20 Mar
2011
20 Mar
'11
8:33 p.m.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:11:07 +0000
Folderol <folderol(a)ukfsn.org> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:52:24 +0000
andy baxter <andy(a)earthsong.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
Answering my own post...
I mean the original concept using the audio interface is overcomplicated. The
resistive idea has the merit of dramatic simplification but I wonder at the
consistency of the resistive elements and whether you would get a (reasonably)
linear output of if it would tend to behave more like a low quality switch.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
The only thing I found problematic in his design
wasn't to do with
usability but the expense (and also physical bulk) of having to use a
high end audio interface as part of the electronics. This put me off
building one myself, so I am thinking of having a go at a very similar
design but using a resistive rather than capacitive pressure sensing
technique. I.e. basically the same design but using a sheet of carbon or
metal loaded conductive rubber and measuring the resistance changes when
you scan through the matrix. If this works, it will hopefully produce
similar results but with much simpler electronics and firmware.
andy
This is vastly overcomplicated. Once you understand the concept itself (which
really is good), a set of dedicated oscillators and detectors (tuned
amplifiers+A/D converters) would by much simpler, smaller and reliable. I would
then be inclined to try to embed the electronics in the device itself, and bump
up the operating frequency as much a possible to improve the response time of
the detectors.