the case. Or are you referring to include a script hash as participant in a "standard" multisig output? This would really, really be nice, but I think this is not possible and if you remove the sender as multisig recipient, the output is no longer redeemable. :/ No, we are talking about having a true multi-sig capability at the same time accommodating the use of multi-sig to encode the payload. |
|
|
|
Got my order on the way for my plexi-bending stuff... should be here by friday. I will get it setup, and make two cases. One for the full-size 5-card standard design, and one with the 3-card mini design.
Then I will throw everything back into the tower, and show the heat-shroud thing. (Just can't show it running, since I only have a PSU large enough to run 3 cards, and I am down to 2 running cards at the moment.)
Now I have to go to work... I will look for more sources for low-profile, multi-fin heat-sinks when I get back. (I am trying to stay away from the thick heat-sinks, as those just retain heat. You need lots of thin fins, for the greater surface area, to reflect the heat off the aluminum, and into the humidity in the air.)
Also looking for some sheets of thermal-transfer pads, that I can cut-up to match the plates on the PCB's. As opposed to solid shims.
We'll mail you out what we've been using on the first 300 boards before the manufacturer changed the board's mask on the bottom. Basically produced 300 boards with exposed via's in all areas and assumed a thermal transfer pad would be enough to protect against potential shorts. Pic coming shortly. What are you saying here? The manufacturer had exposed vias that assumes the use of a thermal transfer pad.... was a thermal transfer pad used? |
|
|
|
http://www.aavid.com/Pricy, but fast. You should have two types of boards. 1st with the 4 caps surrounding the chips. 2nd with the only 1 cap out of the 4 in that location. - First board- this was the original design, provided by bitmine, which also called for a 12x 1500 cap where you'll see the 12x 560 cap there. The manufacturer ordered this component switch which differed from the bom. - beneath the 560 caps you'll see another location 170 cap on the first board and 330 on the 2nd version with (1500 caps). The ability to put a railed heatsink exists on the second version but could not exist on the first. you - and anyone else working on this - list your question in a simple form which allows for an easy to follow response. ie. Which value should this component be - snap a pic or something. End post. So what are you saying? We can remove any number of caps leaving at least one and it should work the same. That way we can add a adequate heat sink. Not the time piece that it currently has. |
|
|
|
Can you point to some correct sized heat sinks for the other side? I am still looking for one with the correct fin alignments... That, or one larger one, like the one on the back... (well, not that large) Which can be cut-up to order, so the fins are oriented correctly. However, they would still need to be mounted, have pressure applied, and be "ground" so that they do not short any of the many components that are along the mounting-surface. EG, the fins have to run the same way as the air-flow, but the heat-sinks have to be wide, not long. Wide, so they fill more of the air-flow for the width of the card. Because filling the length, just causes air-resistance that makes the air flow around the heat-sink, not through it. Sort of what is happening to the large heat-sink, without a guide to keep the air moving through the heat-sinks. It enters the fins, hits resistance, exits the top of the heat sink to the unrestricted gap between the cards, and flows right around the copper heat-sinks. There is very little air-flow passing through the fins, near the middle of the heat-sinks, due to this. Only on each of the ends. The individual chips and inductors need one more like this... (but not this tall, just this proportion and alignment)  The one for the inductors has to have holes drilled to make room for the caps, and be shorter. One running the length of the inductors, would run into the same issue as the large heat-sink... the length would cause too much resistance to make it functional, without a guide to keep the air inside of the fins. The air would just flow around it, cooing down nothing, just making more air-noise and drawing more unused power blowing air around all the hot components. For all the work you are doing to get the design right, you might as well create your own PCB! BTW... what does the daughter board do? Does it convert GPIO signals on the Pi to something compatible with SPI? Does Pi support SPI? |
|
|
|
/rant mode on
It's kinda aggravating that we have no communication from AMT or even feedback on the engineering work we are doing. We are essentially doing the job for them that they should be doing. The support, firmware work and all that is something we should not have to do outside of a hobby status. Its one thing to do this because we might not like the firmware we got. BUT when we are actually repairing and basically pointing out the engineering flaws without ANY feedback from them its a pretty aggravating situation. We paid for these things and on top of that having to barley get them working. trying to make the best out of a really bad situation but the LEAST they could do is actually respond to emails.
/rant mode off.
Agreed, as I've mentioned several times before, if AMT does not want to communicate via the forums, they should be talking to their customers directly via phone or email. And also provide "technical" support for products that have been purchased. Redoing the website, integrating a forum for that purpose. Um.... there is something called 'email' that you can use to communicate to your customers. |
|
|
|
We just want to say that we are watching and do appreciate the time and effort you guys are putting into this. Technical questions from a problem solving standpoint will be answered by us. Anything order related can't be dealt with on this public forum.
Tony, Jason, Richard, you are being very helpful, we highly appreciate it and it won't be forgotten.
Any comment about the potential short? About the gap between the heatsink and the board? What about the small heat sink on the other side? Or the capacitors versus resistors? Sigh! Lots of lipservice no action. Still waiting to RMA my unit back... never worked. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
