Main IO Rev B Review

[lmaddox28]

1. Change the silkscreen component identifiers. Clearly, these are overlapping and too large.
   
2. Try to make some of the other silkscreen larger. At its current size, it is barely legible with the naked eye, making it useless to an engineer. For changing these component identifiers, recall the "Find Similar Objects" tip I provided in the Driver IO notes. Looking back at the Confluence page, I did make a note about this earlier (lol):
   
   
3. The large polygons for the power pins imaged below are pointless and can only cause issues. I did it this way when I had no clue what I was doing. The reason I did it was to ensure that the power had enough copper; however, I didn't realize I could just use vias literal copper planes instead. For that reason, vias to the actual planes can replace the need for these large cooper pores. This should simplify things and prevent thermal issues during soldering:
   
4. Give these connectors verbal labels, like the other ones:
   
5. Put the trace width / current draw math for the light circuit on the schematic for simple documentation. It doesn't look like the trace width has been changed--which is OK, as long as that decision is backed up by math:
   
6. These vias are straddling the line between the 12V/5V pours. This needs to be fixed:
   
7. If enough room, add a verbal description (1-2 words) about what this test point actually is, so that its easier for the engineer using it. This goes for all the test points:
   
8. If we aren't going to make any changes to decongest anywhere else, use this space for the logo: make it all larger:
   
9. Pass the DRC. Right now, there are unrouted nets. In the future, ensure that the DRC is passed before submitting for review

That is all I have right now. There are potentially a number of "nice to have" things (like decongesting things to allow for larger component/TP identifiers as well as easier population), but those take time. So, we need to be clear about what this board (a) already does (b) what it needs to do (c) what it may need to do in the future. After thinking out this, we should have a better idea about how much time it would be worth reworking the smaller things. For example, if we believe that this revision is highly likely to provide all the functionality we need it to, then it would be worth treating this as the final revision, thereby taking the extra few hours upfront to save us a lot of headaches down the line. On the other hand, if we are still thinking "iterate fastly", then we can skip the smaller things and get this out ASAP. Lmk if this thought experiment makes sense--I'm rushing this because I need to get to class, so I apologize if the feedback isn't communicated well. Overall, things look great.

[lmaddox28]

Also, have we considered how much current will be drawn by the contactors? There might be significant power being spent to drive these. Just something to double check: