Featured Articles
Announcing Pi
Technical Specifications
Raspberry Pi FAQs
Win a Pi
GPIO Pinout
Raspberry Pi Wishlist
Comparison Chart
Quiz
Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: Former Member
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 1487 views
  • Likes 0 likes
  • Comments 8 comments
Related
Recommended

Proposal universal connector for dev kit - Modulowo duoNECT - and RPI Adapter

Former Member

I work in a hardware startup "Modulowo" and I would like to propose a new, universal connector for development kits - ModulowoRegistered duoNECTTm. The connector provides the basic interfaces like UART, I2C, SPI, 1-Wire, a few I/O pins and ID (Identification) pin. The advantage of our connectors is possible to mount by traditional pin 2.54 mm or directly on the base plate thanks to castellated holes. Our solution is not only duoNECTTm connector, but also add-on modules - ExploreTm boards - and adapter for Raspberry Pi 2 or B +. The adapter has three duoNECTTm connectors, but it will be six modules can be connected. In addition, EEPROM memory and 12-bit Analog-to-Digital Converter (16-bit optional). A little more detail: http://blog.modulowo.com/en/modulowo-duonect-czyli-uniwersalne-zlacze-dla-modulow-elektronicznych/


Are our solution can be an interesting proposition? A few photos below:

 

image

 

image

image

 

 

@@@@

Parents

  • Is it pin compatible with MikroBus modules? (since they look very similar). They too have an RPI adapter (and a BeagleBone Black one too).

    Mikroelektronica probably have close to 100 modules in their ecosystem, so it would be nice if this is compatible, so people can select boards from both ranges.

  • in reply to shabaz

    They are not compatible. It's a different connector. Here we have an additional 1-Wire/ID pin and the VIN power supply pin.

  • in reply to Former Member

    I'd have to say that sounds like a massive oversight. Had you made it pin-compatible (and added your additional two wires on the end if need be) then your potential customers would have benefited from the ability to pick and choose between the two ranges.

    Currently if I had to choose between the two, I'd go with MikroE simply because they have a much larger ecosystem currently.

    But personally I prefer the TI BoosterPacks, there are hundreds of them.

  • in reply to shabaz

    Thanks for the suggestions. It's important to me. We wanted mainly to the possibility of mounting add-on boards directly on the motherboard / adapter, so that was not created high "stack". Furthermore, matching the signals to + 3.3V / + 5V voltage and the ability to quick replacement board to another.

     

    We also have something for the TI LaunchPad, but it's still not ready.

  • in reply to Former Member

    Matthew Rusak wrote:

     

    We wanted mainly to the possibility of mounting add-on boards directly on the motherboard / adapter, so that was not created high "stack".

    I understand that, but you can still achieve that objective while maintaining compatibility. You can have had castellated connections that are still compatible with the MikroE layout.

    We also have something for the TI LaunchPad, but it's still not ready.

    MikroE have such a board for LaunchPads, they call it a Click Booster Pack. I'm guessing you have some more differentiators that perhaps were not clear so far, otherwise there looks like little difference between

    the two ranges except that MikroE's is larger/more established.

    Castellation isn't really important for prototypes surely? Besides, pins can be trimmed so that boards are within a few mm of each other, or removed (i.e. desoldered) totally for flush fitting

    if there was a strong requirement to minimise height in a prototype.

Comment
  • in reply to Former Member

    Matthew Rusak wrote:

     

    We wanted mainly to the possibility of mounting add-on boards directly on the motherboard / adapter, so that was not created high "stack".

    I understand that, but you can still achieve that objective while maintaining compatibility. You can have had castellated connections that are still compatible with the MikroE layout.

    We also have something for the TI LaunchPad, but it's still not ready.

    MikroE have such a board for LaunchPads, they call it a Click Booster Pack. I'm guessing you have some more differentiators that perhaps were not clear so far, otherwise there looks like little difference between

    the two ranges except that MikroE's is larger/more established.

    Castellation isn't really important for prototypes surely? Besides, pins can be trimmed so that boards are within a few mm of each other, or removed (i.e. desoldered) totally for flush fitting

    if there was a strong requirement to minimise height in a prototype.

Children
No Data