Date   

Re: Encoders

Howard Dutton
 
Edited

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:01 PM, Drew 🔭📷🚴‍♂️ wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 09:49 AM, Howard Dutton wrote:
Then hopefully something like this will plug right in:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/MINI-D1-ESP32-Wemos-WIFI-Bluetooth-ESP8266-CP2104-Development-Board-ESP-32S-SE/173514866672?hash=item28664abff0:m:mlg-LNAW6cK2mqOxJ-pVyPQ
Doesn't look pin compatible to me. An adapter may be required.
I just glanced at it but it sure seems right to me.  Has Vcc,Gnd,Rx,Tx, 3V3, and RST where they are supposed to be as far as I can tell.

That would be enough (connection wise) to "work" in a MaxESP3 or STM32 kit I think.  You need the swapped serial port pins active for a MaxPCB2 and MiniPCB2.  There is not an equivalent of that feature on an ESP32 but it can put a serial port on any pins you like so it should in theory be possible to put a serial port on those pins.  Then the encoder pins would be different too I assume, but again nothing but a couple of lines of code to correct that.  Some pins on the ESP32 have special requirements for signal state at boot time though and I have not checked if those requirements are satisfied for the encoders and second serial interface.


Re: STM32 Bluepill Kit - No I2C devices found

Allen Royston
 

So I received the new Stm32 modules today.
Popped one in to my original build. Flashed the release  and was up and running!
So it looks like I had 2 bad Stm32 modules.
Thanks for everyone's help getting me through that wall.


Re: New member and new build

 

Khalid,
Thanks for the quick response. I'll go ahead with the motors I have to at least get the firmware done.
Due to space limitations, I can't go larger than 60T on the pulley.

I found some of these in the toolbox [https://www.omc-stepperonline.com/nema-17-stepper-motor-bipolar-l33mm-w-gear-raio-51-planetary-gearbox-17hs13-0404s-pg5.html?search=17hs13-0404s-pg5]
They are only rated at 400mA though with an inductance of 37mH. Backlash is given as <1°.  Torque is given as 26 N.cm so not that suitable.


Re: New member and new build

Khalid Baheyeldin
 

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 12:07 AM, Geoff wrote:
I have a 16-60 tooth GT2 belt from the stepper to the worm gear shaft. Does the GR1 entry on the spreadsheet refer to that gearing i.e. 3.75:1?
Yes.

Your parameters (200 steps, 1/32 microstep, 3.75:1, 144:1) gives you a resolution of 0.77"/step.
This is below what is usually recommended for astrophotography (0.28"/step).

You can achieve that by using a geared motor.
Here is an example with 13.73:1, and adequate torque.
If you go that route, then use 1:1 pulleys.

Others who tested NEMA 17 geared motors, please post the exact ones you use.


Re: New member and new build

 

I've been a bit sidetracked doing some mods for my maker space K40 laser but back to the telescope!

Power tested OK, no magic smoke observed. I'm going to do the firmware this afternoon/evening and I've been looking at the spreadsheet for config values. I have a Vxen GP which is a 144:1 worm and I have a 16-60 tooth GT2 belt from the stepper to the worm gear shaft. Does the GR1 entry on the spreadsheet refer to that gearing i.e. 3.75:1?. I've got 200 step motors (for now) and I've set microsteps to 32. Initial testing will be done with A4988 drivers. I figure it doesn't matter if I get this bit wrong as long as I can get teh motors to moved. I can adjust things based on the answers I get here.


Re: New member and new build

tnut55
 

Well said with regards to TinkerCAD.  I find suitable for simple parts that I make.  Relatively complex shapes can be created by cobbling together simpler models.

I use it exclusively for non- load bearing parts on a 3d printer where 3d printing is a faster, cheaper process than alternative methods.

Perhaps I like it because it was the easiest to learn after I bought my printer.  I have not encountered (yet) a limitation to something I wanted to design and print.  

I would not recommend it for highly detailed or parts requiring a high level of precision.


On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 8:49 PM, John Scherer
<jrsphoto@...> wrote:
Hey Drew, I've not tried TinkerCAD but I have done a few things in Freecad.  For me, they way Fusion 360 works makes more sense to me, but I used Solidworks before making the move to Fusion which I think helped.  For the kinds of things I model, Freecad really isn't a choice, either would TinkerCAD I feel. Mostly because of features in Fusion I make use of.  Does Fusion 360 have things I don't like.. sure! like you, I'm not a fan of cloud based applications, but, I've learned to live with it.  Mostly because there are no other options for me, really.  Not with the same or similar feature set

You really have to look at the kinds of things you want to model and their complexity.  If most of your designs are rectangle / circle / hole,etc,  and relatively simple models, then Freecad or TinkerCAD might work fine.  If you find the kinds of things you want to model require the additional functionality of a program like Fusion 350, then by all means, make the jump, just take it SLOW.  I had been using Fusion for about a year before I decided to model the G11 mount.   Where I think Tinkercad will really shine is for people with simple CNC router machines, doing 2.5D cad, and cutting it out on the CNC Router.

As far as using closed-source cad programs in open-source forums like this, I don't see the problem.  Sure Fusion has its proprietary file format, but I can export the design to all the major 3d cad file formats, (step,iges, etc), formats that Freecad can import, and supports well.  In addition I can export a .stl file for use in slicers for 3d printing.  As an example, I also do photography and use Photoshop/Lightroom extensively.  This doesn't make my images proprietary, its how you attribute the work you create.  If I want them to be freely shared, I'll make the license type "Creative Commons" in the image metadata. 

If you ever have question about Fusion, feel free to ask, I'd be glad to help.

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 08:30 AM, Drew 🔭📷🚴‍♂️ wrote:
Perhaps someone with more experience with Fusion 360 or TinkerCAD can chime in here. I am only beginning to evaluate the various 3D design products. As far as I can tell TinkerCAD requires the design to be uploaded to Fusion 360 before it can be saved as an independent design file type.

Here is an article on the various file types: https://all3dp.com/3d-file-format-3d-files-3d-printer-3d-cad-vrml-stl-obj/

To me the key here is the usefulness of the software vs the ability to store and exchange designs. Proprietary file formats or cloud storage based design locking are a non-starter for me. As I complete my evaluations I will add more comments. After all my 3D printer isn't set to arrive until next Tuesday.  I really can't stand "I have never used it but let me pontificate postss" so I will comment no  further.


Re: Error compiling Teensy 3.2 ethernet code

John Scherer
 

At your leisure Howard.  It will take a week to get the part here, and I don't have a Teensy Ethernet adapter board yet, which will take longer as soon as I order it.


Re: New member and new build

John Scherer
 

Hey Drew, I've not tried TinkerCAD but I have done a few things in Freecad.  For me, they way Fusion 360 works makes more sense to me, but I used Solidworks before making the move to Fusion which I think helped.  For the kinds of things I model, Freecad really isn't a choice, either would TinkerCAD I feel. Mostly because of features in Fusion I make use of.  Does Fusion 360 have things I don't like.. sure! like you, I'm not a fan of cloud based applications, but, I've learned to live with it.  Mostly because there are no other options for me, really.  Not with the same or similar feature set

You really have to look at the kinds of things you want to model and their complexity.  If most of your designs are rectangle / circle / hole,etc,  and relatively simple models, then Freecad or TinkerCAD might work fine.  If you find the kinds of things you want to model require the additional functionality of a program like Fusion 350, then by all means, make the jump, just take it SLOW.  I had been using Fusion for about a year before I decided to model the G11 mount.   Where I think Tinkercad will really shine is for people with simple CNC router machines, doing 2.5D cad, and cutting it out on the CNC Router.

As far as using closed-source cad programs in open-source forums like this, I don't see the problem.  Sure Fusion has its proprietary file format, but I can export the design to all the major 3d cad file formats, (step,iges, etc), formats that Freecad can import, and supports well.  In addition I can export a .stl file for use in slicers for 3d printing.  As an example, I also do photography and use Photoshop/Lightroom extensively.  This doesn't make my images proprietary, its how you attribute the work you create.  If I want them to be freely shared, I'll make the license type "Creative Commons" in the image metadata. 

If you ever have question about Fusion, feel free to ask, I'd be glad to help.


On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 08:30 AM, Drew 🔭📷🚴‍♂️ wrote:
Perhaps someone with more experience with Fusion 360 or TinkerCAD can chime in here. I am only beginning to evaluate the various 3D design products. As far as I can tell TinkerCAD requires the design to be uploaded to Fusion 360 before it can be saved as an independent design file type.

Here is an article on the various file types: https://all3dp.com/3d-file-format-3d-files-3d-printer-3d-cad-vrml-stl-obj/

To me the key here is the usefulness of the software vs the ability to store and exchange designs. Proprietary file formats or cloud storage based design locking are a non-starter for me. As I complete my evaluations I will add more comments. After all my 3D printer isn't set to arrive until next Tuesday.  I really can't stand "I have never used it but let me pontificate postss" so I will comment no  further.


Re: New member and new build

John Scherer
 

Thanks for the kind words about the Fusion 360 G11 model I did, Ant.  I hate to think about how many hours I have into that model, but I really love doing that type of thing, and Fusion 360 really is the best option out there in this price range (Free). Yes it’s cloud based which I don’t really care for but the next closest CAD package that can do what Fusion can do would cost me thousands (Solidworks).  I’ve recently sold my G11 mount and replaced it with a GM8 and already started modeling that as well.  It makes it so much easier to design attachments for these mounts l if you have it modeled and can test the fit before you make it.  I’m designing a Nema 17 plate for it with 4:1 belt drive from the motor to the worm gear. 

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 02:23 AM, Ant No wrote:

What are your thoughts on fusion 360?

A couple of people have rated it and that stunning G11? mount model was done with it.

I have to decide what to start using and will likely stick with one. I only ever used turbocad back in the day.

Ant


On 16 Nov 2019 00:36, "Drew 🔭📷🚴‍♂️" <drewbolce@...> wrote:
I ordered a kg spool of the Sunlu carbon fiber PLA. Seemed like the best choice. I agree about the source files. As an old special machinery designer I cannot stand trying to use anything I can't rework or tweak. FreeCAD is a good choice. I like that it can convert my 2d drafting  to sketches and then to 3D. Fits my way of thinking better than straight 3D design.

 

Thanks for the kind words about the G11 model 

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 02:23 AM, Ant No wrote:

What are your thoughts on fusion 360?

A couple of people have rated it and that stunning G11? mount model was done with it.

I have to decide what to start using and will likely stick with one. I only ever used turbocad back in the day.

Ant


Re: Error compiling Teensy 3.2 ethernet code

Howard Dutton
 

Yea the Ethernet master branch code is in a state of limbo at the moment

I'll get around to updating it soon.


Re: Unable to start OnStep

Khalid Baheyeldin
 

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 05:34 PM, tc encarnacion wrote:
@Khalid, you are right. 103CBT6 is MPU is used to power the Maple Mini boards and not BluePill. I understand that we cannot just replace BluePill with other boards.

2. Added in board manager. >> STM Cores by STMicroelectronics

3. Download and install the STM32CubeProgrammer.you (Java may need be installed).
The above two steps are the source of your compiling problem.
 
After that, BluePill now able to see the addresses for DS3231. 
That is good. It verifies that on the hardware level, the BluePill is working and can communicate with the DS3231.

Now back to your compiling problem. What is happening is that the STM32CubeProgrammer is a different framework from the Arduino_STM32. Different enough that they are not compatible.
So when OnStep looks for a #define STM32F1, it is not found, and therefore says: unsupported board.

You need to remove the STM32CubeProgrammer entirely, and install the Arduino_STM32 properly.
OnStep is tested only with the Arduino_STM32 and not any other STM32 board manager.

Then try compiling and let us know the results.


Re: Unable to start OnStep

tc encarnacion
 

@Khalid, you are right. 103CBT6 is MPU is used to power the Maple Mini boards and not BluePill. I understand that we cannot just replace BluePill with other boards.

I have ordered another BluePill and after flashing I found out it has the same issue with the first one. I2C scanner didn't find any devices connected. I have checked with my Arduino Nano and confirmed the DS3231 is ok. I was thinking that there might be some other issue aside from hardware so I decided to look around and somehow was able to make the scanner work using the steps below.
1. Added the following url in the preference on arduino ide.
based on what I have read from here.
2. Added in board manager. >> STM Cores by STMicroelectronics
3. Download and install the STM32CubeProgrammer.you (Java may need be installed).
https://www.st.com/en/development-tools/stm32cubeprog.html
4. Now choose the board from Tools/Board/STM32 Boards (Selected from Submenu)/Generic STM32F1 Series
5. Select board part # "Blue Pill F103C8 (128K)"
6. Upload method "STM32CubeProgrammer (Serial)"
7. Flashed the I2Cscanner.

After that, BluePill now able to see the addresses for DS3231. 

Sadly, I'm still unable to compile OnStep due to errors below.

In file included from sketch\src/pinmaps/Models.h:47,
                 from C:\Users\mamitot\Documents\Arduino\OnStep\OnStep.ino:61:
sketch\src/pinmaps/Pins.STM32B.h:192:2: error: #error "Wrong processor for this configuration!"
 #error "Wrong processor for this configuration!"
  ^~~~~
In file included from C:\Users\mamitot\Documents\Arduino\OnStep\OnStep.ino:62:
sketch\src/HAL/HAL.h:67:4: error: #error "Unsupported Platform! If this is a new platform, it needs the appropriate entries in the HAL directory."
   #error "Unsupported Platform! If this is a new platform, it needs the appropriate entries in the HAL directory."
    ^~~~~
exit status 1
Error compiling for board Generic STM32F1 series.


Re: Error compiling Teensy 3.2 ethernet code

John Scherer
 

In Accessories.h, there are several calls to processCommand(), which seem to have too many parameters passing to it, for example:

 processCommand(cmd,result,cmdTimeout,true);

I did some looking and if I remove the boolean value in all the calls to processCommand(), in this case true, though others were false, the code compiles without error.  Not sure if this is a proper fix so I'll wait for confirmation .


Re: Encoders

John Scherer
 

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:01 PM, Drew 🔭📷🚴‍♂️ wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 09:49 AM, Howard Dutton wrote:
Then hopefully something like this will plug right in:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/MINI-D1-ESP32-Wemos-WIFI-Bluetooth-ESP8266-CP2104-Development-Board-ESP-32S-SE/173514866672?hash=item28664abff0:m:mlg-LNAW6cK2mqOxJ-pVyPQ
Doesn't look pin compatible to me. An adapter may be required.
These might work.  The page states "ESP32 Wi-Fi and Bluetooth development board compatible with WeMos D1 Mini Shields (Plug and Play)" 


Re: Encoders

John Scherer
 

Yep, just looked at that too.  been looking for one that matched but not seeing anything.  Teensy 4 might be the way to go for now. it seems


Error compiling Teensy 3.2 ethernet code

John Scherer
 

In preparation for hi-res encoders, I've thought I'd try compile the ethernet code from the current Master (beta) branch, 1.10b, but I'm getting an error when compiling:
  Arduino: 1.8.9 (Windows 10), TD: 1.48-beta1, Board: "Teensy 4.0, Serial, Faster, US English"

In file included from C:\Users\john\AppData\Local\Temp\arduino_build_658080\sketch\MountStatus.h:3:0,

                 from C:\Users\john\AppData\Local\Temp\arduino_build_658080\sketch\Encoders.h:4,

                 from C:\Users\john\Documents\Arduino\OnStep\Master (beta)\max\OnStep\addons\Ethernet\Ethernet.ino:85:

Accessories.h: In function 'bool command(const char*, char*)':
Accessories.h:120: error: too many arguments to function 'boolean processCommand(const char*, char*, long int)'
   bool success = processCommand(command,response,webTimeout,false);

                                                                  ^

C:\Users\john\AppData\Local\Temp\arduino_build_658080\sketch\Accessories.h:22:9: note: declared here

 boolean processCommand(const char cmd[], char response[], long timeOutMs) {

         ^

Accessories.h: In function 'bool commandBlind(const char*)':
Accessories.h:127: error: too many arguments to function 'boolean processCommand(const char*, char*, long int)'
   return processCommand(command,response,webTimeout,false);

                                                          ^

C:\Users\john\AppData\Local\Temp\arduino_build_658080\sketch\Accessories.h:22:9: note: declared here

 boolean processCommand(const char cmd[], char response[], long timeOutMs) {

         ^

Accessories.h: In function 'bool commandBool(const char*)':
Accessories.h:132: error: too many arguments to function 'boolean processCommand(const char*, char*, long int)'
   bool success = processCommand(command,response,webTimeout,false);

