www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Voice Coil Rail
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Voice Coil Rail
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 1142
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the result with a weight (shown in optical setup in previous post). The total travel is (1388/3456*14.Cool/7.5 = 0.7925mm or 792.5um.

Will do some stacking if I got time, too busy lately, but I think this is out of the way. Very Happy


_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ray_parkhurst



Joined: 20 Nov 2010
Posts: 2193
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The linearity looks surprisingly good over that displacement. Nice test method as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 1142
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Ray! The truth is, I am actually trying to drive this thing. Too bad, this one seems to be a custom version, the threaded holes is not the same as their specification sheet, therefore the rubber band, but no time for this ...


_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 2037
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjkzz wrote:
Finally ran a test of my circuit (see previous image)

This one is done without a weight on the speaker, total current change is roughly 230ma (always has problem at the end, maybe I should not have set the end point to 4095). The objective is an Olympus 10x clone and tube lens is Zhongyi 135, so actual magnification on sensor is 7.5x. From the image, we can see total travel distance is 1532 pixel, the vertical size of the sensor is 14.8mm with total of 3456 pixels. So total physical travel is (1532/3456*14.Cool/7.5 = 0.8747mm!!!

Result


Optical setup


Stacking parameters


Nice Peter!! Linearity does look pretty good at this level. Maybe a stack session is a good way to get better resolution on the stage movement. Then a simple error correction table should make very linear.

Best,

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 1142
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Mike.

Yes, a lookup table can translate current to actual positioning. My design allows setting of maximum current with full 12 bits resolution. In the tests, I set max current to be 256 ma (well a bit less), so with full 12 bits, minimum step is 256/4096 = 1/16 ma or 0.0625 ma. With this, I think the lookup table can be very accurate, if necessary at all Very Happy
_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 19842
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me offer a bit of counterpoint.

I am actually very surprised at how non-linear is the movement shown at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=211745#211745 . Stepping from the bottom up, I see step sizes (measured in Photoshop from the posted image) of 33 pixels, 32 pixels, 38 pixels, 29 pixels, then 31, 34, 37, and 49. The smooth progression of the upper part from 29 up to 49 is pretty much what I expected, but the overall pattern of medium/big/small/medium/big/bigger just cries out for explanation.

Is there any possibility that the fourth-from-bottom position was specified incorrectly and is too high as a result? Having that one position be too high would go a long way to restoring smoothness.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ray_parkhurst



Joined: 20 Nov 2010
Posts: 2193
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would see no reason to linearize this response. IMO the main reason to linearize would be if there is a significant distortion (like on the first 4" speaker I showed data for) that would cause issues with 3D rendering.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ray_parkhurst



Joined: 20 Nov 2010
Posts: 2193
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:
Let me offer a bit of counterpoint.

I am actually very surprised at how non-linear is the movement shown at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=211745#211745 . Stepping from the bottom up, I see step sizes (measured in Photoshop from the posted image) of 33 pixels, 32 pixels, 38 pixels, 29 pixels, then 31, 34, 37, and 49. The smooth progression of the upper part from 29 up to 49 is pretty much what I expected, but the overall pattern of medium/big/small/medium/big/bigger just cries out for explanation.

Is there any possibility that the fourth-from-bottom position was specified incorrectly and is too high as a result? Having that one position be too high would go a long way to restoring smoothness.

--Rik


It looks an exaggerated version of the 4" speaker I published, where there was an initial compression, then expansion, but we don't see the final severe compression. This speaker has a rubber surround, making me expect it is designed for very long throws compared with the speaker I tested, hence the lack of final compression. I'd expect if the current was increased to 400-500mA we'd see that final compression as it nears end of travel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 1142
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:
Let me offer a bit of counterpoint.

I am actually very surprised at how non-linear is the movement shown at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=211745#211745 . Stepping from the bottom up, I see step sizes (measured in Photoshop from the posted image) of 33 pixels, 32 pixels, 38 pixels, 29 pixels, then 31, 34, 37, and 49. The smooth progression of the upper part from 29 up to 49 is pretty much what I expected, but the overall pattern of medium/big/small/medium/big/bigger just cries out for explanation.

Is there any possibility that the fourth-from-bottom position was specified incorrectly and is too high as a result? Having that one position be too high would go a long way to restoring smoothness.

--Rik


Hi Rik, here is what I did: start with first image, add a layer, copy the second image into this layer, set blend mode to "additive", merge down layer, then do the same to 3rd, 4th, etc. There is no positioning.

Here are all the files If you follow my steps, you will get exactly the same images. Very Happy
_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 19842
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjkzz wrote:
rjlittlefield wrote:
Is there any possibility that the fourth-from-bottom position was specified incorrectly and is too high as a result? ...

...add...merge down...do the same... There is no positioning.

Yes, I assumed that the images were simply overlaid. When I spoke of the position being "specified", I was actually talking about the drive currents. I thought perhaps you were setting the 9 different drive currents with some manual process, and the wrong value got entered for that fourth-from-the-bottom position.

ray_parkhurst wrote:
I would see no reason to linearize this response.

Interesting. Clearly I have no good idea what your concerns and priorities are, and I guess there's really no reason I need to.

But to make sure that I'm following the plot line of this somewhat convoluted movie...

Did you just transition from worrying about part-per-million nonlinearity around crossover, to not worrying about a 29:49 ratio of step sizes as shown in mjkzz's data?

