| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Michael Piercy - Design Notebook= | =Michael Piercy - Design Notebook= | ||
| + | <table border="0"> | ||
| + | <tr> | ||
| + | <td width=800><center><h2>Week of Nov. 13</h2></center></td> | ||
| + | </tr> | ||
| + | </table> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <table border="1" bgcolor=#BBBBBB> | ||
| + | <tr> | ||
| + | <td width=800> | ||
| + | <b>November 17, 2011 (1 hours):</b> | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | Met with Hong Kong University in the morning to discuss communication standards and instruction formats. Decided checksum and other checking measure should be taken along with feedback from the device as part of the communication protocol. | ||
| + | <br><br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | </td> | ||
| + | </tr> | ||
| + | <tr> | ||
| + | <td> | ||
| + | <b>November 18, 2011 (4 hours):</b> | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | Research on 2 quad h-bridge devices. Main two choices are sparkfun's SN754410. http://www.sparkfun.com/products/315 As well as TI's L293D. http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/l293.pdf The sparkfun is a little cheaper and it also has the lower propogation delay from input to output. The sparkfun beats the ti device by 50 ns. Not much of a difference, but when considering the price differnece as well, I believe the sparkfun device will be our best option. | ||
| + | </td> | ||
| + | </tr> | ||
| + | </table> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <table border="1" bgcolor=#ABCDEF> | ||
| + | <tr> | ||
| + | <td width=800><b>WEEK SUMMARY:</b><br> | ||
| + | <u>Accomplishments</u>: Finalized instruction parameters as well as finalized choice for motor controller circuit components. | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | <u>Weekly Work Total</u>: 5 hours | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | <u>Project Work Total</u>: 5 hours | ||
| + | </td> | ||
| + | </tr> | ||
| + | </table> | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
<table border="0"> | <table border="0"> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 53: | ||
<b>November 3, 2011 (3 hours):</b> | <b>November 3, 2011 (3 hours):</b> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| − | Stopped by VIP lab after work today to help finalize a variable output from the PWM. Able to change frequency and duty cycle of the motor driver. More research on the frequency aspect needs to be researched. After using the circuit from ECE362, we discovered that high frequencies do not get along well with that circuit. | + | Stopped by VIP lab after work today to help finalize a variable output from the PWM. Able to change frequency and duty cycle of the motor driver. More research on the frequency aspect needs to be researched. After using the circuit from [[ECE362]], we discovered that high frequencies do not get along well with that circuit. |
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
| Line 29: | Line 68: | ||
| − | <table border="1" bgcolor=# | + | <table border="1" bgcolor=#ABCDEF> |
<tr> | <tr> | ||
<td width=800><b>WEEK SUMMARY:</b><br> | <td width=800><b>WEEK SUMMARY:</b><br> | ||
| − | <u>Accomplishments</u>: Constructed a relatively simple circuit from ECE362 to control dc motor w/ pwm output from development board. | + | <u>Accomplishments</u>: Constructed a relatively simple circuit from [[ECE362]] to control dc motor w/ pwm output from development board. |
<br> | <br> | ||
<u>Weekly Work Total</u>: 5 hours | <u>Weekly Work Total</u>: 5 hours | ||
Latest revision as of 08:12, 13 January 2012
Michael Piercy - Design Notebook
Week of Nov. 13 |
|
November 17, 2011 (1 hours):
|
|
November 18, 2011 (4 hours):
|
| WEEK SUMMARY: Accomplishments: Finalized instruction parameters as well as finalized choice for motor controller circuit components.
|
Week of Oct. 31 |
|
November 3, 2011 (3 hours):
|
|
November 1, 2011 (2 hours):
|
| WEEK SUMMARY: Accomplishments: Constructed a relatively simple circuit from ECE362 to control dc motor w/ pwm output from development board.
|
