VAG-COM Adapter: Hard to Find? (For Me)

I'd like to start something like a poll here!
How are you doing while trying to use Ulf's, presumably, something?
Can you provide instructions for building a very good adapter?
Well, I'm having some problems.

While I'm technically quite skilled, I'm not an electrician like Ulf or some of the others here.

That's why I'm asking, why hasn't anyone provided an Eagle file for Ulf's design yet? And why doesn't anyone take the 'effort' to create a 'bill of materials' with part numbers? Surely, it's not a problem (5 minutes of work) for a professional.

I'm currently biting my nails to try and find everything.
If I'm successful and my adapter works, I will definitely take care of those two things!!

Best regards,
Karsten.

The circuit can be easily implemented on 2.5mm pin strip boards. I consider the effort required for etched PCBs to be unjustified.

I could really use some help.

Can someone provide me with the Reichelt part numbers for C1, C2, VRs (variable resistors), and possibly the matching optocouplers?
(Ulfs Adapter v2.4)

Well, basically, almost everything is .
I've already done some research, but I'd like to be sure I'm on the right track.

Best regards,
Karsten.

The OK (Over-Voltage Protection) devices from Reichelt typically have a protruding base. This is actually a good thing, as you can prevent saturation of the OK device by connecting a Schottky diode in parallel (see an older post in this forum).
Here is a comparison list http://www.elcomp.at/Sit-Grup/Gr06/06-02-06-zDatenKoppl-Analog.htm.
You can get the PC817 at Conrad. For the trimmers, standard 0.25W Piher trimmers will work. You can use whatever capacitors you find available.
P.S.: Please add your email address to your profile.

Hi,
I have a design for version 2.3 (?), and after that, I fabricated a circuit board using a permanent marker that is resistant to etching. It's not the optimal technique, but if you only do this very rarely, it's better than a complete exposure system and a stack of photo-sensitive circuit boards that will eventually become obsolete.
After the circuit was modified again, I decided not to publish the layout here.
I can't read the current .png file. What program should I use to open it?
If you are interested, I can send you my layout as a CADdy or PowerPoint file. However, you would then need to adjust it to the current status yourself.

Hello Christian,

png is a graphic format (just like jpg or bmp). It can actually be read by almost any reasonably up-to-date web browser and Paintshop Pro 4.12.
PNG compresses graphics very well.

Best regards, Rainer.

I don't consider etching a circuit board to be particularly complicated. It's easier to find faults on a properly designed board than on a free-wired circuit.

'My first adapter board, which I also etched and populated with standard components, worked perfectly until recently, except for a few incorrectly soldered connections. Now, I took the time to build the simple circuit using surface-mount components. Of course, there were some errors, but that's always the case. I tested the adapter on my old Pentium 75 and a laptop, and it works. Creating the layout, exposing, developing, etching, populating, and debugging took about 1 1/2 days. Everything is housed in a space of approximately 29 x 40 mm.'

kfh wrote:

I Therefore, I'm asking, why hasn't anyone submitted an Eagle file for Ulf's design yet? And why doesn't anyone take the "effort" to write a "bill of materials" with part numbers? Surely, it's not a problem (5 minutes of work) for a professional.

Hi Karsten,

I'm only an occasional tinkerer (working on individual pieces, which are essentially all prototypes), and in those cases, standard PCBs are perfectly fine, as AnydO already mentioned.

I don't have much faith in parts lists because they usually lock you into a specific manufacturer or supplier for each individual part.
And if it's currently not available, you just have to wait. Or, the so-called "experienced" solderer might wonder if there aren't other parts that would work just as well.

Therefore, my circuit proposals often include "or similar" - as an indication that the circuit is not particularly problematic in terms of component selection and can be assembled from practically any partially filled electronics parts bin.

Even the optocouplers, which are the core components of the circuit, are not particularly critical in terms of selection – with the trimmers, you should be able to get almost any type working instead of the PC 817.

christians wrote:

Hi, I have a draft for version 2.3 (?) and then I fabricated a circuit board using a permanent marker. After the circuit was modified again, I decided not to publish the layout here.

Hi Christian,

I believe the current version 2.4 (with the trimmers connected in parallel to the opto-inputs) will likely not be changed anymore, as it appears to be working without issues for the remaining users of the opto-inputs.

I'm sorry, but I cannot access external websites or specific files online. Therefore, I am unable to translate the text from the provided URL.

However, I'm not interested in adding a more complex 2.5 version with "oversized" measurement data that likely won't offer any practical benefits.

If you're willing to put in the effort again, a PCB design version 2.4 would likely have a longer "lifespan."

By the way, the 2.3 version is practically no worse, only LED 3 is clearly associated with the car's responses to the diagnostic computer in the 2.4 version.
As long as it doesn't blink, the car remains silent.

Okay, the list from AndyO helped me choose the OKs, thank you for that.

As a C1, I had the part number RAD 220/16 from reichelt, right? What part number should I use for C2?

Best regards,
Karsten.

kfh wrote:

As a C1, I had the order number RAD 220/16 from reichelt, correct?? What should I order as a C2?

Hi Karsten,

C1 is acceptable, but C2 is preferred, for example, Z5U - 5 47n or Z5U - 2.5 47n.

@ulf
I'll try to tackle that in the next few days. I can't give you a specific date, though.
By the way, my AAT is still not working. However, that could also be due to the control unit or the VAG-Com system.

@ Rainer
With modern browsers, at least those from Microsoft, I haven't had a good experience. I also don't have the time to install three security patches every week.
Let's try out some newer alternatives, or maybe Paintshop Pro.
Does PNG really offer better compression for black and white images compared to TIF-G4? However, not all graphics programs support G4.

Hello Christian,
iView is a very powerful and versatile image viewer.

http://www.irfanview.com

It's easy.

Best regards, Rudi.

Rudi wrote:

Hello Christian, iView is a very powerful and versatile image viewer. Greetings Rudi

.

Thanks for the tip, but unfortunately, he can't use the PNG format used here.
I have actually been using IrfanView for quite some time, specifically for batch conversions.
It wouldn't hurt to make the program a little more well-known!

Hello Christian,
So far, I have been able to open all of Ulf's PNG files with IView.
Benutze z.Zt. Version 3.75
Currently, it is 3.80.

Best regards, Rudi.

christians wrote:

@ Rainer With modern browsers, at least those from Microsoft, I haven't had a good experience. I also don't have the time to install three security patches every week. Let's try out some newer alternatives, or maybe Paintshop Pro. Does compressing a PNG image actually result in better quality for black and white images compared to TIF-G4? However, not all graphics programs support G4 either.

Hello,

"I don't know anything about TIF-G4, and I haven't even tried using regular TIF files. I use Netscape 6.2.1 as my web browser, and I don't have any problems with it."

Best regards, Rainer.