Continue to Site

Welcome to our site!

Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

  • Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

What is it about conductors that gives them resistive properties?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not a big fan of the resistance based ideas. Other things come to mind.

Have each piece ID'ed by a specific code. Place an LED on the bottom of each peice that flashes that code. Make the playing field transparent. Put a camera under the board to record the bottom of the peices. By comparing the postiion of the lights and the patterns you would know where every peice was on the board.

The expensive part is that you would have to put a battery into each piece to power a little 8 pin energy conserving uC. When you had the bugs out of the system you could have each piece flash a few times to id itself and then shut down after each move.

If you want to use a bit more complex software you could paint a unique symbol on the bottom of each piece and do away with the electronics in them. Always a tradeoff.

--------------------------------------------
I should have qutoed text to provide context.



You are doing fine. My point is that it is good to update code and schematics in place for incrimentaly improved projects. But you are still searching for a basic model and it is a good to keep the various ideas around.

What is the least expensive, most transportable thing that comes to mind? Do you think that I could get away with a version of your idea if I used photosensors instead of a camera?
 
Last edited:
What is the least expensive, most transportable thing that comes to mind? Do you think that I could get away with a version of your idea if I used photosensors instead of a camera?

I depends on the number of sensors. Off hand I can not think on anyway to matrix phototransistors. Maybe the EE types know how.

With a camera you only need enough video resolution to map the game board. The real work would be the software. You only need to detect the presence and location of light, no image recognition.

Lets extend the idea a bit. Supose that we want two way communication. Place a photo transistor (or IR reciever) inside each game peice. The game pieces recieve info from the master controller via a few IR leds under the board. When requested to ID themselves, the pieces provide on bit of info at a time as clocked by the under board IR LEDs. That way we can take a image of each bit process it and the ask for the next one. This makes the hardware simpler because we can setup the shot and use a still camera.

It could take a while.
 
I depends on the number of sensors. Off hand I can not think on anyway to matrix phototransistors. Maybe the EE types know how.

With a camera you only need enough video resolution to map the game board. The real work would be the software. You only need to detect the presence and location of light, no image recognition.

Lets extend the idea a bit. Supose that we want two way communication. Place a photo transistor (or IR reciever) inside each game peice. The game pieces recieve info from the master controller via a few IR leds under the board. When requested to ID themselves, the pieces provide on bit of info at a time as clocked by the under board IR LEDs. That way we can take a image of each bit process it and the ask for the next one. This makes the hardware simpler because we can setup the shot and use a still camera.

It could take a while.

I’m not sure what it means to matrix phototransistors. I was thinking of using three phototransistors inside of a light resistant chamber underneath the game board. The light from each game piece would have to be encoded with light on-off patterns. Maybe this is what you meant when you said using a matrix, but I was thinking that when pieces were moved further away from one of at least three photo transistors, distance could be measured as a change in detectable luminosity. Then, the location of each piece could be identified as a function of distance from each phototransistor. If nobody knows about the electrically engineered types of phototransistors that could do this – I’m assuming that is what you meant by EE, then I would have to research this myself. Even I don’t wind up using light to measure distance, I liked your idea about using light to communicate, for lack of a better word, changes in status information. Though, a disadvantage of using a light resistant chamber is that this chamber would make the game less compact and portable. However, this model might be more portable than using a camera above or below the playing surface of the game board.

I can’t afford to hire anyone and my programming skills won’t be near the level that they need to be to complete this project in time. However, I do like the idea. Using this model, I might have to copy the game board design onto a transparency. Or, I might have to paint the game board design on a thin piece of pegboard or holy paper. Both of these options may detract from the aesthetical appearance of the game board and decrease the amount of information that could be communicated on the game board. How might this effect detecting the location of the pieces? Could you explain how you planned on the pieces communicating initial status information with bits? It sounds almost as though I would not only need to make a program that would detect the location of light but also the presence of light in time.

In addition to availability, what are some other disadvantages of a resistive sheet? I’ve made a new diagram of how a resistive sheet could be used as a game board, so I’m going to go ahead and post it in this reply.
 

Attachments

  • Figure 1.jpg
    Figure 1.jpg
    391.1 KB · Views: 270
Last edited:
Right now I’m working with a model in which the game pieces are a little cumbersome because wires that are used to communicate the pieces’ properties – and that could also be used to indicate the pieces’ positions instead, connect to each game piece and run across the top of the game board to terminals. I intend to complete the circuit using a schematic similar to the one attached – which I still need to review. The signal may be varied according to an amount of resistance that I am hoping will vary somewhat consistently with respect to a distance between the game piece and each source of electricity on the game board labeled in the attachment – if and when I find the right material to make the game board out of. The play area is about two feet by two feet.

I modeled the schematic that I posted in the 9th December 2008, 11:31 PM thumbnail off of a schematic that must have been using an “x” to represent ground. I thought that the “x” meant no connection. So, if you are looking for information about how to wire chips, please don’t rely too much on that post. I would appreciate it if anyone would correct that schematic.
 
A while back someone mentioned anyone who mapped a distribution of electron flow would be using electromagnetics simulation software. Does anyone know who uses this type of software, and where I could find a simpler example of the type of map that is created by this software?
 
My electromagnetics professor uses this software in his research. Because it's so specialized I doubt it's very attaintable by anyone without a research grant.
 
A while back someone mentioned anyone who mapped a distribution of electron flow would be using electromagnetics simulation software. Does anyone know who uses this type of software, and where I could find a simpler example of the type of map that is created by this software?

It's not too hard to model this, (nice graphics aside), what you have to do is solve Laplace's equation on your surface. You will find plenty of references (and code) on the web. I don't think you need to go this far. You can see the sorts of problems you are going to get from a much simpler problem that can be solved exactly. Consider a sheet that is infinite in all directions, and the two contacts are made with conducting discs of radius 'a', separated by a distance 'D'. In this case the resistance between the discs is proportional to

ln(D/(2a) + sqrt((D/(2a))^2-1))

which goes to ln(D/a) for D >> a

What this tells you is that errors in 'a' are just as important as errors in 'D'. So if your pieces are 5mm dia, spaced at 100mm, if the surface is not perfectly flat and they make contact only over the middle 2.5mm, then you will be out by 100% in the distance estimate. Note that this also says that the worst thing to do is to use a point contact!

Also, other pieces in close proximity will significantly affect the result. So unless you can solve the connection reliability problem, I'd look at other techniques, e.g. the capacitively coupled grid option, or optical methods.
 
It's not too hard to model this, (nice graphics aside), what you have to do is solve Laplace's equation on your surface. You will find plenty of references (and code) on the web. I don't think you need to go this far. You can see the sorts of problems you are going to get from a much simpler problem that can be solved exactly. Consider a sheet that is infinite in all directions, and the two contacts are made with conducting discs of radius 'a', separated by a distance 'D'. In this case the resistance between the discs is proportional to

ln(D/(2a) + sqrt((D/(2a))^2-1))

which goes to ln(D/a) for D >> a

What this tells you is that errors in 'a' are just as important as errors in 'D'. So if your pieces are 5mm dia, spaced at 100mm, if the surface is not perfectly flat and they make contact only over the middle 2.5mm, then you will be out by 100% in the distance estimate. Note that this also says that the worst thing to do is to use a point contact!

Also, other pieces in close proximity will significantly affect the result. So unless you can solve the connection reliability problem, I'd look at other techniques, e.g. the capacitively coupled grid option, or optical methods.

Do you know where I could see some graphical models from experiments? Also, I’m using a resistor that is about 100 ohms. The length of the resistor is about a quarter of an inch, definitely less than half an inch. What is the closest material that comes in a thin, flat, sheet-like, and longer form in both dimensions that offers this amount of resistance per this distance? What about a material of a similar shape that offers this amount of resistance per foot. I’d like to learn more about this. So, any tables – in addition to the map, that you could refer me to would be helpful.
 
Do you know where I could see some graphical models from experiments? Also, I’m using a resistor that is about 100 ohms. The length of the resistor is about a quarter of an inch, definitely less than half an inch. What is the closest material that comes in a thin, flat, sheet-like, and longer form in both dimensions that offers this amount of resistance per this distance? What about a material of a similar shape that offers this amount of resistance per foot. I’d like to learn more about this. So, any tables – in addition to the map, that you could refer me to would be helpful.

You didn't get my point.

If you must pursue the resistance method, why not make a PCB with connection points on say a 1cm grid, and on the rear have a grid of say 100ohm resistors between adjacent points. You can then work out the resistance between any two points exactly and you can make the contact resistance have minimal effect.
 
You didn't get my point.

If you must pursue the resistance method, why not make a PCB with connection points on say a 1cm grid, and on the rear have a grid of say 100ohm resistors between adjacent points. You can then work out the resistance between any two points exactly and you can make the contact resistance have minimal effect.

You’re right. I didn’t get your point. I didn’t realize that you were suggesting that I design my own experiment. I’d like to find the right material – which I described in my last post, before I design my own experiment. Does electrical resistance of a sheet figure into any of the sheet equations? Or, am I misunderstanding the concept of resistance? Can a material have a per distance measurement of resistance? If so, I’m looking for materials that have a resistance that is closest to 1 x 10^10 ohms per foot.

Separately, I’m also interested in seeing geometric models from actual experiments - which I don’t plan on constructing from my project.

Would you recommend a grid design, in case this is the best design that I can figure out how to make?
 
You’re right. I didn’t get your point. I didn’t realize that you were suggesting that I design my own experiment. I’d like to find the right material – which I described in my last post, before I design my own experiment. Does electrical resistance of a sheet figure into any of the sheet equations? Or, am I misunderstanding the concept of resistance? Can a material have a per distance measurement of resistance? If so, I’m looking for materials that have a resistance that is closest to 1 x 10^10 ohms per foot.

Separately, I’m also interested in seeing geometric models from actual experiments - which I don’t plan on constructing from my project.

Would you recommend a grid design, in case this is the best design that I can figure out how to make?

You are misunderstanding the concept of resistance in a 2D sheet. This sort of material is characterised by resistance per square not per length. What I was trying to point out was that it is not meaningful to say what is the resistance between two points 100mm apart, you also need to say how big the contact areas are (and actually what the shapes are). It is producing a reliable contact that I think will probably kill your design (even if you can find some suitable material). What those equations tell you is that if you have two contacts 100mm apart and pass a current I between them, if the contacts are 5mm dia then you measure a voltage V, but if the probes made poorer contact and were effectively 2.5mm dia then the voltage measured is 2V, giving you a 100% error in distance estimate. Because the current density is so much higher in the vicinity of the probe, you can get the same voltage drop over the last 1.25mm as over the whole 100mm.

If you want to pursue models, if you are good with programming you can write/modify a Laplace solver (e.g. see https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2008/12/ohmic.pdf for some theory), to play with some simple models there are free packages like QuickField software license types that could help you learn (I've never used this, but it does solve these problems).

But to me, the killer issue you have to solve is making consistent contacts.
 
You are misunderstanding the concept of resistance in a 2D sheet. This sort of material is characterised by resistance per square not per length. What I was trying to point out was that it is not meaningful to say what is the resistance between two points 100mm apart, you also need to say how big the contact areas are (and actually what the shapes are). It is producing a reliable contact that I think will probably kill your design (even if you can find some suitable material). What those equations tell you is that if you have two contacts 100mm apart and pass a current I between them, if the contacts are 5mm dia then you measure a voltage V, but if the probes made poorer contact and were effectively 2.5mm dia then the voltage measured is 2V, giving you a 100% error in distance estimate. Because the current density is so much higher in the vicinity of the probe, you can get the same voltage drop over the last 1.25mm as over the whole 100mm.

If you want to pursue models, if you are good with programming you can write/modify a Laplace solver (e.g. see https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2008/12/ohmic-1.pdf for some theory), to play with some simple models there are free packages like QuickField software license types that could help you learn (I've never used this, but it does solve these problems).

But to me, the killer issue you have to solve is making consistent contacts.

I plan on using contacts that are about the area that the rounded part of some of the tacks that are sold would make with a flat sheet - or the area that a very small clip would make with a thin pin protruding from a sheet. So, the contacts could be weighed down or mechanically attached in this way. I may be wrong, but I don’t foresee either of these methods resulting in a poor contact.

What is the force that is causing the electrons to flow through the sheet? I thought that the force would be, in my case, a chemical reaction in the battery. So, I was thinking that the electricity would flow through the path of least resistance to the other terminal on the sheet that completes the circuit with the battery. But, what you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that the electrons will be traveling with the same characteristic in all directions outward from the negative terminal. I want to be really sure that I understand this concept because, if the electrons travel in a manner characteristic of what you are saying, then I might not need a sheet with special resistive properties. The resistance would seem to me to decrease both as a function of area and distance according to this theory.
 
Last edited:
If you want to pursue models, if you are good with programming you can write/modify a Laplace solver (e.g. see https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2008/12/ohmic-2.pdf for some theory), to play with some simple models there are free packages like QuickField software license types that could help you learn (I've never used this, but it does solve these problems).

I went ahead and emailed QuickField about their products, but I think that what they are offering – a type of mesh analysis software, is different from what I am looking for. Though, I only looked at their free stuff. Doesn’t mesh analysis only have to do with discrete – not continuous, circuits? If so, I’m still looking for two types of geometric models of electron flow. One that can show the resistance of a continuous sheet as a function of area or distance. And another that can show characteristics of electron flow through a two or three dimensional material having an unevenly distributed composition.
 
I plan on using contacts that are about the area that the rounded part of some of the tacks that are sold would make with a flat sheet - or the area that a very small clip would make with a thin pin protruding from a sheet. So, the contacts could be weighed down or mechanically attached in this way. I may be wrong, but I don’t foresee either of these methods resulting in a poor contact.

What is the force that is causing the electrons to flow through the sheet? I thought that the force would be, in my case, a chemical reaction in the battery. So, I was thinking that the electricity would flow through the path of least resistance to the other terminal on the sheet that completes the circuit with the battery. But, what you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that the electrons will be traveling with the same characteristic in all directions outward from the negative terminal. I want to be really sure that I understand this concept because, if the electrons travel in a manner characteristic of what you are saying, then I might not need a sheet with special resistive properties. The resistance would seem to me to decrease both as a function of area and distance according to this theory.

I found a suitable picture of the current flow between two contacts

**broken link removed**

This is the solution to a different problem (which is why the lines are labelled E and H), but the equations being solved are the same and so the picture is relevant. In the picture the E lines correspond to current flow (and the closer the lines are together the higher the current density) and the H lines for your problem correspond to lines of equal voltage (with equal voltage difference between adjacent lines). Note that the current density gets very high around the conductors, and the voltage gradient increases. This is what makes the problem very sensitive to the actual area of contact, and what I think is the achilles heel of the design.

If you want to explore further, you can get Maxwell SV from Ansoft, a serious commercial solver that is free, and has no limitations for solving this sort of problem. **broken link removed**
 
I found a suitable picture of the current flow between two contacts

**broken link removed**

This is the solution to a different problem (which is why the lines are labelled E and H), but the equations being solved are the same and so the picture is relevant. In the picture the E lines correspond to current flow (and the closer the lines are together the higher the current density) and the H lines for your problem correspond to lines of equal voltage (with equal voltage difference between adjacent lines). Note that the current density gets very high around the conductors, and the voltage gradient increases. This is what makes the problem very sensitive to the actual area of contact, and what I think is the achilles heel of the design.

If you want to explore further, you can get Maxwell SV from Ansoft, a serious commercial solver that is free, and has no limitations for solving this sort of problem. **broken link removed**

Would it be accurate to say that as the resistance of the material increases, the current density off to either side of the wires and the current density between the wires becomes closer? Is this going to effect the resistance in the wire apart from the sheet? Do electrons take a longer time to travel along the longer red curves from one wire to the other, and is this travelling time measurable just using the two wires? What is this travelling time called? What in the diagram would cause a measureable change of electricity in the wire apart from the sheet as the distance between the two wires contacting the sheet changes?
 
Last edited:
1. Did you think of your physical circuit implementation to detect something on a resistive sheet? The only way I can come up with is to line the edges of the sheet with contacts and then measure the resistance between every single opposing pair of contacts and then choose opposing X-pair with the lowest resistance and the Y-pair with the lowest resistance and call that the position of the playing piece. A few problems arise with this method. First of all, it is IMPOSSIBLE to detect the position of more than one piece because there is just too much coupling between the outputs and the positions of the pieces. This pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for a gaming board.

