Monthly Archives: April 2015

Boxes, Cases, Enclosures — Part 1

By |April 26th, 2015|Design, Electronics|0 Comments

Sometimes it takes more time and energy to make the project box (case, enclosure) than it takes to actually design and build the electronics. For a final product or a production version, that might make sense. But sometimes you just want something that will do the job, not take too much time, but still look good. Over the years I have watched hundreds of engineering students use laser cutters and 3D-printers to make their project boxes. That bothers me sometimes, especially the mess of cut acrylic sheets surrounding the laser cutters and the knowledge that most of these projects will find their way to the dumpster soon. It seems wasteful and ecologically unsound. Not to mention, this is an expensive way to make a temporary box. 3D-printing has its own problems, one of them being that it is a really slow way to make box. Taking four to six hours to print out an enclosure, when there are dozens of other students in the queue desperately waiting to print their parts, doesn’t seem consistent with the concept of unleashed productivity that 3D-printing is supposed to bring.

All of this waste and inefficiency is made worse by the fact that the project box might have to be remade a few times because of measurement errors and design changes. However, over the last few months I have been working on a system that uses small 3D-printed pieces, in combination with decorated foamcore panels, to make serviceable and attractive enclosures cheaply, quickly, and easily. Better still, these enclosures are quickly and easily modified if there are measurement errors or design changes. And a further advantage is that the 3D-printed pieces can be made up ahead of time, before the dimensions of the enclosure are known. Then, when the dimensions are set, the foamcore panels can be cut and the case put together in a manner of minutes.

I’ve worked out several different methods of building these boxes, which I’ll describe in upcoming posts. For now, I’ll introduce what I think is the best approach for small boxes. It basically consists of two plastic (3D-printed) endcaps which contain slots into which four foamcore panels fit into. A couple of pictures say it all:

Small-box-exploded

Small box

Of course, the box need not be quite so plain. Here is rendering of something edgier:

Small box with stripe

In my next post on this subject I’ll provide some construction details. I also think I’ll have an OpenSCAD program available that generates the STL files for the endcaps.

 

 

loopboost progress report #1 — a design road not taken

By |April 20th, 2015|Assistive Technology, LoopBoost, News|Comments Off on loopboost progress report #1 — a design road not taken

I’ve been working on the loopboost blog (loopboost.com) recently, laying down some design considerations before actually jumping into the hardware and software development. There are always important design decisions that are made at the very beginning of any design project. These are not always explicitly recognized or communicated, but since the loopboost project will be both public and open-source, I wanted to be very clear about these at the beginning. All this discussion is on the loopboost blog, so I won’t repeat it here; but I will include a concept sketch that I did early on. This sketch, however, represents a design road not taken.

Early-APL-sketch

 

 

Prototyping with modules and breakout boards

Using the LPKF Protomat ciruit board machine. In a couple of earlier posts I described rebuilding a LPKF Protomat circuit board etching machine. This wasn’t a recreational project (although I did enjoy doing it). I like to use the machine for quick prototyping when the circuit is not too complicated. This week I used the Protomat to build a board whose components are almost entirely made up of modules and break-out boards:

Module-board

Modules and breakout boards as components. The components include a Modern Device “RBBB” Arduino-equivalent, an Adafruit real-time-clock breakout board, an Innogear HC-05 bluetooth module, and a Maxbotix ultrasonic rangefinder. There are a couple of other things that plug in as well. The whole system could be sustantially miniaturized, of course. The components could be squeezed closer together, but they are spread out this way because there is something that fits on top of this circuit, and this layout gives access to the pushbuttons and connectors when the other components are placed on top.

Better than the old days. In the “old days” these kind of modules and breakout boards were not available, and I would have had to design, lay out, and build an entire circuit board from scratch. This new way of doing things (thanks Adafruit and Sparkfun!) makes designing and prototyping so much faster. As the current project progresses, I will eventually have to design and lay out a board from scratch — with surface mount components most likely. For now, though, there’s nothing that can beat — in terms of time and convenience — building with off-the-shelf modules and breakout boards.

Spying on my cats. What is this board for? I can’t really say here because of intellectual property issues. There’s more to the project than what’s shown here. But the system shown here could be used to spy on my cats. Let’s say I want to know how much time they spend sitting on the big chair in my living room — and when they’re in that chair. I could use this system and point the ultrasonic range finder at the chair. The Arduino-equivalent would be programmed to recognize when something is in the chair and broadcast (by bluetooth) cat-in-the-chair and cat-not-in-the-chair data to a bluetooth-enabled computer in the house. The realtime-clock would allow the data to be time-stamped; so rather than sending out raw data, the system could send out more processed data: for instance, an hourly cat-in-the-chair report and a 24–hour report. The possibilites are endless. A report might include information such as “maximum uninterrupted sitting time.” As I write this, I’m beginning to think that  I might just build an extra one of these circuit boards so that I can spy on my cats. I don’t know whether they’ll be affected by the high pitch emitted by the ultrasonic range finder, but I’ll find out.

loopboost: a new open-source assistive-technology project

By |April 6th, 2015|News|Comments Off on loopboost: a new open-source assistive-technology project

Loopboost logo for wp

Today I started a new open-source project called loopboost. The goal is to develop technology to help persons who have difficulty with working memory and attentional control. This would include persons with attention deficit disorder and brain injury. The project site is loopboost.com. This project will build upon an idea that I developed about ten years ago, to develop an artificial phonological loop. The phonological loop is essentially the “inner voice” to keep ourselves focused and on-task. I won’t post everything from the loopboost site onto this one, but I will summarize progress and important project events here.

