I'm wondering if it's possible to replace the encoders in the computer mouse with other encoders. In detail: the mouse encoders for x- and y-direction are small and looks fragile. For my application I need more robust encoders.

Is it then possible to de-solder the existing encoders and replace them with another one. The link shows a possible encoder: http://www.elfa.se/elfa-bin/dyndok.p...0&dok=2028.htm

Also, thank you Phalanx for putting me on the right track with the encoders.

Thanks,
Kristian

 

why not just get an optical mouse? no moving parts involved.

__________________
Jeff
To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

I think he wants to use the mouse as a two axis rotary encoder with a convenient PC interface.

__________________
1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1

 

What I would like to do is to use the mouse circuit and software because it's already there. But the mouse will not be used as a mouse but instead will the two axis be used for controlling F-stops and exposure time on a digital camera via a computer.

 

Actually, newer mouse i have torn apart had a PIC microcontroller in it. So, all you would have to do, is get a hold of a PIC, and then the slotted disk with the opto-switches.

__________________
There is no "I" in "team", unless Apple makes it... Then it would be iTeam.

 

The thing is that I would like to use an existing mouse with its software so I don't have to develop my own. This can save a lot of time I hope.

The main question is if the encoders (the encoder wheel and LEDs) can be replaced by another type of encoder, like the one in the link in the starting thread, or if there has to be a perfect match between the encoders (same size on wheel, same number of slots on the wheel and so on). I assume that the encoder (on the linked page) works in a similar way as those in the mouse.

Thanks for your replies!

 

Oh ok, now I understand...
I would think it would be fine to use the encoder in your link. It might give more or less pulses per rev. than the original mouse, but you could just adjust the sensitivity in the mouse software to compensate.

__________________
Jeff
To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

Great, thanks!

 

What resolution are you looking for?, the encoder you gave the link for is only very low resolution (maximum 20 pulses per revolution). They also aren't very reliable, it's a common fault in equipment that uses them - whereas mice encoders are incredibly reliable, and almost never fail.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

 

Actually, I don't know what resolution I'm looking for. I would like to make an application for controlling a digital camera via the PC. Maybe you know that for many digital SLR cameras there are wheels for controlling exposure times, F-stops, menus, and so on. that's what I would like to mimic with my encoders. It feels like they work in very low resolution.

 

They would be fine for an application like that!.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

 

If you check an amateur astronomy forum like
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthrea...reads.php?Cat=
I'm sure someone has done this before. Look in the "ATM, Optics, and DIY" section, use the search and maybe you will find something. I recall the same thing being done with a mouse for x,y ( RA, DEC ) axis on a equatorial mount, but not sure about a camera. Possibly it was also done on an electric focuser assembly, I don't recall.

If nothing else, I bet one of the members could give you lots of help on where to look.

 

the mouse protocol is well understood and documented so you don't really need to use an actual mouse. this is an ideal task for a microcontroller.

I think what you are trying to do is to gear the encoders off of manual (automatic?) knobs/wheels to determine their position. how are you turning knobs/wheels? encoders are only good for determining relative movement.

 

Thanks for your answers! Hmmm... I don't think the position is of great importance in this case. The software needs to know if the wheel is rotating CW or CCW. If CW for example, the exposure time will increase on the camera and if rotaded CCW it will decrease until a software endpoint has been reached (max or min exposure time) then nothing more will happen even if the rotating continues.

 

This thread has good info on mice. http://www.electro-tech-online.com/g...eel-mouse.html and http://www.electro-tech-online.com/g...l-mouse-2.html