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?
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.
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.
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.
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’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-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.
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 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**
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.
Did you ever find a solution?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?