Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Hall Effect Sensor Spacing and Jig #101

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Dec 12, 2020
Merged

Conversation

dmadison
Copy link
Contributor

This PR dynamically adjusts the hall effect sensor's height off of the PCB in the model based on its distance from the spool. The sensor will maintain the same relative distance from the spool as the model is changed and throw an error if its distance from the PCB exceeds the max length of the sensor's leads (per the datasheet). I also created a small lasercut jig that fits between the PCB and the sensor to aid in soldering.

Using your v0.5 sensor assembly video as reference, I set the spool offset to 0.7 mm which corresponds to a distance of 5.8 mm from the PCB. Note that this PR has a conflict with #100 that will need to be resolved, as the new jig is cut out of the motor window area.

Here are some demonstration gifs, using a change in material thickness (3.2 -> 1.0) to show the dynamic position.

Before:

sf-sensor-position-master

After:

sf-sensor-position-pr

And here's the change to the lasercut design (before / after).

The spacing jig can be viewed in-place in the 3D design by changing render_sensor_jig to 'true'.

The sensor's offset from the PCB will now flex accordingly as the design is adjusted in order to keep the specified distance from the spool. Pin length max from AH3369Q datasheet.
For reference and ease of hand assembly without using the jig.
This reflects Scott's stated value of "5.8 mm" for pcb_to_sensor, from the v0.5 sensor assembly video.
@dmadison
Copy link
Contributor Author

I was thinking a little more about this and the thickness issue (#93). If your original design was manufactured at 3 mm thick with the CAD thickness set to 3.2, should the spool offset be lowered down to 0.5? That would make the current design offset by 6 mm, which would go down to the accurate 5.8 mm when the thickness is lowered to 3.0.

In case the sensor is not perfectly flat against the jig when soldering
Just making the design a little nicer :D
@scottbez1
Copy link
Owner

I was thinking a little more about this and the thickness issue (#93). If your original design was manufactured at 3 mm thick with the CAD thickness set to 3.2, should the spool offset be lowered down to 0.5? That would make the current design offset by 6 mm, which would go down to the accurate 5.8 mm when the thickness is lowered to 3.0.

I don't know that it matters enough to be worth preserving that "accurate" 5.8mm value. IIRC the 5.8mm was determined empirically/by eye, and was really specified with more significant figures than relevant, especially considering the leads are being hand-bent and there's typically more than 0.2mm worth of axial slop in the output shaft of the 28byj-48 motors...

@dmadison
Copy link
Contributor Author

That's fair. In that case I'll leave the value as-is. Plus it's probably better to keep the sensor farther away from the spinning spool if possible.

@dmadison dmadison closed this Nov 29, 2020
@dmadison dmadison reopened this Nov 29, 2020
@dmadison
Copy link
Contributor Author

(Closing / reopening to re-trigger the Travis CI build, which apparently failed on the electronics section)

pin_extra_length = 0.1; // pins excess sticking out from the back of the PCB
sensor_z_offset = pcb_to_spool - sensor_spool_distance - hall_effect_thickness/2 - 0.1;
sensor_pin_length = sensor_z_offset + pcb_thickness + pin_extra_length;
assert(sensor_pin_length < hall_effect_pin_length_max, "Warning: design is too thick to fit sensor");
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh cool, looks like OpenSCAD finally got bumped to a modern version (2019.05) in Ubuntu 20.04 so we can use assert instead of legacyAssert now; nice!

@scottbez1 scottbez1 merged commit fedea99 into scottbez1:master Dec 12, 2020
@dmadison dmadison deleted the sensor-cad branch December 12, 2020 14:39
dmadison added a commit to dmadison/splitflap that referenced this pull request Dec 12, 2020
With the inclusion of the hall effect jig (PR scottbez1#101) the PCB function requires this offset value to render.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants