Topic: New Official AMT Thread - page 72. (Read 149472 times)
ROFL
"42 units available for April 1st, 2014 shipment."
https://advancedminers.com/bitcoin-mining-hardware/amt-2-4ths-bitcoin-miner/
You cant make stuff up like that.
(snip)
The mistake was ours, and ours alone. We chose the wrong place to manufacturer plain and simple. We went to a different manufacturer 30 miles away, and we are now manufacture working boards there.
The mistake was ours, and ours alone. We chose the wrong place to manufacturer plain and simple. We went to a different manufacturer 30 miles away, and we are now manufacture working boards there.
Again another claim of working boards. What then is the ETA?
Great to some people trying to help the situation i havent read everything yet but glad theres some headway being made. Still have a fully operational miner from day one working well. Only slight adjustnents were made using the method provided by amt regarding dpot values to optimise the cards.
IMET the manufacturer seems to claim that they have 100% working boards!
Again, we apologies but we can't discuss those things on a public forum. Please keep the conversation to more technical approach about future products or solving issues with current ones.
Ok, considering as per last published the A1 has a max current of 20a per chip, if you want to save real estate and a bit of over all cost look at these from Intersil for Vcore regulators http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/Intersil/documents/isl8/isl8240m.pdfCombines the regulator chip, mosfets, diodes, & buck inductor all into one 17x17mm chip. 4 can power an 8 chip A1 board either feeding each chip individually or feeding 4 pairs of A1's.
Straightforward & simple 2 resistor voltage programing - no dpot/tpot i2c coms needed & much much more. Combine with a TLam pcb and you can have one very hash-dense lil' power block...
btw: That is one excellently done data sheet. Everything spelled out. Wonder how much stuff like that was followed on the older boards...
Techy enough?
reserved for future consideration.
Question though, what is the i2c coms for? I thought A1 communicated via SPI?
Great to some people trying to help the situation i havent read everything yet but glad theres some headway being made. Still have a fully operational miner from day one working well. Only slight adjustnents were made using the method provided by amt regarding dpot values to optimise the cards.
Also my chips were never resurrected.
Quote
IMET was contracted to build Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) for AMT miners in February of 2014.
How did you ever expect to ship in January if you didnt even have a board manufacturer?
Don't be stupid. Obviously they have access to time travel.
Quote
IMET was contracted to build Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) for AMT miners in February of 2014.
How did you ever expect to ship in January if you didnt even have a board manufacturer?
Hi just don't understand why they would ship customers boards out of batches they knew were bad and likely to fail. My guess is so that they appeared to meet a deadline, which they still failed to do.
From a technical standpoint are the people who received boards we can't hash with conceded to have not received boards at all?
From a technical standpoint are the people who received boards we can't hash with conceded to have not received boards at all?
If we are going to delve into contract manufacturers... What exactly they do depends on exactly what they are contracted to do. To the letter. If they are given a print and BOM with pick'n-place data to follow then by god they will follow them to the nth degree. Now whether or not said design specs provided to them were correct is another story.
Were they asked to review the designs and make suggestions for improvement? I'm rather sad to say that only unless it presents a manufacturing problem most contract manufacturers will NOT make suggestions of any sort that result in design modifications. eg., odds are the 1oz copper spec came from the original 2/4 chip boards and was never changed for the 8 chippers even though there is 2x the current being pushed around over longer paths. Same with spec'ing thermal via density and their copper content. If spelled out on a print then that is what it is
It simply is not their job to do more than assembly/test unless existing design review & improvement is part of the contract. Many customers can get get downright testy if their design choices are questioned. Not how I run a business but that is how contract manufacturing goes.
That is one reason I'm usually brought in when our customers are meeting with their customer when new projects are started. It's 'safer' for a 3rd party to mediate between end customer wants/needs (not always the same thing) and explain to them what is possible. Later comes the fun of proving how to achieve it on our equipment.
Were they asked to review the designs and make suggestions for improvement? I'm rather sad to say that only unless it presents a manufacturing problem most contract manufacturers will NOT make suggestions of any sort that result in design modifications. eg., odds are the 1oz copper spec came from the original 2/4 chip boards and was never changed for the 8 chippers even though there is 2x the current being pushed around over longer paths. Same with spec'ing thermal via density and their copper content. If spelled out on a print then that is what it is
It simply is not their job to do more than assembly/test unless existing design review & improvement is part of the contract. Many customers can get get downright testy if their design choices are questioned. Not how I run a business but that is how contract manufacturing goes.
That is one reason I'm usually brought in when our customers are meeting with their customer when new projects are started. It's 'safer' for a 3rd party to mediate between end customer wants/needs (not always the same thing) and explain to them what is possible. Later comes the fun of proving how to achieve it on our equipment.
The part where plaintiff's counsel has directly threatened to file a motion in order to stop all of our business operations all together unless we settle with all clients via their class action suite. That's why we can longer discuss person order situations,refund options or settlement options via this forum or our public site.
So the motion hasn't been filed? So there is nothing actually stopping your business. You're simply taking the easy route by not delivering miners and not providing refunds.
My thoughts exactly. The business has yet to be forced to shut down, but AMT has not been operating for over a month now?
Apparently, the working boards are sitting in IMET's premises but AMT refuses to pay the cash to get them.
Meanwhile, a whole bunch of customers have yet to even receive miners that they purchased.
Really?
