## Re: Engineering problem for discussion

Expand Messages
• Answers: It is always preferred to have a balanced swell action. The player would expect that and I want the experience to be what they would expect. The time,
Message 1 of 67 , Feb 12, 2013
Answers: It is always preferred to have a balanced swell action. The player would expect that and I want the experience to be what they would expect. The time, open to closed, of the shades would rarely be any quicker than a second or so. I can not think it would be less. The sense of it is: The foot can move to open or close the box and one could sort of imitate that motion to visualize the time it takes. Rarely is it ever slammed rapidly. Not good form.

--- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" wrote:
>
> Michael
> One thing not mentioned so far is what sort of Swell Pedal you wish to implement. Presumably it would be a Balanced Swell Pedal rather than Ratchet or Infinite Speed types.
> I take the movement of the Shutters is normally about 90 degrees. It would be useful to know how fast most Swell Shutters can move, that is how quickly can they move from fully closed to fully open? For example 1/10 second, 1/4 second, 1/2 second, 1 second, longer?
> DAvid
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: hesperion22
> To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 10:27 PM
> Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: Engineering problem for discussion
>
>
>
> Still trying to comprehend all the details but to attempt to answer: The entire motion (almost without exception) is within 90 degrees and it would not have to be extremely fine increments. I am gathering a short-list of components and adjunct parts based on the 2 or 3 schemes that have been suggested. The arduino idea is still strong in my mind but, as some have pointed out, it is probably overkill in light of simpler options. Run the components with lots of margin and at lower than rated power and the optical rotary "pot" is very attractive for its longevity. I hope to demonstrate my understanding by listing the parts for your approval soon. THANKS TO ALL!!
>
> --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, Rob Purdy wrote:
> >
> >
> > How accurate do you need those steps to be? @ 256 steps you will see some vaiance due to inaccuaracies in the motor build. There's also some torque loss. That's part of the reason Gecko doesn't do 256 micro steps. Rob
> > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
> > From: james@
> > Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:37:38 -0800
> > Subject: Re: [SeattleRobotics] Re: Engineering problem for discussion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm familiar with Gecko, but all of their drivers are 1/10 uStep at the finest setting. I was specifically curious about 1/256 uStep because it gets you to a finer resolution without introducing a gear reduction in the system somewhere.
> >
> > I have a space-constrained application which needs motors to turn a shaft at ~8192 steps per revolution at a very slow speed (e.g. 24 hours per revolution). I'll probably end up going DC with an absolute encoder, but the stepper option is attractive since I've already got boilerplate arduino code to drive 2 axis steppers.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Rob Purdy wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Start with Geckodrive.com The white pages Mariss wrote should be required reaqding for any one gettinginto CNC.
> >
> > That noise can be mitigated many ways but mostly it will depend on what Freq. The chopper circuit is running.
> >
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
> > From: james@
> >
> > Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 15:30:04 -0800
> > Subject: Re: [SeattleRobotics] Re: Engineering problem for discussion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:12 PM, David Wyland wrote:
> >
> >
> > That said, a stepper motor driven by a micro-stepping controller can
> >
> > achieve very fine resolution, e.g. 200 x 256 =>51,200 steps/ revolution.
> >
> > And stepper motors can be fast. I know of a 200 step/rev stepper motor
> >
> > application for camera pointing that runs at up to 20,000 steps per
> >
> > second. This works out to 6,000 RPM! So, I recommend looking at using a
> >
> > stepper motor as your servo. They are available in a wide variety of
> >
> > sizes, both commercially and surplus.
> >
> > I was not aware there were stepper drivers that could microstep down to 1/256. Most of the stuff out there is 1/10. Can anyone recommend a good brand?
> >
> >
> > Another thing to keep in mind, since this is a musical application, is noise. Stepper motors put out a distinct tone relative to the speed they're being driven - even the little ones. DC motors and servos are almost always quieter.
> >
> >
> > I'm new to the list, but happy to find some like-minded folks. My name is James, and I work in the Center for Digital Arts and Experimental Media at the UW.
> > Best,
> >
> > James
> >
>
• Thanks David and everyone. I will wade through those asap and see what I can continue to learn. HEY, I did want to let everyone know. I had been having a bit
Message 67 of 67 , Feb 14, 2013
Thanks David and everyone. I will wade through those asap and see what I can continue to learn. HEY, I did want to let everyone know. I had been having a bit of trouble with Yahoo. For a while now it has made every effort to re-associate my account with old unused ones and today I found I could not get into ANY of them. After some gyrations I determined they would not help me so rather than go through this at every password change and cache clearing I set up a new account so my new user name is "michaelorgel" formerly "hesperion22". email is still the same however. In my organ related group of course it caused me lose privileges over my photos etc. and the admin has no idea what to do about it. I thought I would just announce it here and move on, as they say. Anyway, I'm still here with a new ID which hopefully will be less troublesome. Thanks for sticking with me.

--- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" wrote:
>
> Hi Michael
>
> That size shouldn't be a problem for a wiper motor.
> Kevin is right you could try your junkyard and the window winder motors are good for smaller projects.
> I once use two Ford XR3i window motors for an emergency repair, they were great with nice long output shafts, most car motor/gearboxes have shafts which are difficult to connect to.
> However you can buy wiper motors new for probably the same price, and for a commercial item you would want to use the new parts anyway.
> I did a quick Google search -
> http://www.scary-terry.com/wipmtr/wipmtr.htm
> http://www.scary-terry.com/wipmtr/wipmtr2.htm
> http://monsterguts.com/index.php?act=viewCat&catId=2
> http://monsterguts.com/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=306
> http://monsterguts.com/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=4
> http://monsterguts.com/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=105
> http://monsterguts.com/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=11
> With the monsterguts parts you could rig-up a prototype controlled by switches.
> You will need to source some ball-ends for the linkages, Try Amazon Small Parts.
> Arrange the linkage (just like in a car) so as the motor rotates continuously the vanes go from shut to open to shut to open and never hit any end stops, that way nothing breaks. You might want to add an obvious way that an untrained person could disconnect the linkage so the vanes could be adjusted to a fixed position by hand just in case something goes wrong - would it matter? Could the volume be too loud or too quiet?
> When that works you could add a servo pot, use the type with a 1/4" shaft and end stops. (at least servopots haven't yet gone metric - here in the UK volume control pots have 6mm shafts and all the knobs still have 1/4" holes so the knobs rotate off axis!!!!).
> Connect the pot by a linkage arm so that it rotates no more than 90degrees as the vanes go from open to shut. Arrange the pot so when the vanes are in the mid position the pot is in its mid position (just move it by hand from one stop to another and guess the middle position just like you would do with a volume control. - If you connect the pot by a tooth belt drive or gears you could go to 180 degree rotation from vanes open to vanes closed. Don't worry about a bit of backlash in gears etc, it won't matter, you are not building a CNC mill. The important thing is you don't want the pot to rotate to anywhere near its end stops and you are using one with end stops so you can easily find its mid position.
> Add a servopot to the swell pedal just the same. It is easier if both pots move 90degrees or 180 degrees etc.
> Next get a servo amplifier which will handle the voltage (12V) and current of the motor and which has easy to understand instructions to set up a position feedback system. You might want to come back and ask Chuck which are good companies to deal with and suitable parts to buy.
>
> DAvid
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: hesperion22
> To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:20 AM
> Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: Engineering problem for discussion
>
>
>
> Hi David,
> The opening in this proto is about 4'(wide) x 3' (high) with transverse shades each about 5" wide, total of 5 shades. Do you really feel it will be that simple? I am liking this if so. LOL. What is an example of a windshield wiper motor for reference? Do you mean an actually automotive part?
>
> --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" wrote:
> >
> > Michael
> > Should have asked also - how big is the shutter area - in general?
> > The answer is looking more and more like a windscreen-wiper-motor sized geared-motor plus a small servo-amplifier from Chuck's links, a power supply, two 5K servo pots and 10 pieces of wire plus some brackets and levers.
> > DAvid
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: hesperion22
> > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:17 AM
> > Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: Engineering problem for discussion
> >
> >
> >
> > Answers: It is always preferred to have a balanced swell action. The player would expect that and I want the experience to be what they would expect. The time, open to closed, of the shades would rarely be any quicker than a second or so. I can not think it would be less. The sense of it is: The foot can move to open or close the box and one could sort of imitate that motion to visualize the time it takes. Rarely is it ever slammed rapidly. Not good form.
> >
> > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael
> > > One thing not mentioned so far is what sort of Swell Pedal you wish to implement. Presumably it would be a Balanced Swell Pedal rather than Ratchet or Infinite Speed types.
> > > I take the movement of the Shutters is normally about 90 degrees. It would be useful to know how fast most Swell Shutters can move, that is how quickly can they move from fully closed to fully open? For example 1/10 second, 1/4 second, 1/2 second, 1 second, longer?
> > > DAvid
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: hesperion22
> > > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 10:27 PM
> > > Subject: [SeattleRobotics] Re: Engineering problem for discussion
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Still trying to comprehend all the details but to attempt to answer: The entire motion (almost without exception) is within 90 degrees and it would not have to be extremely fine increments. I am gathering a short-list of components and adjunct parts based on the 2 or 3 schemes that have been suggested. The arduino idea is still strong in my mind but, as some have pointed out, it is probably overkill in light of simpler options. Run the components with lots of margin and at lower than rated power and the optical rotary "pot" is very attractive for its longevity. I hope to demonstrate my understanding by listing the parts for your approval soon. THANKS TO ALL!!
> > >
> > > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, Rob Purdy wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How accurate do you need those steps to be? @ 256 steps you will see some vaiance due to inaccuaracies in the motor build. There's also some torque loss. That's part of the reason Gecko doesn't do 256 micro steps. Rob
> > > > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
> > > > From: james@
> > > > Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:37:38 -0800
> > > > Subject: Re: [SeattleRobotics] Re: Engineering problem for discussion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm familiar with Gecko, but all of their drivers are 1/10 uStep at the finest setting. I was specifically curious about 1/256 uStep because it gets you to a finer resolution without introducing a gear reduction in the system somewhere.
> > > >
> > > > I have a space-constrained application which needs motors to turn a shaft at ~8192 steps per revolution at a very slow speed (e.g. 24 hours per revolution). I'll probably end up going DC with an absolute encoder, but the stepper option is attractive since I've already got boilerplate arduino code to drive 2 axis steppers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Rob Purdy wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Start with Geckodrive.com The white pages Mariss wrote should be required reaqding for any one gettinginto CNC.
> > > >
> > > > That noise can be mitigated many ways but mostly it will depend on what Freq. The chopper circuit is running.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > > >
> > > > To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
> > > > From: james@
> > > >
> > > > Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 15:30:04 -0800
> > > > Subject: Re: [SeattleRobotics] Re: Engineering problem for discussion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:12 PM, David Wyland wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That said, a stepper motor driven by a micro-stepping controller can
> > > >
> > > > achieve very fine resolution, e.g. 200 x 256 =>51,200 steps/ revolution.
> > > >
> > > > And stepper motors can be fast. I know of a 200 step/rev stepper motor
> > > >
> > > > application for camera pointing that runs at up to 20,000 steps per
> > > >
> > > > second. This works out to 6,000 RPM! So, I recommend looking at using a
> > > >
> > > > stepper motor as your servo. They are available in a wide variety of
> > > >
> > > > sizes, both commercially and surplus.
> > > >
> > > > I was not aware there were stepper drivers that could microstep down to 1/256. Most of the stuff out there is 1/10. Can anyone recommend a good brand?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Another thing to keep in mind, since this is a musical application, is noise. Stepper motors put out a distinct tone relative to the speed they're being driven - even the little ones. DC motors and servos are almost always quieter.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm new to the list, but happy to find some like-minded folks. My name is James, and I work in the Center for Digital Arts and Experimental Media at the UW.
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.