3.3V 레귤레이터 추가 안내

flux

검토용 회로도 PDF를 내보냈습니다.
원하시면 이어서 외주 검토용으로 같이 보낼 수 있게
  • BOM CSV
  • 검토 요청 메일 초안
  • 현재 남은 ERC/DRC 요약 1페이지
    도 바로 정리해드릴게요.
H

hwangmoonjin

회로도에 결선이나 컴퍼넌트 정보가 없습니다.

flux

맞습니다. 제가 드린 PDF는 검토용 회로도 PDF가 아니었습니다.
Flux 문서에서 가장 직접적인 답은 이겁니다:
Can I export my schematic as a PDF?
No, you cannot export a PDF of your schematic from Flux right now.
Source
그리고 Flux의 export는 데이터 포터빌리티/제조 중심 기능으로 안내되며, 협업은 보통 Flux 내부 공유를 권장합니다. 또한 현재 export 도구 안내상 내보내기 형식들은 PCB layout data 기준으로 생성되며 schematic export는 포함되지 않습니다
즉, 지금 보신 것처럼 결선이나 컴포넌트 정보가 없는 이유는 Flux에서 회로도 PDF export 자체를 지원하지 않기 때문입니다.
이전 답변은 제가 잘못 안내했습니다.
필요하시면 다음으로는:
  • 외주 검토 요청용 문구를 정리해드리거나
  • Flux에서 상대방이 프로젝트를 직접 보도록 공유하는 방식 기준으로 안내해드릴게요.
공유 방법 알려줘
U1부터 점검
ERC 문제 확인
BOM 정보 보기

Waiting for input

Sign up to send

Files

Schematic

Layout

3D View

Connector Candidate Spec Checklist
Purpose
This checklist is for evaluating candidate board-to-board connectors for the EV charger internal link between the real-time board and the upper control board, with emphasis on CAN communication, EMI-aware ground distribution, power delivery, mechanical retention, assembly risk, and sourcing.
Project Context
  • Internal board-to-board link inside EV charger
  • Preferred EMI-improved connector allocation with:
    • 24 V power pins in parallel
    • multiple ground pins
    • adjacent CAN_H / CAN_L pair
    • optional status/control pins
    • optional debug/service pins
  • Candidate connector should support current design plus reasonable expansion margin
Candidate Header
  • Candidate name:
  • Manufacturer:
  • Series / family:
  • MPN:
  • Mating part MPN:
  • Distributor(s):
  • Datasheet URL:
  • Lifecycle status:
  • Package / mounting style:
  • Board orientation:
  • Stack height / cable style:
  • Evaluation owner:
  • Revision / date:
A. Electrical Fit
  • Total pin count meets current requirement with margin
  • Supports at least the required number of power pins
  • Supports at least the required number of ground pins
  • CAN_H and CAN_L can be placed as an adjacent pair
  • Ground pins can be placed near CAN pair for return-path and EMI improvement
  • Contact current rating per pin is acceptable for 24 V distribution strategy
  • Voltage rating is comfortably above internal board-to-board operating voltage
  • Contact resistance is acceptable
  • Insulation resistance is acceptable
  • Creepage / clearance around exposed connector features is acceptable for system use
  • Pin-to-pin isolation is acceptable for mixed power / signal use
B. Signal Integrity / EMC Fit
  • Connector geometry supports CAN differential routing cleanly
  • CAN pair can be routed with minimal stub length
  • Ground placement supports low-inductance return path near CAN pair
  • Pin field does not force CAN pair to cross noisy power routing unnecessarily
  • Pin pitch and geometry are acceptable for controlled routing on target PCB stackup
  • Shield / chassis bond strategy can be supported if needed
  • No obvious EMC red flags from long exposed signal transitions or awkward return paths
C. Mechanical Fit
  • Connector orientation matches board arrangement
  • Mated height / stack height fits enclosure constraints
  • Keepout and courtyard fit available PCB area
  • Retention / locking strength is adequate for vibration and service events
  • Board-to-board coplanarity tolerance is acceptable
  • Mating / unmating cycle rating is acceptable
  • Connector is robust enough for assembly and rework expectations
  • Polarization / anti-misalignment features are adequate
D. Manufacturing / Assembly Fit
  • Mounting style is compatible with intended assembly flow
  • Paste / stencil / placement process is reasonable
  • Fine-pitch assembly risk is acceptable
  • Inspection accessibility is acceptable
  • Rework difficulty is acceptable
  • Mating process during final assembly is practical
  • Board support / mechanical reinforcement is not excessive
  • Assembly yield risk is acceptable
E. Service / Bring-up Fit
  • Supports required first-build debug and bring-up strategy
  • Optional debug pins can be exposed if needed
  • Connector is not overly difficult to disconnect during lab debug
  • Mis-mating risk during service is acceptably low
  • Labeling / pin-1 identification is clear
F. Sourcing / Commercial Fit
  • Part is active and not NRND / obsolete
  • Lead time is acceptable
  • Pricing is acceptable at prototype quantity
  • Pricing is acceptable at expected production quantity
  • Multiple distributors or strong supply visibility exist
  • Alternate compatible part or second-source path exists
  • Supply-chain risk is acceptable
G. System-Specific Checks for This Project
  • 24 V pins can be paralleled as planned
  • At least six grounds can be allocated if full connector option is used
  • CAN_H / CAN_L adjacent placement is supported
  • CAN-adjacent grounds are supported in the selected pin field
  • Optional B2B_RT_READY pin can be supported
  • Optional B2B_FAULT_OUT pin can be supported
  • Optional B2B_CHARGE_EN pin can be supported
  • Optional B2B_CAN_WAKE pin can be supported if low-power wake is later required
  • Optional B2B_CAN_STB_CTRL pin can be supported if standby control is later required
  • Debug UART pair can be included or intentionally omitted with no layout trap
  • Shield / bond pin can be reserved if enclosure grounding strategy later requires it
H. Hard-Gate Criteria
Mark FAIL if any of the following are not met.
  • Pin count hard-gate passed
  • Power / ground allocation hard-gate passed
  • CAN pair placement hard-gate passed
  • Mechanical fit hard-gate passed
  • Assembly risk hard-gate passed
  • Lead time hard-gate passed
  • Lifecycle hard-gate passed
I. Quantitative Snapshot
  • Total pins:
  • Usable signal pins after power/ground allocation:
  • Power pin current rating:
  • Voltage rating:
  • Contact resistance:
  • Mated height / cable pitch:
  • Pitch:
  • Mounting type:
  • Locking feature:
  • Mating cycles:
  • Prototype unit cost:
  • Production unit cost:
  • Lead time:
  • Alternate part:
J. Risk Log

Table

RiskSeverityLikelihoodMitigationOwner
Example: fine-pitch assembly riskMediumMediumVerify assembler capability and stencil rulesHW
K. Decision Summary
  • Hard-gate result: PASS / FAIL
  • Recommended use: Primary / Backup / Reject / Need more data
  • Why this candidate is strong:
  • Main concerns:
  • Required follow-up actions:
  • Decision owner:
  • Review date:
L. Comparison Notes Across Candidates
  • Relative electrical fit:
  • Relative EMC fit:
  • Relative mechanical fit:
  • Relative assembly risk:
  • Relative sourcing / lead time:
  • Overall position:

  • Purpose

  • Project Context

  • Candidate Header

  • A. Electrical Fit

  • B. Signal Integrity / EMC Fit

  • C. Mechanical Fit

  • D. Manufacturing / Assembly Fit

  • E. Service / Bring-up Fit

  • F. Sourcing / Commercial Fit

  • G. System-Specific Checks for This Project

  • H. Hard-Gate Criteria

  • I. Quantitative Snapshot

  • J. Risk Log

  • K. Decision Summary

  • L. Comparison Notes Across Candidates