First of all, thanks for the support in regards to my last
post. With everybody seemingly stable, I decided to let my sister “take the
wheel” for a couple of weeks so I can unpack my New Hampshire cabin for the
summer construction projects, and see how it has fared through the worst winter
in recent memory. Unfortunately, I
arrived to find snow drifts of up to 4 ft., with 12 hours of shoveling just to
get my car to the road. The picture above is my “runabout” Toyota, which I only
use on the land, down by my cabin.
(Boards on roof with tarp over that, if you are wondering what you are
looking at) And that was is April 13th! Then, on April 15th,
we got 3 more inches! Now it seems my dad has had another stroke so I am going
back to Houston tomorrow. Not that I am getting much done here, although the
snow is only patchy now…
This really shows how different this bogie design is than
one where wheel-wear is not considered as a primary consideration, usually
because of slow anticipated speeds and/or more limited trip distances. Here the
diameters/widths are all proportional to service demands. It is not easy to
see, but there are four black wheels, in two counter-rotating pairs. The small
bottom wheels only engage during switching.
I mention this because this is NOT how to make a small model
for running around a track to demonstrate PRT. Designs adapted to the bench top
would be much easier, and would look a lot more logical. This is true “to scale”,
where the full sized wheel-motors would be about the same size as the wheels of
a compact car. Our personal vehicles, I would point out, are real work-horses,
when you think about it. Would you want any less for a commercial system? You
re-invent the wheel at your own peril!
There is, at least, some upside to such failures. Your
attempts get better and better. Along those lines, I thought I might share one
other reject that I must say I’m rather proud of.
I’ve been looking around online for the latest techniques
for making circuit boards at home. I used to photo-etch, sensitizing my own
boards, but my chemicals went bad and are now illegal, leaving me with a
lifetime supply of double-sided copper-clad board and no way to sensitize it.
Luckily, I stumbled across the “Laser printer iron-on transfer method,” which
various people have demonstrated on YouTube, Instructables, etc. Unfortunately
my printer is a real cheapo, and the faint, line-ridden output isn’t what these
online instructors had in mind, even for the (generally) large, crude boards
that they show. One of these days I’ll have to reveal my secret techniques for
getting such fine detail! In any case, it shows that all of that time wasn’t
completely wasted. Learn by doing!
By the way, since an effective PRT demonstration should have
more than one vehicle, I am keeping an eye on ways to mass produce these components.
Circuit boards are fairly cheap to have made in quantity, once you know, for
sure, that the circuit paths are what you really want. You could waste a whole
lot of time and money in the meantime, though, discovering what is wrong with
your designs! They still need to be prototyped in the finished form and scale
to make them “plug & play.”
So here is where I stand, after all of my misguided
efforts. I have now, reluctantly, decided to use 5 Arduino microprocessors per
vehicle; one per wheel with a fifth as a controller/clock. In theory I could
run all four wheels with a single microprocessor and still have a couple of IO
pins to spare, but that limits improvements to the motor drivers, along with
other issues. The circuit board above was to run two wheels with one
microprocessor, (for 2 or maybe 3 microprocessors per vehicle) since wheels always
work in pairs anyway. But the whole left side of the board is for two buffer
chips that would have directed that output, and they take as much space as the
microprocessor board they would replace. So in the end I am lavishing the
system with microprocessors galore. This goes against my grain, as I am sort of
fanatical about keeping designs concise. This will, however, do more than
ensure that we have plenty of spare IO pins. It will give us four identical
driver boards, and a separate microprocessor only for functions like routing
and sensing. It is a more physically logical and symmetrical architecture, and
it neatly separates the software code into higher and lower functions. Below is
the artwork, almost complete, for such a driver, shrunk as small as I can make
it. Never mind the “floating”” components… It’s just a screen-shot… This is
what I have been working on at night by the wood stove!
Unfortunately, wrapping this iteration up is showing me that there are a number of connection pins that simply won’t fit where I want them. Period. The board cannot be made any bigger and still fit, and the density of the circuit traces is as tight as I can go. So, believe it or not, it’s back to the drawing board yet again! I need to explore modifying this design into a piggy-back design, since I do have room if I build upward. Well, I said this would take a long time, didn’t I?