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ray_parkhurst



Joined: 20 Nov 2010
Posts: 2193
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:


ray_parkhurst wrote:
I would see no reason to linearize this response.

Interesting. Clearly I have no good idea what your concerns and priorities are, and I guess there's really no reason I need to.

But to make sure that I'm following the plot line of this somewhat convoluted movie...

Did you just transition from worrying about part-per-million nonlinearity around crossover, to not worrying about a 29:49 ratio of step sizes as shown in mjkzz's data?

--Rik


I of course expected that question. The issue with the speaker nonlinearity is calculated as the INL, Integrated Non Linearity, which basically tells you how straight the overall line is. This assumes there is no strangeness going on when the speaker is at equilibrium and is then pushed or pulled, but this sort of issue is guaranteed not a problem due to the design of the spider. Basically, the speaker has a slow and gently-changing slope to its displacement, and as I stated this has little effect on 3D rendering.

The issue with the driving electronics that I was concerned about is calculated as the DNL, the Differential Non Linearity. This looks at each step vs the next step. If there is a localized discrepancy in step size, there can be a problem with rendering small displacements. My concern was that there would be a large step at an unpredictable place in the stack that would cause 3D rendering issues. I see this problem with my mechanical rail, and it causes some odd distortions in mildly-sloped surfaces. I saw none of these issues when I used the speaker as a rail using the uni-directional voltage source to drive it, and was loathe to introduce such a distortion with the bi-directional source current.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 1142
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:
mjkzz wrote:
rjlittlefield wrote:
Is there any possibility that the fourth-from-bottom position was specified incorrectly and is too high as a result? ...

...add...merge down...do the same... There is no positioning.

Yes, I assumed that the images were simply overlaid. When I spoke of the position being "specified", I was actually talking about the drive currents. I thought perhaps you were setting the 9 different drive currents with some manual process, and the wrong value got entered for that fourth-from-the-bottom position.

ray_parkhurst wrote:
I would see no reason to linearize this response.

Interesting. Clearly I have no good idea what your concerns and priorities are, and I guess there's really no reason I need to.

But to make sure that I'm following the plot line of this somewhat convoluted movie...

Did you just transition from worrying about part-per-million nonlinearity around crossover, to not worrying about a 29:49 ratio of step sizes as shown in mjkzz's data?

--Rik


Oh, OK, everything is automatic, no manual intervention, hit the "Stack" button, it will just go from Start to End (0 to 4095 or 0 ma to 256ma) at even space.
_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 1142
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ray_parkhurst wrote:
rjlittlefield wrote:
Let me offer a bit of counterpoint.

I am actually very surprised at how non-linear is the movement shown at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=211745#211745 . Stepping from the bottom up, I see step sizes (measured in Photoshop from the posted image) of 33 pixels, 32 pixels, 38 pixels, 29 pixels, then 31, 34, 37, and 49. The smooth progression of the upper part from 29 up to 49 is pretty much what I expected, but the overall pattern of medium/big/small/medium/big/bigger just cries out for explanation.

Is there any possibility that the fourth-from-bottom position was specified incorrectly and is too high as a result? Having that one position be too high would go a long way to restoring smoothness.

--Rik


It looks an exaggerated version of the 4" speaker I published, where there was an initial compression, then expansion, but we don't see the final severe compression. This speaker has a rubber surround, making me expect it is designed for very long throws compared with the speaker I tested, hence the lack of final compression. I'd expect if the current was increased to 400-500mA we'd see that final compression as it nears end of travel.


Ray, yes, it is a long throw speaker. I will try 375ma when I get a chance, just to see how it performs.
_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ChrisR
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 8324
Location: Near London, UK

PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
very surprised at how non-linear is the movement shown


Looks a bit horrible to me - was there some loud music playing? Shocked
_________________
Chris R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 2037
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ray_parkhurst wrote:
rjlittlefield wrote:


ray_parkhurst wrote:
I would see no reason to linearize this response.

Interesting. Clearly I have no good idea what your concerns and priorities are, and I guess there's really no reason I need to.

But to make sure that I'm following the plot line of this somewhat convoluted movie...

Did you just transition from worrying about part-per-million nonlinearity around crossover, to not worrying about a 29:49 ratio of step sizes as shown in mjkzz's data?

--Rik


I of course expected that question. The issue with the speaker nonlinearity is calculated as the INL, Integrated Non Linearity, which basically tells you how straight the overall line is. This assumes there is no strangeness going on when the speaker is at equilibrium and is then pushed or pulled, but this sort of issue is guaranteed not a problem due to the design of the spider. Basically, the speaker has a slow and gently-changing slope to its displacement, and as I stated this has little effect on 3D rendering.

The issue with the driving electronics that I was concerned about is calculated as the DNL, the Differential Non Linearity. This looks at each step vs the next step. If there is a localized discrepancy in step size, there can be a problem with rendering small displacements. My concern was that there would be a large step at an unpredictable place in the stack that would cause 3D rendering issues. I see this problem with my mechanical rail, and it causes some odd distortions in mildly-sloped surfaces. I saw none of these issues when I used the speaker as a rail using the uni-directional voltage source to drive it, and was loathe to introduce such a distortion with the bi-directional source current.



Ray,

I took a look at the PS pixel data Rik presented and looked at the Pixel Difference between steps.

+1, +6, -9, +2, +3, +4, +12.

The overall Integrated response looks OK to me but not the Diiferenal between steps.

Either should be correctable within reason with Peter's error correction table.

Best,

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 16 of 18

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group