This is what we do at night, (that was taken 5 minutes ago Carlos) we remove A1 chips from IMET produced boards, because yes, IMET is holding hostage all of the previously ordered boards, chips, and components. And I guess now they are holding the answer to how to make them work too. Aside from ordering brand new (2 ounce) boards, which was their suggestion at the end of march (another 60k easy) when we discovered there was too little copper (1 ounce) in the first 900 boards they ordered for us, after Giorgio asked every dumbass question in the book after asking all the intelligent one in order to figure out why they weren't working. No we don't think they've done anything new or different in order to make them work.And if they manage to show one working, they need to showing it working for a week. All miner assembly was held in their facility. There is no way to test a board without mounting it to a heat sink.
The design team, a reference from IMET were the designers we paid to design the rig, which they botched the first time around yes, and then again the second time around as well. Maybe third times the charm.
Why wouldn't they give us the answer to making the boards work so that we could continue the production in their facility instead of moving someplace else. Or why wouldn't they give the answer to their client who had a class action filed against them? We had paid them almost a quarter of a million by that point, and we got nothing in return. Who in their right mind would continue to pay for such service?
The mistake was ours, and ours alone. We chose the wrong place to manufacturer plain and simple. We went to a different manufacturer 30 miles away, and we are now manufacture working boards there.
Note: AMT was responsible for *thermal design*, assembly, final test and QC. So they can't blame the pathetic thermal design and the sloppy assembly and lack of testing on IMET. No way IMET is going to lose its ISO9000 quality certification.
Interesting that the IMET team were able to create working miners. Need to get to the bottom of this.
I can't believe that there are working miners sitting with IMET that can't get delivered to customers because AMT refuses to pay their bill.
From a technical standpoint I'm very curious to know how the chips were cooled during testing and how long the boards were tested. Specifically, if AMT was responsible for the thermal and heatsink design/assembly after IMET's end, were the boards tested bare? If so not for very long or they go poof. Top & bottom cold plates used in lieu of heatsinks? If those were used for full speed testing then some rather important data could/should have been collected per-chip that could have been used to address the thermal issues we've seen. We know the the A1's are hotter'n Jalapenos. Interesting that the IMET team were able to create working miners. Need to get to the bottom of this.
I can't believe that there are working miners sitting with IMET that can't get delivered to customers because AMT refuses to pay their bill.
The part where plaintiff's counsel has directly threatened to file a motion in order to stop all of our business operations all together unless we settle with all clients via their class action suite. That's why we can longer discuss person order situations,refund options or settlement options via this forum or our public site.
So the motion hasn't been filed? So there is nothing actually stopping your business. You're simply taking the easy route by not delivering miners and not providing refunds.
It would have been filed if we continued to publicly settle with clients.
The part where plaintiff's counsel has directly threatened to file a motion in order to stop all of our business operations all together unless we settle with all clients via their class action suite. That's why we can longer discuss person order situations,refund options or settlement options via this forum or our public site.
So the motion hasn't been filed? So there is nothing actually stopping your business. You're simply taking the easy route by not delivering miners and not providing refunds.
My thoughts exactly. The business has yet to be forced to shut down, but AMT has not been operating for over a month now?
Apparently, the working boards are sitting in IMET's premises but AMT refuses to pay the cash to get them.
Meanwhile, a whole bunch of customers have yet to even receive miners that they purchased.
The part where plaintiff's counsel has directly threatened to file a motion in order to stop all of our business operations all together unless we settle with all clients via their class action suite. That's why we can longer discuss person order situations,refund options or settlement options via this forum or our public site.
So the motion hasn't been filed? So there is nothing actually stopping your business. You're simply taking the easy route by not delivering miners and not providing refunds.
Again, we apologies but we can't discuss those things on a public forum. Please keep the conversation to more technical approach about future products or solving issues with current ones.
Ok, considering as per last published the A1 has a max current of 20a per chip, if you want to save real estate and a bit of over all cost look at these from Intersil for Vcore regulators http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/Intersil/documents/isl8/isl8240m.pdfCombines the regulator chip, mosfets, diodes, & buck inductor all into one 17x17mm chip. 4 can power an 8 chip A1 board either feeding each chip individually or feeding 4 pairs of A1's.
Straightforward & simple 2 resistor voltage programing - no dpot/tpot i2c coms needed & much much more. Combine with a TLam pcb and you can have one very hash-dense lil' power block...
btw: That is one excellently done data sheet. Everything spelled out. Wonder how much stuff like that was followed on the older boards...
Techy enough?
As it is they have the pending lawsuit, which we all know about, makes it a massive pain in the ass to discuss anything openly.
That makes no sense. Which part of the lawsuit bans AMT from giving delivery dates? Which part of the lawsuit overrides FTC regulations? Which part of the lawsuit makes refunds illegal? People just want their refunds or delivery dates, the 2 things required by FTC regulations. No lawsuit could hinder those actions by AMT.
The part where plaintiff's counsel has directly threatened to file a motion in order to stop all of our business operations all together unless we settle with all clients via their class action suite. That's why we can longer discuss person order situations,refund options or settlement options via this forum or our public site.
Well then, why the delay in settling with your clients? That's just how the world works, you don't deliver on your promises, we can take you to court to shut down your business.
You have no choice but to settle. None of the options that you have offered have a snow ball's chance in hell of succeeding under the current market conditions.
Again, we apologies but we can't discuss those things on a public forum. Please keep the conversation to more technical approach about future products or solving issues with current ones.
Are all 1.2 Th customers that received nothing included in the lawsuit? If not, whom do i contact to join class action lawsuit?
Thanks,
PM
Thanks,
PM
http://www.chimicles.com/
Here are the lawyers heading the lawsuit, please contact plaintiff's counsel, i'm sure they will help you out.
Jump to: