Archive for the ‘Analog’ Category

Redneck Antenna Design

Sunday, August 29th, 2010

The problem: Really crappy cell modem signal strength at a site in rural Virginia.
The solution (for now): About 1m2 of aluminum foil, made into a rough parabolic shape.
It ain’t pretty, until you look at the signal strength meter. -115dBm to -100dBm, which means the difference between being online or not. I’ll take it.

(Click for larger)

Redneck Cell Antenna
Redneck Cell Antenna - Closeup

112 cylinders of Paleotechnology!

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Along with old computers, I feel a special affinity for classic airplanes. Modern planes are interesting, too — but when you take the time to look at the technology behind the classics, you can’t help but feel that they are perfectly-balanced combinations of art and science.

The Boeing 377 (click for larger): one of the finest three-engine planes ever made!

The Boeing 377 Stratocruiser is a good example of such a classic. As one of the last great propliners, it represented the pinnacle of radial reciprocating (piston) engine technology. Four Pratt & Whitney Wasp Major R-4360 engines provided a total of 14,000 horsepower*at full power (with ADI on).

I love having microcontrollers, the Internet, digital audio, GPS, and other technology available — but sometimes I wish I had been able to work as a propliner captain (or Flight Engineer) back in the day.

Not too long ago, though, I found the next best thing. A2A Simulations has created a highly accurate Boeing 377 simulation for Flight Simulator X — and they did it right. With many simulator aircraft, the emphasis is on making a product that looks good. Great attention is paid to aircraft markings and paint schemes, and then the default DC-3 panel and flight model is slapped on, with a few modifications as a grudging nod to the fact that this is actually a four-engine plane. Not so in this case! A2A’s Stratocruiser is truly a work of art worthy of the Stratocruiser name. Nearly all of the systems of the aircraft have been modeled in great detail; A2A’s intent was to produce a true simulation of the B377; not just something that looks the same.

Part of the Flight Engineer's panel on the 377 (click for larger). Note the cowl settings to keep #3 cool...

A bit of aircraft history is in order to set the stage. Back when the 377 was designed, jet engines were still experimental designs existing mostly on drawing boards and in military test labs. The dominant technology of the day was the reciprocating, air-cooled radial engine. These had been getting larger, more powerful, and more complex for years, culminating in the 28-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-4360.

The Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major engine (click for larger).

These were not your turn-it-on-and-forget-it, computer-controlled modern jet engines; a 28-cylinder air-cooled reciprocating radial engine required the full-time attention of a Flight Engineer to keep it operating efficiently without causing damage to its many parts. With 56 spark plugs (two per cylinder), 56 adjustable valves,  seven rows of four cylinders, supercharger and turbocharger, it was a formidable, demanding beast. The Flight Engineer needed to not only monitor fuel consumption, cabin pressurization, and electrical systems — he had to “think like an engine” and keep these four engines working efficiently through all the phases of flight.

It must have been one of the most interesting jobs, ever — and A2A’s simulated B377 does a good job at capturing the flavor of the Flight Engineer’s job. Here are some examples.

  • Starting the engines must be done in a specific sequence: Configure fuel flow to the engine including setting the engine fuel valve, boost pump, and mixture control; turn on the ignition switch; set the cowl flaps, intercooler flaps, and oil coolant flaps; prime the engine with five or six shots of primer; crack the throttle; spin up the engine with the starter motor; engage the ignition boost — and watch to see if the engine decides whether or not it’s going to start. If not, double-check your settings and try again — perhaps with less primer so as not to flood it.
  • The engines tend to run hot. When on the ground, the cowl flaps can be opened all the way, allowing the engines to stay relatively cool. In flight, though, these can be safely opened no more than 3″ (per the manual, anyway — I’ve been running the #3 engine at 3.5″ inches since it likes it better that way and haven’t had any parts fall off yet.) During takeoff and initial climb, the engines need all the cooling they can get, but at altitude, the cowl flaps can be partially closed.
  • The engines are carbureted, not fuel-injected — and the intake air temperature must be kept within the operating limits. In practice, this isn’t very difficult, since the intercooler flaps do a good job of cooling the air — and they can be closed and/or the heater turned on if more warmth is needed. When you’re the only one flying the plane, though, it’s hard to remember. (A2A does helpfully provide a copilot, who will warn you about such things.)
  • There are very specific power setting limits for the engines — and if you exceed them, the engines will be quickly damaged. (I actually experienced an engine fire on my second flight, before I knew what I was doing.) The 377 was made to be flown by-the-book, and running the engines at too high a torque and/or manifold pressure setting is a recipe for a premature engine overhaul — if not a complete in-flight engine failure and/or fire.
  • As precise and exquisitely made as the R4360s were, no two were ever quite alike. In most simulated aircraft, the engines are carbon copies of each other. Push all four engines on the default 747 to full throttle, and the flight computer will show exactly the same N1, N2, EPR, vibration, and temperature readings for each. Not so on the B377; each engine is a unique individual. The #3 engine I’m currently flying with, for example, always runs hot; I’ve learned to open its cowl flaps that extra half-inch before I even look at the temperature gauge. #1 might produce a bit more torque than #2 at the same MP and RPM settings — but that’s not a problem, that’s just how it is. Maybe the gauge is a bit off; maybe the engine actually does produce a bit more power — who knows.

* Yes, I would use kilowatts instead of horsepower these days — but that would be an anachronism here. The use of traditional units is part of the beauty and mystique of classic aircraft; discussing them in SI units would be blasphemy.

Made in China

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

A lot of products are rip-offs. Recently, though, I’ve come across one that is especially galling; a fake that had obviously been specifically designed — as lawyers would say, “with malice aforethought” — to trick customers. Here’s the story:

A few years back, a “perpetual flashlight” was developed, with a captive magnet, a coil, and some electronics to change the mechanical force from the flashlight being shaken into electrical energy to power it. (White LEDs are much more efficient than incandescent lights, which made this feasible.) These don’t work as well as you might like, but they do work, and can sit on the shelf for many years and be recharged any time by shaking.

It didn’t take long for this to catch on, since shake-to-recharge flashlights were “green,” relatively easy and inexpensive to make, as well as new and innovative. For well under $20, you could pick one up at Wal-Mart and have — in theory, anyway — a flashlight that would always work, no matter what. They made decent stocking stuffers, and were a pretty good deal for the money. (The required electronics meant they cost a little more than basic flashlights.)

As I found out a few months later, it also didn’t take long for someone in China to realize that these “shake flashlights” were selling very quickly — and that a very similar effect could be produced for roughly one-tenth of the cost. (The original flashlight design isn’t that expensive, but the costs for the necessary supercapacitors, diodes, magnet, and sufficient wire to make an efficient coil do add up.) Soon, these “new generation flashlights” (a very clever usage of weasel words, when you think about it) came on the market. You might have seen them at flea markets and dollar stores. They look and feel very similar to actual “shake” flashlights, but are smaller and cost much less.

What the packaging doesn’t tell you, though, is that these are not generating flashlights like the originals. They don’t have a supercapacitor, Wheatstone bridge network of diodes for current rectification, or even a magnet and coil. What they *do* have is a simple circuit board, a few turns of copper wire for looks, and a cheap chunk of metal to rattle back and forth ineffectively.
These flashlights were *specifically designed* to fool the customer into thinking that they are actual shake-to-recharge flashlights. The coil and piece of metal serve no purpose other than to deceive. These flashlights have just the bare minimum of parts required to work as a flashlight at all: a white LED, a very simple metal switch, and two CR2025 batteries. The “new generation” marketing-speak is, in a legal sense, referring to chronology and not the source of electrical power.
I recently bought one at a flea market (knowing what it was; I’d seen these before). Here are some photos of the inside. Time permitting, I plan to investigate what is required to convert it to an actual generating flashlight — maybe this summer. I’ll post the results here if I do.

The flashlight in its packaging. Clear, translucent plastic; copper coil; moving “magnet” — looks like a shake flashlight.

I’m not sure what “Jiudu Xiangdi” means. Probably “Gullible Americans.”

The flashlight, removed from the packaging. An observant Electronics geek would be starting to wonder why it has so few turns of copper wire — and whether those two discs just behind the switch were really supercapacitors…

Yes, it actually does at least work as a flashlight. Not well, mind — but it does work. For now.

As Clara Peller would say, “Where’s the beef?”

Nothing up top (the wire snapped off as I disassembled the light. Nice construction)…

…and nothing hidden underneath.

Not only are there not enough turns to make an effective coil…

…the coil isn’t even connected to anything! Star Trek has a word for this: it’s a GNDN!

Power is provided by these two discs –

which are cheap CR2025 nonrechargeable batteries!

Everything about it says “lowest bidder.”

Bottom line: There are thousands of these things out there — maybe millions. Don’t be ripped off.
(One good way to tell if a flashlight is the real deal is to turn it on and observe the brightness for a few seconds, shake it, then look again quickly. If it brightens, it’s probably the real thing.) For what it’s worth, the larger flashlights that I’ve seen in Wal-Mart are genuine. The fakes are usually found at flea markets and antique /variety stores. (The store dealer may very well not know the difference, so he or she isn’t necessarily trying to rip you off.)

Paleotech, through the eyes of a Millenial…

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

What happens when you give a modern teenager a Walkman? You get some interesting insights about technology. It’s amazing how far technology has come — and a reminder that yes, there really is such a thing as paleotechnology. (For us children of the 70s, the fact that cassette tapes have two sides is completely intuitive. For someone seeing a Walkman for the first time, perhaps not.) For how many other forms of technology might we forget some of the nuances, or even some of the important things?

Fellow paleotechnology expert DOSquatch writes about the subtle yet extremely important art of troubleshooting. He definitely has a point. I would also add that it’s important to document technologies as they are developed, lest we end up having to reinvent them all over again to get them to work (or end up breaking them inadvertently).

Actually, the comparison between a Walkman and modern mp3 players is a good example of how technology is not only progressing, but accelerating. When my grandparents went on a trip to Japan and brought back one of the first electronic calculators, it was definitely new — but easily understood in a few minutes. When cassettes started to take over some of the role of record players*, they too were relatively easily understood. Increasingly, though, the capabilities of new devices are breaking down old barriers and requiring new ways of thinking about things. (This isn’t necessarily a Bad Thing, but it bears mentioning.)

For instance, try explaining the subtle relationship between mp3 files and playlists to someone who doesn’t truly grok filesystems, shortcuts, and links. You might be able to explain it, but it will take a lot of explaining. Try a more advanced topic, like why a satellite-modem connection works fine for streaming audio but is horrible for interactive websites — and the explanation can take much longer. Bring DRM, P2P, streaming, file sizes, bitrates, codecs, protocols, IP addresses, connectivity, lag, bandwidth, Bluetooth, AC3 and oversampling into the conversation, and suddenly you’re speaking a foreign language.

Technological progress is definitely accelerating, and every year, I hear more and more people talk about the Singularity. I’m even starting to believe it myself. A lot of it does sound farfetched — yet technical progress in many fields is starting to look asymptotic. We definitely live in interesting times: they say that by 2025, supercomputers should be sufficiently powerful to run realtime simulations of the human brain. With computer speeds doubling every year or two, we could well end up as spectators to the fastest and most profound changes in history.

As long as we can control the direction things take, though, I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.

* Yeah, yeah. Nobody, least of all me, is going to claim that cassettes beat LPs for audio quality. I draw the line at CDs, though. Maybe 44.1kHz/16bit isn’t optimal, but it sure beats dragging a rock through a plastic groove.

Digital blasphemy?

Monday, August 10th, 2009

When is a 555 not a 555?

When it’s really a PIC!

The design of the DrACo/Z80 computer calls for a 555 timer (a great piece of paleotech, even if it still isn’t sure after 38 years whether it’s really a digital or analog part.) However, for running higher-speed programs on the DrACo, I wanted to have the option to, as Emeril might say, “kick it up a notch.” I figured that a PIC12F683 would do nicely, since it could be programmed to provide a nice, stable TTL clock output without any external components.

The only problem was, the PIC’s ground lead is on Pin 8 and its power lead is on Pin 1; the 555 has the opposite configuration. The solution? Possibly the single ugliest soldering job I’ve done in a long time (and that’s saying something, folks.)

Yet, it works — and is a nice, drop-in replacement for the 555, swapping the astable oscillator mode for a much faster 2MHz clock output.

This is also the single shortest program I’ve ever written for a PIC:

   org 0×00
   banksel OSCCON
   movlw 0×70
   movwf OSCCON

   goto $

It sets the clock to 8MHz, then sits in a single-instruction loop and contemplates its navel. So, for that matter, when is a PIC not a PIC? When it’s not doing any computing at all — but just providing a 2MHz CLKOUT signal.

But sometimes, the smaller the MCU, the more creative the applications. I’ve heard of people using microcontrollers in fireworks to provide split-second timing for the pyrotechnics. At 30 cents each for something like the 10F200, it only sounds crazy until you think about it.

…and yeah, this project could have been very easily done with a less expensive PIC — but 12F683s are so versatile that I keep a couple dozen of them on hand for various things. They’re like digital LEGO…