Lucky Resistor
Menu
  • Home
  • Learn
    • Learn C++
    • Product Photography for Electronics
      • Required Equipment and Software
    • Soldering for Show
  • Projects
  • Libraries
  • Applications
  • Shop
  • About
    • About Me
    • Contact
    • Stay Informed
  •  
Menu

Comparing Five Turntable Platform Revisions

Posted on 2021-04-05 by Lucky Resistor

To solve the problem with light inference, I tested five different revisions of the turntable platform. For each revision, I recorded the sensor values and compared them to find the best solution.

  • Visual Comparison
  • Measurements
    • Empty Compartments
    • Full Compartments
  • Delta Values Empty vs. Full
  • Conclusion
  • More Posts

Visual Comparison

Revision A is the original with the light inference problem. In the text, I describe only the differences to this original version.

Bottom side, revision B-E: I reduced the diameter of the opening to increase the width of opaque material between the LED and the phototransistor.

Surface:

  • Revision B1: An empty slot separates the transparent layer between LED and phototransistor.
  • Revision B2: Like B1, but the slot is filled with opaque epoxy.
  • Revision C, D: The orientation of the printed lines is 45º to the line between LED and phototransistor.
  • Revision E: Like C and D, but increasing the diameter of the region where the line direction changes.

Visual Light Comparison: These images were made to compare the platform revisions using visual light. You can see how the angle of the printed lines influence how the light is distributed.

Openings Detail:

  • Revision B and E: The opening is smaller, but has no additional features.
  • Revision C: The transmission area is reduced to a diameter of 3mm.
  • Revision D: The transmission area is reduced to a diameter of 5mm.

Printed Line Details:

  • Revision B: Regular print with the slot.
  • Revision C: Angle of the lines is 45º to the sensor orientation.
  • Revision D: Like C, but with 0.6mm (larger than normal) line width on the first layer.
  • Revision E: Larger adjustment area, 0.3mm (smaller than normal) line width on the first layer.

Measurements

I repeated the exact same measurement for each platform at the exact same conditions:

  • All compartments empty with no lids.
  • All compartments empty with all lids closed.
    This is the reference value, which is used as a calibration value for the sensors.
  • All compartments filled with 30 pieces of test food, all lids open.
  • All compartments filled with 30 pieces of test food, all lids closed.
  • One compartment filled, all others empty, all lids closed.

I added the last test to check if measurements from one compartment influence measurements of other compartments.

Empty Compartments

I use the measurement for a closed empty compartment as reference value. You can see, the original design has the highest response, because of the light inference problem. Revisions B1 and B2 have also a high response, but this is just the reflection from the lid.

The response of revision C is way too low, the diameter of the opening too small for good measurements. In increased the diameter in the next revisions and got better results.

Full Compartments

In this diagram you clearly see the problem with the original design. The responses are really high, but they should be low, because the light is blocked by the food.

Delta Values Empty vs. Full

This diagram shows the difference between the empty and full measurement. A greater difference is better, because it makes the detection of a full compartment easier and more reliable.

Revisions B1 and B2 have the best results so far. Filling the slot with opaque epoxy has not the same effect on all sensors; it is again because the angle of the lines is different for each compartment in this revisions.

Revisions D and E have good results, but it is not as reliable as revision B. I repeated the tests for these revisions, refilling the compartment to randomise the particles in the chamber. For revision D, I got values between 10-16% and revision E between 10-25%.

On Patreon you will find all raw measurements, and full resolution images.

Conclusion

The revision with the slot between LED and phototransistor is the superior solution. The measurements are reliable and very distinctive. Yet, it requires some skill to apply the epoxy to this slot and is therefore not a solution for everyone.

Therefore, revision E is a valid alternative to this solution. A difference of a minimum of 10% may be acceptable for someone who likes to use the unmodified printed part.

Nikolay pointed out in a comment that sealing the printed parts using epoxy would be a sensible measure to make them food safe. He is absolutely right about this. If you are experienced using epoxy, sealing the printed parts for the final device is something you definitely should do.

In the pet-feeder series, I tried to keep everything as simple as possible so that most people can copy it. Therefore, I avoid working with epoxy, because it requires experience, preparation and patience and is not for everyone.

If you have any questions, missed information, or simply want to provide feedback, feel free to comment below. 😄

 

More Posts

Better Bridging with Slicer Guides

Better Bridging with Slicer Guides

I got questions about a particular feature you find if some of my 3D models. In this short text, I will explain why I add it and why you should add features like this too ...
Read More
Rail Grid Alternatives and More Interesting Updates

Rail Grid Alternatives and More Interesting Updates

I published another large update to the storage boxes project in the last two weeks. All buyers who subscribed to update emails already got a summary of the changes. If you read the email, you ...
Read More
Three Ways to Integrate LED Light Into the Modular Lantern

Three Ways to Integrate LED Light Into the Modular Lantern

After creating the modular lantern system, I experimented with different cheap ways to integrate LED lights into it and turn it into a decorative lamp. In this post, I describe the three ways I found ...
Read More
Extreme Integers – Doom from Below

Extreme Integers – Doom from Below

As a beginner or immediate C++ programmer, you heard never mixing unsigned and signed integer types or avoiding unsigned integers at all. There was also this talk about undefined behaviour. Yet, in embedded software development, ...
Read More
Logic Gates Puzzle 101

Logic Gates Puzzle 101

The message you got does not make any sense. Can you decypher it with the following logic puzzle? The circuit was not optimised for functionality but to create a challenging puzzle and gorgeous artwork. If ...
Read More
Stronger 3D Printed Parts with Vertical Perimeter Linking

Stronger 3D Printed Parts with Vertical Perimeter Linking

One issue with fused filament fabrication is the weakness introduced into the parts at the layer boundaries. I had this simple idea of how especially straight sections of 3D prints could be improved on regular ...
Read More

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Stay Updated

Join me on Mastodon!

Top Posts & Pages

  • Simple Box with Lid for 3D-Print
  • Logic Gates Puzzle 101
  • Storage Boxes System for 3D Print
  • Logic Gates Puzzles
  • Build a 3D Printer Enclosure
  • MicroPython Bitmap Tool
  • How and Why to use Namespaces
  • Font To Byte
  • Use Enum with More Class!
  • Real Time Counter and Integer Overflow

Latest Posts

  • The Importance of Wall Profiles in 3D Printing2023-02-12
  • The Hinges and its Secrets for Perfect PETG Print2023-02-07
  • Better Bridging with Slicer Guides2023-02-04
  • Stronger 3D Printed Parts with Vertical Perimeter Linking2023-02-02
  • Logic Gates Puzzle 1012023-02-02
  • Candlelight Emulation – Complexity with Layering2023-02-01
  • Three Ways to Integrate LED Light Into the Modular Lantern2023-01-29
  • The 3D Printed Modular Lantern2023-01-17

Categories

  • 3D Printing
  • Build
  • Common
  • Fail
  • Fun
  • Learn
  • Projects
  • Puzzle
  • Recommendations
  • Request for Comments
  • Review
  • Software
Copyright (c)2022 by Lucky Resistor. All rights reserved.
 

Loading Comments...