Member Since: October 28, 2006

Country: United States

  • Are you going to carry the HUB-ee Arduino shield? I want to get these for my younger brother but without the shield the build will get a little messy. It is available here, for example:

  • The PWMs are all bit-banged off the instruction clock in for/while loops. See the line “if d <= pulse” right after the “while trigger” loop. Looks a lot like some my own one-hour-project hack code, don’t expect everything to be properly thought out. Pretty neat project even so.

  • Looks like the GPS-logging cat collar can finally be a reality!

  • This is not the type of adhesive used for spacecraft. Silicone adhesives evaporate in a vacuum and stick to telescope optics, and are impossible to clean off. We are very strict about keeping silicone out of our labs at NASA.
    It will work fine for non-vacuum applications.

  • I just did the calculations and I think with a 49 kHz oscillator input, it will tune on 129-168 MHz. No idea if this will actually work, or if the LNA response at those frequencies is too poor, but it might be worth a shot.

  • I second this request. Does anybody know of a good miniature receiver for the 144-148MHz amateur band? I think with these digital tuning chips, the local oscillator is derived from the crystal so you would have to change the crystal/oscillator input frequency to change the tuning range. I don’t think it would work moving all the way to 70cm, but it might work okay on 2m.

  • I’m surprised nobody caught this yet. I don’t think the TPS61200 is quite good for 600 amps…
    Also, I second the suggestion to add a coulomb counter/fuel gauge chip to the mix.

  • Answered my own question. On one of the AUV forums are screenshots of it overlayed on a color image. Awesome!

  • Question to those who have used this before:
    If you feed it a color video signal, does it convert it to monochrome in the process of overlaying text? Or do you get monochrome text on top of color video?

  • Sorry to hijacked this thread, but I can’t help but reply.
    By your argument, it is simply the word “necessary” that is out of place. You did not dispute that the sharing of ideas can cause lasting change; you only gave a list of other things with similarly far-reaching effects. Everything you listed has undeniably negative side-effects–loss of life, concentration and abuse of power, or the exclusion of potential contributors. You could interpret the author’s point to mean that the sharing of ideas is necessary to affect change in the broadest, least exclusionary manner without as many negative consequences. The author merely assumed that those criteria were obvious to the reader.

No public wish lists :(