Rebuilding the LPKF Protomat — The new software toolchain

By |April 3rd, 2015|Electronics, Machining|Comments Off on Rebuilding the LPKF Protomat — The new software toolchain

The software problem. Now that I had the hardware under control, I moved on to the software problem. Originally the Protomat machine was supported by two pieces of LPKF software: CircuitCam and BoardMaster. CircuitCam took as inputs the circuit board layout pattern (Gerber files) and the drill information (Excellon file). CircuitCam then will figure out how to mill out a board with a small diameter milling cutter so that circuit board traces are electrically isolated from each other. These cuts into the copper-clad board are called isolation tracks. The standard LPKF isolation track is only 0.2mm (0.008 inch) wide. After the isolation tracks are generated in CircuitCam, one can export the LPKF milling machine data to a file. Typically this data would include both the data for the isolation tracks and for the drilled holes. Then, to have the Protomat machine manufacture the circuit board one would use the LPKF Protomat control software, BoardMaster. From BoardMaster one would read in the data file prepared by CircuitCam and then mill and drill the board. BoardMaster would organize the fabrication process in terms of “phases” (e.g., milling top side, milling bottom side, drill holes), associating each phase with a different milling cutter or drill diameter. The problem was, when I got rid of the LPKF electronics, BoardMaster would no longer work and I needed a new way of taking the Gerber and Excellon files and getting the Protomat to move appropriately.

The tool chain. Here is the toolchain I eventually worked out:

Protomat toolchain

The first step, of course, is to lay out the circuit board. I have been using Eagle as my circuit board design software, but I am moving to DipTrace (more about that later). This is how the board layout might look in DipTrace:

DipTrace

For both Eagle and DipTrace I generate the Gerber-X and Excellon files and then import them into CircuitCam. All I do in CircuitCam is to produce the isolation tracks.

This is how this same board looks in CircuitCam. The white lines are the isolation tracks.

Circuitcam

So far, no difference with the old way of doing things when I could use BoardMaster. But now, with the new way of doing things, I export a DXF file from CircuitCam. In setting up the export job I make sure to include both the isolation traces and the drill holes. Also, if I am going to be milling out the bottom side of a board, I export a “flipped” DXF. (The standard view orientation for circuit board software is looking down from the top of the board, so that the bottom side is visualized as if you could see through the board. But to actually mill the bottom side, you need the turn the board over so you’re actually looking at it from the bottom side.)

Getting lucky. Now I have a DXF, and I need some way of converting that into G-code. I got real lucky here. I thought that this was going to be tricky, but it wasn’t. I had a copy of the SheetCam. I imported the DXF into SheetCam (a wonderful feature!) and then assigned an engraving tool to the lines associated with the isolation tracks. This engraving tool corresponds to the 0.2 mm cutter. Then there was the problem of the drill holes. But SheetCam can recognize small diameter circles and offer to make them the centers for drill holes. All you have to do is to say, “yes.” SheetCam will then allow you to associate a drill from your tool list to these drill centers. Even better, it will allow you to associate a range of circle diameters to a single drill. For instance, in one of my boards I had holes ranging from 0.039 to 0.043 inches. I let SheetCam know that for all these holes, I wanted to use a 0.040 inch drill. SheetCam automatically figures out all the tool paths. Here is what it looks like in SheetCam:

SheetCam

Modifying the postprocessor. The last step within SheetCam is to run the postprocessor to generate the G-code. If I were going to be using a regular Mach3–controlled milling machine, I would just choose Mach3 as my postprocessor. But this would generate G-codes to move the Z-axis. The Protomat machine, though, has only two z-positions: “up” and “down”, determined by the milling head solenoid. I mentioned in the earlier post that I set up Mach3 so that an M8 G-code would energize the solenoid to pull the milling head down, to cut or drill. And M9 would return the head up. So I modified the postprocessor. The new postprocessor issues an M8 at the beginning of each milling cut and issues an M9 at the end. Likewise, the new postprocessor issues M8 and M9 within each drill cycle. I’ll post the postprocessor code on github as soon as I figure out how to do that.

The last step: Mach3. There is nothing special about running the Mach3 job using the G-code generated by SheetCam. It just runs. If I had time and inclination, I might upgrade the hardware so that Mach3 could directly control the spindle speed. At this point there’s no great advantage to me for doing that. The one improvement that might make a difference is a better way of controlling the drill cycle dwell time. As it is, I issue an M8 command to pull the milling head down, wait a little while, and then issue the M9 command, and wait a little while before executing the next G-code command. These pauses give the head time to move down and back up. Not much time is needed for the milling cutter, but more is needed for drilling. And the bigger the drill, the more time is required for it to drill all the way through the board. Presently, I have a “long” dwell time that will work for larger diameter drills. This works, but it means that for smaller diameter drills I’m taking more time than I really need. I suppose that this would be a problem if I were making boards with lots of holes; but, really, I only use the Protomat for small boards, so this “wasted time” is not a big deal. For now, this project is done! Here’s the ciruitboard (slightly different version) that we’ve seen from DipTrace to CircuitCam to SheetCam:

Finished-circuit-board