Yeah, it was possible, but they couldn’t keep Display Port integrity standards I believe.
Hi, any news on the ethernet module and when it’s likely to be available?
From what I understand framework does not have one being developed currently. I am developing one with frameworks funding, I’m estimating my first prototypes to come in on the 6th so hopefully end of May/early June for mass production.
5 Likes
How about a multi USB-A card with a normal A and a micro A. The micro A would allow you to use a phone charger cord backwards to attach a second USB A device.
Another very niche device would be an SDR, just add an antenna and start snooping.
I also want to add my voice for a mag attach charger, a safety device who’s passing many mourn.
you mean a micro B. and the bit that would catch a lot of people out is that not all A-micro B cables are fully wired, some have the data lines shorted to make them charge cables.
LTE sim card would be dope too
4 Likes
Will it be possible for a power expansion card that adding about 2000mah of battery?
True, but it could be packed into a nice little set of two expansion cards at the back that can lift the laptop up by a few inches (almost like a laptop stand maybe).
+1, and sign me up if anyone makes this.
I think the way the Framework expansion card system was designed is not great… welcome to my Ted Talk.
Maybe the next iteration of the laptop could have one big slot per side. There could be mini-cards that are slotted (like tongue-and-groove floor boards) that click into the two TB4 ports (electrically) and to each other (mechanically).
Big cards would take up the entire space (of two mini-cards) and plug into one or both of the TB4 ports.
This design would leave plenty of space for all sorts of wacky ports and their accompanying PCBs all while having a smaller footprint overall. The little charging lights and card release button would need to be relocated, but the added functionality could be worth it.
Tongue-and-groove
Rough diagram and example with my own Framework
7 Likes
it’s hard to argue about the exact size when, if you really think about it, this laptop don’t have ethernet, and each usb4 only have enough space to lead out to a single USB-A. And a full-size SD card is a extremely tight fit.
What do I want?
A charging port (could be USB-C or barrel jack), 3 USB-A, a Ethernet, a full size SD card reader, at least 1 Thunderbolt, and some form of Displayport (AltMode supported) out. And for many others, this config will also suffice.
It is impossible to get these on the current framework without having to carry spares. Yes, when I don’t do presentation all I would need is 3 USB-A modules and a type c module for charging, but no, when I need to I have to swap them out. handy, but could be better.
Some will say I should get a external hub. I don’t agree. Unless there is no internal USB hub (highly unlikely), I think it’s more reasonable to connect to some of that hub’s ports so we don’t need two hubs talking to each other
The other problem with big monolithic units is that, yes it provides about 5mm of more width for PCB and components, but it also occupy 2 USB-C slots. That’s not a huge improvement, especially consider the re-tooling and other needs to make such a thing.
Although, upgrade from 2 USB port (of any choice) to 4 is quite juicy.
I think that will create a lot SKU’s. Which isn’t a great idea for any company, let alone a small one.
Though yes it would have been nicer if they where a little bigger to allow multiple USB ports. But that’s doable in the future.
My other thought is there wont be enough support in the centre of the two mini cards, it will be very easy to break parts with such a small join.
That’s why I’m looking at framework (if they get around to shipping where I live) I don’t want to carry around dongles. Also the repair-ability is something I like.
1 Like
An interesting option would be a combined USB-C + USB-A card without a hub, just the two connectors connected to the same port (you could only use one of them at a time). You would have to be very careful and possibly it could damage something if you plugged stuff into both ports at the same time. But other than that, it would be basically “free” (just PCB + connectors) and you won’t need to worry how many USB-A vs USB-C connectors to choose based on whether you encounter USB-A or USB-C devices more often. It would also preserve all the charging/altmode features of the USB-C. I am not sure whether the branching traces on the PCB would not mess up USB signal propagation but hopefully one could get away with that if they are short enough.
2 Likes
That wouldn’t work for signal integrity and it would be really dangerous, like imagine putting your power supply into the C port and then any device you put into the A port gets 20 volts it doesn’t expect.
4 Likes
There is no internal hub in the Framework. The ports are directly connected to the CPU, which contains two thunderbolt controllers for two ports each, and each TB controller contains two USB root ports, on for each port (duplicated for USB2/3, but ignore that for simplicity).
IIUC, connecting together multiple pins in side the USB-C connector (to allow rotating the connector, which is done for the USB2 pins to support rotation) was not possible for USB3, because the short stubs inside the USB-C connector would create problematic reflections, so anything that routes all the way to another USB-A connector is probably going to be more problematic.
Note that this is for the USB3 pins, if you just make USB2 available on the USB-A port, then signal integrity is probably not an issue (not sure though, 480Mbps is already a lot).
However, as @Jonathan_Haas suggested, overvolting the USB-A port is problematic, as is accidentally plugging in both ports, and I also think someone looked at this and concluded USB-C + USB-A is a tight if not impossible fit (even two USB-C were tricky IIRC), but I’m not sure if that’s just the connectors, or the problem was primarily room for the required circuitry.
2 Likes
Nice. (as in, there is nothing extraneous and can fail)
Since that, I might grab a USB hub, I guess.
1 Like
Considering that there are tiny DAC/headphone amp dongles that have 110 dB SINAD, I’d love to see what a fully fleshed-out audiophile module could look like. Limiting ourselves to staying under -100 dB THD+N, it should definitely be doable to throw >250 mWrms/channel into 16 ohms and >40 mWrms/channel into 300 ohms using rails derived from USB’s 5 V power supply and off-the-shelf parts.
I know this can be done. The E1DA 9038S referenced above is able to outdo those numbers, and fits in a volumetric space about equivalent to the expansion card size. There are still others, albeit larger, which can perform even better. Using a 10 volt rail instead of a 5 volt rail is all it would take to achieve 1 Wrms/channel, and that can be achieved with either an IC charge pump or PD shennanigans.
Since Framework’s USB implementation has all the bells and whistles of PD, perhaps we can make use of higher voltage rails for increased power output. I’ll gladly pay $200+ for a module that can do a full watt rms per channel into 16 ohms with ~100 dB SINAD. It would not only integrate into the laptop seamlessly, it’d be entering legendary-tier performance and the module would probably sell like hot cakes even to people outside the Framework ecosystem.
Hmu if you’re willing to work on this! I’m drafting a design for a module that can do all of that but could use some help and would love to collaborate.
7 Likes
Hello guys! One of the coolest features of the Framework laptop is the fact that you can choose your own ports! I’m curious what expansion cards you guys are using and what you would like to see in the future!
I may be wrong, But i guess the intel wireless pci-e card offered by framework already supports monitor mode under linux
to check Supported interface modes run iw list
if it’s not supported, u can replace existing card with ath10k mini pci-e card which will save an expansion slot
1 Like