Topic: NanoFury Project - Open Source Design - page 9. (Read 75414 times)

First - CONGRATS! :-) Nicely done!
And that's exactly why those 3 extra test points are there and how they were meant to be used

Oh - and I think that's the first case when I see someone adding a 40mm fan (which was another one of the other design considerations)

Just a word of caution - I see that you're powering the 3rd chip from the same power regulator - be aware that the regulator is rated for 6Amps so if you push the chips a bit too much you may exhaust it. (nothing scary is going to happen - just some serious voltage ripples which will mess with bitfury's internal clock generator and you'll see very low hashing speed and lots of errors)


As for the NFx numbering - that is correct, the "x" was meant to indicate the number of chips. This is all part of the "product string", which is a customizable element.
Luke's bfgminer looks for the text "NanoFury" and that's how it decides to do any further tests with that USB device. There is also an additional test that checks the device (a hardware check). The NFx part is not mandatory for bfgminer, but I've been adding it anyways for consistency.

I've been using the https://github.com/nanofury/NanoFury_Init program for setting the "product string".

The product string can be up to 25 characters long, and I've been adding manufacturer-specific identifiers after the NFx part (e.g. "NanoFury NF2 v0.5 by MLM").

I don't know if any of those strings have been used by cgminer and how it detects the devices (although I could probably take a look at the code and figure it out).

There is one addition that I've asked Luke to add but it is not there yet - I want to add a "default speed" indicator, which will be in the form of "/N" after the NFx part - e.g.
"NanoFury NF2/t" where the letter will represent the default speed, calculated by the formula 30+modifier, where upper-case letters are negative (@=0, A=-1, B=-2, etc) and lowercase are positive (a=+1, b=+2, c=+3, etc), and in this case t=20 so that's default speed 30+20=50 bits.
And the speed designator can be one for all chips, or one for each chip - e.g. if I have 2 chips and if the first should default to 48 bits and the second to 50 the example would be "NanoFury NF2/rt" ("r" is 18+30=48 bits for the first chip, "t" is 20+30=50 bits for the second).
I realize that this has a limitation and will work for individual settings of up to 12 chips, but for anything with that many chips it may just be sufficient to have one default speed for all chips.

Also, there will be one more hardware change specific to the NF6 design - I need an inverse PWRON signal (where ON=0 and OFF=1 or input state) and I need the signal inverted so that I don't have to put an extra transistor (and the signal that is currently in the code is not inverse = ON=1 and OFF=0).
Currently there is no power control and all chips start working and consuming power the moment you plug them in the USB

And that will probably be the only notable difference in v0.2 of the board (plus moving some stuff around).


@simoncc - I know I'm repeating what's already said but could you please share your multi-chip version of the code?
I'll be messing with Luke's code tomorrow and want to try cgminer as well

Download this tool to modify the product string of MCP2210 :  http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/MCP2210Utility_v1.2.1.zip
Read, modify and configure... quite easy. If you use zadig to access MCP2210, you have to remove/uninstall it and change to windows default HID driver such that microchip can access MCP2210 correctly. I will put my source to github here tonight, 'cause that is at home, not in office.

I would be intrested in the code if youd like to share it, id like to test it on the h-card-usb thing.
Just point me where i have o change the numbers.

Thanks

I can send you my code if you like. I modified cgminer 4.2.3 for NFx already.
I get the number of chips by finding "NFx" where x is for chips, i.e. NF1 for 1 chip, NF2 for 2,
NF3 for 3,...NF5 for 5, NF6 for 6...and so on...
The freq of all chips are the same. I have no idea to add an optional to set different freq for each
chip. As the picture I showed that is tested on "NF3".
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23682587/DSC_0226.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23682587/DSC_0227.JPG

Later, I will show NF5...

I hope the NF* variants have a unique identifier on USB to make them easy to distinguish on USB.
The nanofury currently nicely identifies itself as:
Managing variant devices is much easier when some forethought goes into it by the hardware devs thanks

Yeah, then I definitely recommend just sticking to the NF6 design.  If it is still in the design phase, you could make that a little easier by including two pads to solder some external power leads into/onto (bonus points if you can make it fit some common connector part), but I'd suspect there should be some pads for parts that could be soldered as well, just a bit more tricky for people new to soldering

yup - exactly as simple as that

Just out of curiosity - would that (the geeky 'over'-volting, or at least stable-volting, not going above 5.5V) be as simple as disconnecting the USB Vcc (cut the trace/whatever) || dropping in a schottky, hooking up the external power supply and share the USB GND, or are there some other considerations?

Okay, so we'll stay the course with the NF6 :-)

I personally prefer the option that uses less power - 1-1.2A is just above USB3-specs for power and most "mining-tailored hubs" would have no issues with 1.5A, but going for 3A+ will be a completely different challenge by itself (plus most cheaply-made connectors may not take that very well).
So in terms like that the 6-chip is much more end-user friendly (although not necessarily very geeky ).

As for over-voltaging - that is a viable geeky option - most PC electronics will tolerate up to 5.5V. So if they do let's say 5.4V this will result in 0.9V/chip where they can definitely perform a lot faster (almost certainly beyond 2.5-2.7GH/chip).
Alternatively, they can do a relatively easy board mod and remove the fuse and supply any external voltage they want (although I would caution against going with much over 5.5V as there are some inter-chip dependencies and with higher voltage things may very quickly go beyond what chips can tolerate)

Im all in for max heat max power max ghs

As for my plans for the H-card-usb converter....
An H-card can take 12 chips@0,9...0,95V and you get about 30ghs/card this way.
My plan is to split them in 6+6 on two usb converters/card.

