The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup Sci.Electronics.Design
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic, Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Frank Bemelman"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
References: <3d9f4bd3$0$11211$1b62eedf@news.euronet.nl> <3DA07D50.CE258815@webaccess.net>
Subject: Re: steppermotor as encoder -> presto, moterized pot. (Poor man's rate drive)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:05:40 +0200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <3da0979d$0$11194$1b62eedf@news.euronet.nl>
Organization: EuroNet Internet
NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Oct 2002 20:05:50 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: hlg-n-5c88.mxs.adsl.euronet.nl
"Chuck Simmons" schreef in bericht
news:3DA07D50.CE258815@webaccess.net...
> Frank Bemelman wrote:
> >
> > Just had an idea, and I'm not planning to actually build
> > something, but liked to share the idea - if it is an idea.
> >
> > What we want is a moterized pot for a homemade amplifier,
> > so that it can be controlled both manually and by remotecontrol.
> > Since we lack mechanical skills (not me of course) we want it to
> > be mechanically simple. For cosmetic reasons we want the volume
> > knob to turn as well, when using the remote.
> >
> > Okay. We use a size 17 steppermotor from an old 5.25 floppy
> > drive. Some circuit to convert to logic levels, a PIC
> > to decode etc. Now we have a signal to control a digital
> > volume control. Easy.
> >
> > PIC also controls 4 outputs (steppers from floppydrives are
> > often unipolar) if the remote wants to move the 'pot'. In this
> > case, the software ignores the inputs, and simply increases
> > or decreases the control of the *digital* pot, and stepping
> > the motor with knob accordingly.
>
> I can't resist. I built this as a simple telescope drive for an 8 inch
> f/D=6 telescope on an inverted fork mount. I did this back in about
> 1975 using 4000 series CMOS plus some transistors for power drivers.
> The motor was a Superior Electric 200 steps per turn stepper.
> _____ ___________________ _____________
> | | | | | |----- A
> | Osc |--+----| Fixed divide by n |--+--| Toggle Flop |
> |_____| | |___________________| | |_____(JK)____|o---- !A
> | |
> | | _____________
> | | | |----- B
> | +-o| Toggle Flop |
> | |_____(JK)____|o---- !B
> | ______________________ _____________
> | | | | |----- C
> +----| Variable divide by m |---| Toggle Flop |
> |______________________| |_____(JK)____|o---- !C
> |
> |
> ___________|___________
> | |
> | Modulus switches |
> |______________________|
>
>
> ____________ ___________________
> A-------| | | |
> | Phase Det. |------| Filter + Motor PA |--- To Motor
> C-------|____________| |___________________|
>
> ____________ ___________________
> B-------| | | |
> | Phase Det. |------| Filter + Motor PA |--- To Motor
> C-------|____________| |___________________|
>
> Signals A and B are quadrature. When m and n are equal, the motor does
> not turn m>n and the motor turns one way and m All but the filter and motor power amplifier could be software. Clue.
> A phase detector is an exclusive or. The motor coils are driven with
> quadrature triangle waves in this scheme. Ideal is sinusoidal. The rate
> in this drive as used was one revolution in 23 hours 56 minutes after a
> 55:1 worm. The rate could be adjusted slow or fast by changing m.
While I don't understand a single bit of the above, I get a taste of
your enthusiasm. I did some silly things in the past, using bucket
brigades as shiftregisters, and forgot *and* rediscovered these devices
don't weren't meant to clock as static devices, etc. It were really the
times that you could use incredible amounts of hardware to perform a
specific task. Schematics that would cover the entire floor, all scibbled
with
pencils, and using hundreds of meters wirewrapped wire on dozens of
cards in a cardframe, and *still* understanding where your were. All
good memories, but i'm happy that today with have other options to
fullfill equally complex designs. Yet, I did feel more like a magician
those days, seems like that the physical dimensions alone had some
extra value that simply can't compensate for the rather *physical* small
stuff I produce today. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy 'small' projects
using a simple uC, whenever it fits the job.
--
Thanks,
Frank Bemelman
(remove 'x' & .invalid when sending email)
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Web Archive Index Of The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup
|