I may be able to time the signals to distinguish them using this model. However, I’m not sure if I really understand this model. Let’s say I introduced electricity into a sheet at a location corresponding to the location of the game piece. Now, if the edges of the sheet are lined with contacts – as this model suggests, would the contacts nearer the game piece – specifically the contacts closer to a perpendicular bisector intersecting an axis and a game piece, receive a larger measure electricity than those contacts further away along the same edge? What electrical property of the sheet would have to be changed in order to change the difference in measure of electricity between contacts on the same axis? What would be the reason for this? In order for this difference in measure of electricity between contacts to be practically measurable, would the sheet have to have certain electrical properties? Using this model, would I have to time the circuit connected to the contacts on the x axis on a different interval than the circuit connected to the contacts on the y axis – so that small changes in the amount of electricity received from contacts on one axis is not equally compensated by small changes in the amount of electricity received from contacts on the other axis at different locations where electricity enters the sheet?
 
An experiment was conducted to determine if a household conducting sheet could be used - instead of a sheet prefabricated to have special electrical properties, to measure distances in terms of resistance. Measurements of resistances associated with one of two probes that contacted a sheet when each of these two probes were located in different locations in relation to each other as well as a third location where electricity traveled to or from the sheet were taken. This was done using a sheet of foil commonly used for cooking, probably made mostly of aluminum or tin. The sheet of thin foil had a width between one and two feet and a length that made the sheet approximately square. A wire connected to one part of an electrical source was wrapped around approximately the middle of one side of the approximately square sheet of foil. Two other open circuits were also involved in the experiment – one consisting only of a wire and the other consisting only of a resistance measuring device. Ends of each of these two other open circuits were connected to another part of the electrical source. The other ends of each of these two other open circuits were used as probes on the sheet of foil. The combined result of two trials was not accurate because the meter being used had an ohm adjust dial that was set to a same arbitrary setting that was different for each of two trials conducted. The experiment was also not accurate because the person conducting the experiment did not know how to read the meter scale. The scale on the meter was between 0 and 1K ohms. The select switch that identified this scale was labeled as X1K. XIK was interpreted as meaning a maximum of 1K ohms or that the scale was measured in units equal to 1/1000 ohms. In other words, X could either mean ‘max’ or ‘times’. During each trial, the types of measurements associated with the largest and smallest distances were taken repeatedly until the person conducting the experiment felt comfortable that the precision of the measurements at larger and smaller distances were about the same. For the types of measurements associated with the largest and smallest distances, the precision of each of - if I remember and calculate correctly, four measurements in the first trial was approximately .5 x 10^-1 units, and the precision of each of two measurements in the second trial was approximately 1 x 10^-1 units. The first trial, if I remember correctly, had an average measurement of about 1.4 units. I’m pretty sure the second trial had an average measurement of about 2.9 units. Though exact values relating distances, the precisions of the measurements at each combination of locations, the differences of measurements and precisions between each combination of locations were not recorded - the average differences in measurements between just about all of the larger and smaller distances, for both trials, were about the same as the precision measured at each location. For these reasons, the experiment was inconclusive, possibly either because the voltage was not to scale, the area of the cooking foil was not to scale, and/or the meter was not precise enough, or the sheet offered no resistance. For both trials, the locations of the two probes were switched – resulting, as suggested, in no estimated change in measurements. For this reason, it may be possible to conclude that this experiment applies to measuring resistances between two probes instead of three. Specifically, in this experiment, the two probes were placed once - per each part of the trials, in all possible combinations of locations 1) near the wire wrapped around approximately the middle of one side of the approximately square sheet of foil, 2) the corner on one side of the sheet of foil nearest this wrapped wire, 3) the middle of the side described in location 2, and 4) the other corner of the side described in location 2 and 3. From this experiment it can only be concluded that resistance in some cases can not measurably be detected using some household sheets of foil with probes – or game pieces.
 
Correction to the 3rd January 2009 post. 2*4^2 measurements were taken for each run. There were four runs for the first trial, and two runs for the second.
 
Did you ever find a solution?

The best thing that I thought of so far involves wiring a keyboard so that switches that used to correspond to keys correspond to areas on a board that can be identified when contacts on the pieces are made with conductors on the board. Unfortunately, I don't have the skills to make the switches sensitive to the weight of the game pieces and therefore momentary. I'm still interested in finding a sheet with the right resistance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

New Articles From Microcontroller Tips

Back
Top