NanoFury Project - Open Source Design

[3devilred]

I settled with the members , I think I find them all but the doubt remains , you must program some chips or welding and forth? ? thanks

[1713865313]

1713865313

[1713865313]

1713865313

[1713865313]

1713865313

[volosator]

Where is the BOM?

[vs3]

You can generate the BOM from KiCAD. There is no separate (extracted) file with that as the data will change with schematic changes.

[volosator]

Can you export the KiCAD to eagle schematics file?

[pauljbl]

I see


the holes that are under the bitfury chip is there solder coming throught them or does thermal paste go through them for heat

most likely a small amount of wicked solder. helps with thermal conductivity

Yes and Yes
Small amount does go through and that's specifically to help with conductivity (in addition to the copper coating of the holes). Unfortunately there is no way to control the amount of solder that goes through - sometimes very little, sometimes quite a lot .. and in the second case that makes a little bump on the back side, so you either need to process it a bit further if you want an extra-smooth surface, or just use a thicker stick-on thermal tape (that can tolerate some minor roughness).

does the nano fury need a heatsink or what hashrate will work with no heatseak

[Taugeran]

I see


the holes that are under the bitfury chip is there solder coming throught them or does thermal paste go through them for heat

most likely a small amount of wicked solder. helps with thermal conductivity

Yes and Yes
Small amount does go through and that's specifically to help with conductivity (in addition to the copper coating of the holes). Unfortunately there is no way to control the amount of solder that goes through - sometimes very little, sometimes quite a lot .. and in the second case that makes a little bump on the back side, so you either need to process it a bit further if you want an extra-smooth surface, or just use a thicker stick-on thermal tape (that can tolerate some minor roughness).

does the nano fury need a heatsink or what hashrate will work with no heatseak

it can run w/o a heatsink but not at full hashing power (and not affect the life of components)

recomendation: run it with a heatsink

[vs3]

Can you export the KiCAD to eagle schematics file?

I couldn't find any option to export KiCAD files into another format ... Probably Eagle (being a commercial product) would have some import tools...

[vs3]

I see


the holes that are under the bitfury chip is there solder coming throught them or does thermal paste go through them for heat

most likely a small amount of wicked solder. helps with thermal conductivity

Yes and Yes
Small amount does go through and that's specifically to help with conductivity (in addition to the copper coating of the holes). Unfortunately there is no way to control the amount of solder that goes through - sometimes very little, sometimes quite a lot .. and in the second case that makes a little bump on the back side, so you either need to process it a bit further if you want an extra-smooth surface, or just use a thicker stick-on thermal tape (that can tolerate some minor roughness).

does the nano fury need a heatsink or what hashrate will work with no heatseak

it can run w/o a heatsink but not at full hashing power (and not affect the life of components)

recomendation: run it with a heatsink

Yes, it will run without a heatsink - but in that case you are heavily dependent on the temperature in the room and any natural air flow. In my experiments in a room at 28C they ran smoothly for several days at 49 bits with no heatsink and no air circulation. With just a tiny fan nearby they were stable at 52 bits (still no heatsink).

So - yes, you could run them without a heatsink, but they're so much better with even the cheapest one that you can find around ($0.2-0.5) that it's just pointless not to add a heatsink.

[kano]

...
edit: now that has me wondering what the (unrecorded) record is for most diff1+ shares in a single work item

I rehashed the whole blockchain a while back (up to block 262837) and found 23 had 8 nonces (though some of those 23 could have had more than
Also, the stats output of cgminer when using a BFL asic shows the distribution of results ... up to 8 nonces (they return a max of

[Taugeran]

...
edit: now that has me wondering what the (unrecorded) record is for most diff1+ shares in a single work item

I rehashed the whole blockchain a while back (up to block 262837) and found 23 had 8 nonces (though some of those 23 could have had more than
Also, the stats output of cgminer when using a BFL asic shows the distribution of results ... up to 8 nonces (they return a max of

interesting

[3devilred]

I'm sorry, but I have a new question. when I open the file NF1 - MCP2210 - v07.net the list you see on the left and ' composed of 53 elements , while on the right and ' of 40 elements , which you have to follow ? ? any of you who made the project would pass me the list that he used ? ? thanks

[Taint]

It looks like official Nanofury support has been added to CGminer 3.10.0

-T

[loshia]

It looks like official Nanofury support has been added to CGminer 3.10.0

-T

Can someone share the hash rate output from 3.10?
Thanks

[Zich]

It looks like official Nanofury support has been added to CGminer 3.10.0

-T

Can someone share the hash rate output from 3.10?
Thanks

Not good

[loshia]

It looks like official Nanofury support has been added to CGminer 3.10.0

-T

Can someone share the hash rate output from 3.10?
Thanks

Not good

Yeah it seems not good but testing time is to low. It should run at least an hour or so. 5 mins are just not enough to avoid variance

[Zich]

Yeah it seems not good but testing time is to low. It should run at least an hour or so. 5 mins are just not enough to avoid variance

LOL, it,s getting worse so i switch back to 3.8.5   

[-ck]

Don't forget I always create drivers for cgminer that report hashrate based on real shares generated, not some arbitrary amount of hashes done (that doesn't translate into meaningful hashrate). I can happily make you a build that shows you making 2.5TH if you like. Make sure you check your pool to see how many effective shares you're submitting with your other drivers... People don't like the truth.

[Zich]

Don't forget I always create drivers for cgminer that report hashrate based on real shares generated, not some arbitrary amount of hashes done (that doesn't translate into meaningful hashrate). I can happily make you a build that shows you making 2.5TH if you like. Make sure you check your pool to see how many effective shares you're submitting with your other drivers... People don't like the truth.

Forgive me CK, doesn't mean to offend you.

But i got 2 different error message.

[loshia]

Don't forget I always create drivers for cgminer that report hashrate based on real shares generated, not some arbitrary amount of hashes done (that doesn't translate into meaningful hashrate). I can happily make you a build that shows you making 2.5TH if you like. Make sure you check your pool to see how many effective shares you're submitting with your other drivers... People don't like the truth.

Just for the reference Con. My intentions are not to offend you like Zich said:

With cgminer technobit i do have

According to kano suggestion

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=170332.msg3358609#msg3358609

Two nanos:

Elapsed: 45959
Dev1 Diff Accepted: 29,184.00
Dev2 Diff Acepted: 25,088.00

My worker is mining at 512 so variance is quite big but but both are above 2.5 Gh/s. Bitfury chip is capable of it for sure
So i am living math to you.
In general at osc 54 it should be a way more than 2Gh/s

Best
However i think that 3.10 when run for a little bit longer will have same results

Any way i will test it myself when i am able to and will let you know

Best

[vs3]

Loshia - just out of curiosity - can you give it a shot with the binary that I used during my initial development and testing? It is available at:
http://www.nanofury.com/cgminer-NanoFury-bin-2013-10-02.zip
It supports only one miner (and sometimes doesn't shut it off when you exit) but it would be interesting to see how that one compares. In my initial observations the same miners with bfgminer did a bit better... but it is also possible that just my initial coding was messy.