As the encoder with motor design like this
Presumably the motor has to be quite powerful otherwise the human will just over power it. To stop it moving from reaction forces it's going to need to be heavy or else be bolted to the desk.
1 Like
Yes it is useful and yes this is a curiosity.
Not sure what your question is about.
Have you used one?
If so, what did you use it for?
No, never seen it before. But it is a flexible software configurable device, so if you want any of those features, then it would be useful. For example suppose you had a situation where you wanted to control two parameters at different resolutions you could do this in software rather neatly.
For example if you want to scroll through LED lighting effects, it could be configured with just enough clicks to match the number of effects you have. Then you want to control the speed of the light effects, you can switch it to a more continuous multi rotation knob, without clicks, to give you a wide range of control.
@mikb55 I think every new user interface idea or device starts life with ppl asking the question you are posing here.
Then some time later, years maybe, no one talks about it at all, because it has either made itself indispensable and one doesn't even remember a time without, or it has disappeared as an utterly failed concept.
Push buttons - actually useful, or just a fad?
Right now it is a matter of opinion, I see lotsa use cases plus playing with it from a DIY perspective will be tons of a certain kind of fun.
As for totally resisting human input, I don't think that's the idea - a user of this interface would probably get the hint if it were just somewhat unusually stiff that turning it was not presently possible.
a7
An adult would take the hint. Kids on the the hand are a bit more adventurous and a lot more destructive so it wouldn't surprise me to see two handed attempts to fight or break it.
Yes but it would not actually break it, it would only force the thing to move against a motor trying to stop it. No physical damage would occur.
How your software would cope with this is up to you. This can range between ignoring it and just letting it fail or do strange things, to it putting a message on the display of a warning that you have exceeded the limits and not to do it again.
The design of a kids prof interface is tougher than the military requirement. Ask anyone who has had to make an museum interactive exhibit.
As so many advertisements on UK TV, for all sorts of products, like detergent washing tablets, say:- "Always keep away from children"
Which is perhaps the best general life style advice ever given.
The human has to be able to over power the motor, otherwise the knob will not turn when the human turns it.
The motor provides RESISTANCE to motion to give the haptic feel.
A lot going on to provide this sort of action/reaction.
Tom... 
I was thinking of the demonstrated scenario with virtual end stops that limit the range of travel.
As Grumpy_Mike said, how do you handle the error once the user has broken through the virtual end point and the pointer is now in the forbidden zone. Effectively the UI is now out of sync with the software model inside the machine. How do you get it back in sync in a way that makes sense.
For example, you configure the software with virtual end stops to limit the range of movement from 0 to 90 degrees. The user forces it past the 90 degree end stop and continues to do 3 full rotations then releases the knob in a random location in the 91-359 degree forbidden zone . What does the motor do? Does it undo those 3 rotations and return to the 90 degree position , or does it only do the minimum amount of rotation needed to get back to the 90 degree point?
Having a motorized self spinning thing on the desk that can start and stop at any time means that effectively you have created a safety hazard. The first time a kid gets their hair tangled in one of these things there will be a product recall.
I suspect that there is a way of setting the encoder reading to anything you want it to be, because that is the way ordinary rotary encoders work.
For example using normal rotary encoders I often have a lower limit of zero. If the result of decrementing the encoder is less than zero I check for that and set the encoder count to zero.
Likewise I can set a normal rotary encoder so that if it exceeds the maximum value I want then I can either roll it round to set it to zero again or decrement it so it stops at the maximum value.
You can do the same thing per increment without bothering about the encoder being forced past the haptic stop.
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.