next topic »

[on:]

I wonder if someone knows the answer to this probably obvious question. I have see on digikey.com 11mm rotary encoders and 12mm rotary encoders. I wonder where that 11mm or 12mm comes from:

Datasheets:

http://www.bitechnologies.com/pdfs/en11.pdf

http://www.bitechnologies.com/pdfs/en12.pdf

Besides some apparent different in the options (pulse per revolution, push button, shaft type and shaft lengths) the foot print is almost identical, with the 12mm a bit wider in one dimension. Were there 11mm 12mm names historical or do they refer to something I obviously didn't catch? Thank you!

[Reply #1 on:]

It appears that their width is 11.7mm and 12.4mm, respecively. That would be my guess how they got their name.

[Reply #2 on:]

I noticed that too. Kind of superficial difference. "Hey, we have two types of rotary encoders, they kind of differ only by 10 percent in a minor dimension". Should be other reason?!

[Reply #3 on:]

For potentiometers the normal dimension to use is the shaft diameter.  Knowing what sized hole to drill in the front panel
is also useful.

[Reply #4 on:]

Borh series have 6mm diameter shafts.

[Reply #5 on:]

Maybe it does not refer to a measurement dimension but to case style. EN11 is cast metal body & shaft, EN12 is pressed metal body & plastic shaft.

Thanks Riva. I start to grow a feeling that there is no huge difference between 11mm and 12mm encoders.

[Reply #6 on:]

Other than one has parts that are a bit more durable, and encoder is and encoder. They Give pulses as you rotate them. The various sizes have more to do with mounting than with function.

[Reply #7 on:]

Other than one has parts that are a bit more durable, and encoder is and encoder. They Give pulses as you rotate them. The various sizes have more to do with mounting than with function.

Boy I disagree.  The first encoders I bought were mechanical ones with detents.  Then I bought several optical ones that give a whole lot more resolution and no freaking detents.  I love these encoders, they are the nicest thing I have as far as user interface parts.  They also breadboard really well.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/370592502534

It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.

[Reply #8 on:]

That's the whole reason I was buying these encoders, for user interface. A rotary encoder is analog/digital in one. You can control speed with how fast you turn it, with a large range of speed. With buttons, you cannot press them too fast.

http://arduino.cc/forum/index.php/topic,130945

[Reply #9 on:]

Other than one has parts that are a bit more durable, and encoder is and encoder. They Give pulses as you rotate them. The various sizes have more to do with mounting than with function.

Boy I disagree.  The first encoders I bought were mechanical ones with detents.  Then I bought several optical ones that give a whole lot more resolution and no freaking detents.  I love these encoders, they are the nicest thing I have as far as user interface parts.  They also breadboard really well.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/370592502534

It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.

I can't agree more with that statement. My first playing with quad-encoders was with one of those cheap $5 mechanical ones. Between contact bounce and the mechanical de-tents not always matching up well with the contact transition positions, I was pretty frustrated with the whole concept of using on in any of my projects.

 Then I found a web site (gold electronics) that was selling some nice surplus (new old stock) high grade optical encoders for $5 and boy what a different (I bought 4 and they sold out quickly so don't look for them there now). It's a great device to use if you can be patient and look for a good one via surplus or used on E-bay. The cheap mechanical ones are really garbage, I'm not saying that with enough tweaking of code and you can't make a mechanical one somewhat work, but I personally will never waste my time using one. I still have 3 optical encoders left.

Lefty

[Reply #10 on:]

The mechanical ones I bought for less than a dollar a piece are fine enough for user interface. I'll make some videos hopefully today.

[Reply #11 on:]

The mechanical ones I bought for less than a dollar a piece are fine enough for user interface. I'll make some videos hopefully today.

Sure if you hate the user. Steve Jobs would never have approved the use of a mechanical encoder. 

Lefty

[Reply #12 on:]

Works fine for me! I don't care much about Steve Jobs or his fruit company

[Reply #13 on:]

Mechanical encoders have their place, and opticals have their place. I have designed a welding machine that used 10 of the $2.58 mechanical encoders and the users loved them. Previously they had used optical encoders and they were almost useless. For an operator input the small mechanicals fit the bill well. for motion monitoring the optical encoders are much better.

[Reply #14 on:]

Mechanical encoders have their place, and opticals have their place. I have designed a welding machine that used 10 of the $2.58 mechanical encoders and the users loved them. Previously they had used optical encoders and they were almost useless. For an operator input the small mechanicals fit the bill well. for motion monitoring the optical encoders are much better.

One thing I don't like about the mechanicals is their stated lifetime.  It's usually pathetic.  Is it OK to use that on a machine that is used two shifts a day?