Thats is if cgminer doesnt change the playground.

lol @ dodecafury.


i concur with steve. the NFY i have presently dont need active cooling but perf is better with it.  same with the OneStringMiners. the DIY0 with no heatsink no A/C does about 25-27Ghash. with some A/C and vga heatsinks, jumped to 30-33

Considering neither configuration is going to ROI unless a lot of crazy things happen, NF6 design is well underway, doesn't require active cooling (which the 5-chip one sounds like it probably would) which tends to be something people seek to avoid if they're just doing it for fun, and the 5-chip*~3Ghash/s would only be 3Ghash/s faster,  I'd say don't bother.
Would it not be easier (not sure if feasible with the string design) to optionally allow an external power source to use a higher voltage for those wanting it running faster / daring enough to overclock?

Are there any other pros/cons you can think of?

Though if a 5-chip chain is possible, I guess those DodecaFury panels could be sold separately after all

Okay, I think it's time to get some feedback from the public -

the 6-chip design will most likely be limited to around 12GH. The reason being is - with 6 chips each chip gets around 0.8V in which case the bitfury chips do around 2-2.2GH max. For more gigahashes we need higher voltage. (the NF1/NF2 are running with 0.86V).

And the 0.8V per chip is the ideal case - most USB hubs will probably crap out and instead of 5V will provide somewhat less (thus even lower voltage per chip and lower gigahashes).

The alternative is to try a 5-chip chain. In this case we'll have around 1V per chip and they will do significantly more than 2GH/chip (likely in the vicinity of 3GH+).

Pros and cons:
6-chip:
pros: relatively low power usage of around 1-1.2A, probably 1.5A max when pushed, resulting in relatively low heat production
cons: wasting an extra chip ($5-6)

5-chip:
pros: will almost certainly do more gigahashes with one less chip per miner
cons: will use a lot more power (likely over 3A) and will be very very very hot


so - the question is - should we even bother looking at a 5-chip version, or stick with the 6-chip even though it has some disadvantages?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23682587/cgminer-bitfury-3chips.png

3-chipped NanoFury (NF3!?)

I will post 5-chipped picture later...

I do not use any hub, but use a kit I made. It's simple and works.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23682587/DSC_0223.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23682587/DSC_0222.JPG

looking fwd for a diy kit for nf6. rework station & some v2 bfchips too is on its way.

I figured out what was wrong with the 6th chip :-)

bfgminer version 3.99.0 - Started: [2014-04-05 02:07:05] - [  0 days 00:09:16]
Manage devices Pool management Settings Display options
Connected to stratum.mining.eligius.st diff 16 with stratum as user
Block: ...484af8b3 #294330  Diff:5.01G (35.84Ph/s)  Started: [02:14:47]
ST:8  F:0  NB:3  AS:0  BW:[203/ 27 B/s]  E:20.23  I:40.96uBTC/hr  BS:1.72k
1/6           |  9.72/ 9.55/10.65Gh/s | A:75 R:2+0(2.6%) HW:43/3.0%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NFY 0a:       |  1.64/ 1.66/ 1.77Gh/s | A:17 R:1+0(5.6%) HW: 6/2.4%
NFY 0b:       |  1.64/ 1.65/ 1.91Gh/s | A:12 R:0+0(none) HW:14/4.7%
NFY 0c:       |  1.53/ 1.54/ 1.59Gh/s | A:10 R:1+0(9.1%) HW:15/6.4%
NFY 0d:       |  1.57/ 1.61/ 1.66Gh/s | A:11 R:0+0(none) HW: 4/1.9%
NFY 0e:       |  1.64/ 1.66/ 1.83Gh/s | A:12 R:0+0(none) HW: 5/2.1%
NFY 0f:       |  1.68/ 1.70/ 1.83Gh/s | A:15 R:0+0(none) HW: 0/none
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2014-04-05 02:12:52] Accepted 0c1ee27c NFY 0c Diff 21/16
[2014-04-05 02:12:52] Accepted 099ab634 NFY 0d Diff 26/16
[2014-04-05 02:12:52] Accepted 0c06c938 NFY 0d Diff 21/16
[2014-04-05 02:12:52] Accepted 0d599353 NFY 0e Diff 19/16
[2014-04-05 02:12:54] Accepted 0ce9c358 NFY 0e Diff 19/16
[2014-04-05 02:12:57] Accepted 0826a4eb NFY 0b Diff 31/16
[2014-04-05 02:13:05] Accepted 047c994e NFY 0a Diff 57/16
[2014-04-05 02:13:06] Stratum from pool 0 requested work update
[2014-04-05 02:13:10] Accepted 0dae182d NFY 0e Diff 18/16

I'll have to try with a different hub tomorrow as this one is quite crappy (at 1.15A dropping down to 3.9V).

Thanks for that. I don't have the power to run much more in my house and I'd hate to see hardware go to waste. Maybe the 2-6 units alone are enough to get me going.


Thanks vs3, I'll take you up on your offer.