                                                                  ^

C:\Users\john\AppData\Local\Temp\arduino_build_658080\sketch\Accessories.h:22:9: note: declared here

 boolean processCommand(const char cmd[], char response[], long timeOutMs) {
         ^
Accessories.h: In function 'char* commandString(const char*)':
Accessories.h:141: error: too many arguments to function 'boolean processCommand(const char*, char*, long int)'
   bool success = processCommand(command,response,webTimeout,false);

C:\Users\john\AppData\Local\Temp\arduino_build_658080\sketch\Accessories.h:22:9: note: declared here

 boolean processCommand(const char cmd[], char response[], long timeOutMs) {

         ^

Ethernet: In function 'void logCommandErrors(char*, char*)':
Ethernet:284: error: too many arguments to function 'boolean processCommand(const char*, char*, long int)'
   processCommand(cmd,result,cmdTimeout,true);
                                            ^
In file included from C:\Users\john\AppData\Local\Temp\arduino_build_658080\sketch\MountStatus.h:3:0,

                 from C:\Users\john\AppData\Local\Temp\arduino_build_658080\sketch\Encoders.h:4,

                 from C:\Users\john\Documents\Arduino\OnStep\Master (beta)\max\OnStep\addons\Ethernet\Ethernet.ino:85:

C:\Users\john\AppData\Local\Temp\arduino_build_658080\sketch\Accessories.h:22:9: note: declared here

 boolean processCommand(const char cmd[], char response[], long timeOutMs) {

         ^

Multiple libraries were found for "Ethernet.h"
 Used: C:\Program Files (x86)\Arduino\hardware\teensy\avr\libraries\Ethernet
 Not used: C:\Program Files (x86)\Arduino\libraries\Ethernet
too many arguments to function 'boolean processCommand(const char*, char*, long int)'

The current release version of the ethernet code (1.7c)  compiles without error for teensy 3.2/4.0


Re: Encoders

Drew 🔭📷🚴‍♂️
 

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 09:49 AM, Howard Dutton wrote:
Then hopefully something like this will plug right in:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/MINI-D1-ESP32-Wemos-WIFI-Bluetooth-ESP8266-CP2104-Development-Board-ESP-32S-SE/173514866672?hash=item28664abff0:m:mlg-LNAW6cK2mqOxJ-pVyPQ
Doesn't look pin compatible to me. An adapter may be required.


Re: Encoders

John Scherer
 

Howard, scratch that new thread idea.. I'll just keep posting here, I think that makes more sense as this thread is already on topic.


Re: Encoders

John Scherer
 

Ok, I’ll pick up one of these esp32 boards you linked to Howard.  If anyone has a spare teensy Ethernet board, let me know, I’d like to try that method as well.  I do have a spare teensy 4 sitting on my desk, and I do agree that these should be more than capable.  Brent, When the all the parts get to me, I’ll create a new thread specifically about these encoders.  It will be easier to find things when searching that way.   


Re: New member and new build

Dave Schwartz
 

I looked at OpenSCAD (I do have it installed and have looked at a few parameterizable designs from Thingiverse) but it does not seem very friendly to me. You have to code your design in a programming-language-like syntax with a huge number of functions (it does render the result, sometimes very slowly, in a view-only pane) to which the learning curve seems quite steep. A real geek's paradise (I used to be a geek but my brain's going soft in retirement... life's starting to appear too short for that)

I also looked at Fusion 360 but, being an Autodesk product, it is aimed at the professional engineering shop where you are expected to take an extensive training course or be steeped in the knowledge of how their other products work. Seems to require a lot of study just to get started and I just don't have the time for that. Besides, making everyone register and pretend to qualify for the student licence seems morally ambiguous to me.

My personal favorite is FreeCAD (followed by Cura for printer prep). So far its done everything I wanted it to, its fairly intuitive (to me) and, being WYSIWG, the learning curve is not very steep. The community is quite large so its easy to lean as you go by Googling examples (either text or YouTube). Essentially, its like OpenSCAD in reverse... you draw your design in the WYSIWG section and it creates the internal code for you (and you can tweak the parameters to the widgets in other panes - sometimes that's faster). Its spreadsheet feature is a great way to create paramererizeable and self-adjusting designs (or at least not to have to hard-code unexplained numbers) and the autocompletion for user-defined symbols is pretty slick.