BEGINNERS: We rarely write code for you, but will help you write it for yourself

[GoForSmoke]

When Mike writes

5) Please learn some physics because it says you can't do it.

the proper response is to engage as to why unless you've already danced around that point. AFAIK you two argued about different things that seemed to have morphed along the bent or straight tube way but here now he has made a definite unequivocal statement.

[GoForSmoke]

Back On Topic?

When I give code I try to get people started with a sketch that can be greatly modified, do more in an easier cleaner way by following how the sketch as given works.

The examples use tasks, sections of code inside of loop() that are not inside of each other but do share data and control info through variables. To add to the sketch you only need to add a task and whatever variables if any are needed, maybe change an existing task to trigger the new one -- without having to weave it into a block of nested if-else type structured code that grows with every change into the dreaded spaghetti-code; the bigger the bowl, the more tangled it gets.

With tasks you can keep the pieces small and indentation levels low and more of your hair in the long run. So I try to introduce that and so do most of the old lags on this forum in the form of "do many things at the same time".

This is a different way to code than the standard. This is how automation has been coded for decades, I didn't invent it, I learned, how about you?

[GreyArea]

When Mike writes

5) Please learn some physics because it says you can't do it.

the proper response is to engage as to why unless you've already danced around that point. AFAIK you two argued about different things that seemed to have morphed along the bent or straight tube way but here now he has made a definite unequivocal statement.

Argh, I was going to let it drop. Last post even if there's a reply, promise.

Mike's list of six points (1, 2, 3, 3 again, 4 and 5) weren't aimed at me...he said they were the "levels of possibility" he's employed over the years. I don't think physics was the issue...well, maybe, but more in terms of different environments or a missing "piece"...which I think is what Tony Wilks added in.

I'd also hope if Mike's been doing it so long that occasionally, particularly when he's used replies 3, 3(a) or 4, (even perhaps 5 if I'm right about Tony's work) someone has actually come back and surprised him.

[lastchancename]

One major challenge when communicating to genuine newbies (or lazy halfwits), is when a button or link doesn't exist that says 'make my program work'.
"Can you write one for me" - not even a question.

Early posts from the truly uninitiated - clearly don't understand there are ALWAYS more than one concept at hand in any project - even blinking a single LED.
It's this fundamental idea of breaking your desire into manageable chunks that seems to escape many.

"I saw an app that does 'this' I have to do the same by tomorrow..."
Let's define - saw, app, does, this, same
It makes a difference!

[GoForSmoke]

I'd also hope if Mike's been doing it so long that occasionally, particularly when he's used replies 3, 3(a) or 4, (even perhaps 5 if I'm right about Tony's work) someone has actually come back and surprised him.

That happens how often at all? And how often over something other than critical details?

I will just have to find a way to live knowing that Grumpy Mike is not god perfect after all.

But if he tells you that something is not physically possible, you can bet he's got solid reasons behind it. What you should seek to attack are his reasons instead of throwing weak ad-hom innuendos to distract from having lost the point.

I have to wonder now where that thread is. IIRC there might be a link in one of the posts. If I find juicy stuff, I'll bump the thread!

[GoForSmoke]

It's this fundamental idea of breaking your desire into manageable chunks that seems to escape many.

For the most part, you might as well discuss the literary techniques used by Steinbeck with kids who haven't bothered learning their ABC's yet.

The others who say right out that they're not going to become coders, if I can help an honest worker then I'll try but .....

I'm not here as a free service getting enterpreneurs their product start-up code and likely the concepts behind it. If the latter set want to learn then fine but I've known too many who only lie to get you going along then try to slick you into a deal that you WILL lose by design. Don't work for promises, that is what you will get besides some pin money, to pin you in place.

[lastchancename]

Lying to get help...
That opens another completely different can of worms.

[Grumpy_Mike]

I have to wonder now where that thread is.

This is the thread https://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=517581.0
I think you will see that he has moved the goal posts a lot since my original comments. My thoughts were:-
1) He wanted a capacitive slider sensor that was a meter long. The commercial cap sensor chips do not go that long, I provided a link to one to show him.
2) The cap sensor he wanted would have to have transparent conductive coatings applied to the inside of a bent tube. A bit "ship in a bottle" given that conductive coatings are normally put on with vacuum deposition.
3) Even bending a 1 meter tube is not something that is practical for a non commercial outfit.

As you see Tony came up with a capacitivly coupled potential divider which gave the promise that it might offer a partial solution but it failed on the transparency requirement and required almost floating pins. That is it was not very reliable. In the meantime GreyArea came up with a sequence of capacitave sensor "notches" that would sometimes work if the hand was dragged from one end to the other.

None of those developments, interesting though they might be, in my mind invalidated my original low key comment that I didn't think his project was possible even if GreyArea thought it did, as mentioned in his linked video.

Most of the time an "impossible" project is made possible by changing the requirements, or making it so unreliable or poor as to be not remotely the same project. I am reminded of the person here who wanted to stream live video using an Arduino. I said it was impossible, and someone jumped in and said it was and "proved it" by showing a project where a 4 by 4 pixel image was streamed off an SD card.

I rest my case.   

[GoForSmoke]

Oh, that thread. Yeah I read and avoided chipping in.

You know how when a magnet is in contact with ferrous metal the metal becomes part of "the magnet"? Even close, a field is induced and the strength of the field may vary in the metal.

So anyway we have linear Hall sensors that could likely measure field strength at both ends of a steel wire and determine some facts about a close-held magnet. Of course orientation of the magnet would matter and Murphy gets a say....

[GreyArea]

Someone did suggest a Hall effect sensor but I wanted to avoid the need for a magnet or other gizmo...it's not that I want it to be magic only the magician can do, I want it to be magic ANYONE can do.

Still haven't given up, awaiting materials for more tests. Bit of miscommunication on my part...the tube is just a straight tube...I looked back and I used the word "curved" just to mean it was a curved surface, but it was a poor choice of words.

And yes...depositing the contacts on the inside of a tube would be difficult. Which is why I'm not going to do it...but there are other ways Mike...wheels within wheels ;-).

By the way, I'm not one for adhominem attacks...I never originally mentioned Mike by name and if he hadn't recognised himself and spoke up, I never would have. I don't think I've called him anything worse than he calls himself ("Grumpy") and I hope you'll see it's good natured...I have learned things from Mike, but just because I'm new here doesn't mean I have zero knowledge of everything; this isn't an area where I have much hope of success I'll admit...the main challenge would seem to be reliability...but I've learned a few tricks already that MAY produce exactly the effect I was looking for, WITH the main restriction that it not use too many pins or occupy too much volume.

And yes, in a few weeks I may be back here, tail firmly between legs with a "guess what, I couldn't get it to work" post...

But I'm allowed to TRY aren't I? I mean, isn't that what the other posts are lamenting too...the fact that people just give up or want it done for them?

That was the thrust of my post...it seems a lot is expected of us people who are new. If we get told too often that "it can't be done", then we'll lose interest. Again the failing may be ours in that we use the wrong terms and not a lot of vocabulary to explain what we THINK we want; I was just politely suggesting that experts might tease out of us what we ACTUALLY want using some of their knowledge.

And patience...which if nothing else Mike has proved he has in bucketloads.

[Robin2]

This Thread is no longer a Tutorial.

I reckon it should be moved to Project Guidance so as not to confuse newbies looking for tutorials.

...R

[Grumpy_Mike]

Well I think part of this should be hived off into the communities web site section as it involves more of a how we respond to questions than an actual project.

[GoForSmoke]

I'd also hope if Mike's been doing it so long that occasionally, particularly when he's used replies 3, 3(a) or 4, (even perhaps 5 if I'm right about Tony's work) someone has actually come back and surprised him.

A "not always right but won't say how much or what, just the loaded word surprised" innuendo is attacking the person rather than what he posted even if it is in a weak manner like the use of faint praise.

THAT is what I referred to.

Since then you duck and dodge like a pro.

[GreyArea]

*sigh*

[Jerryphan]

I think experienced programmers will not try to do everything in one in the first place.