Pebble V2 (standalone Arduino board)
andyg (geekscape)
I've forked this discussion, because it adds non-trivial cost, time
and testing to the critical path of getting hardware ready for the
mini-conf ... for something that we probably won't use in general at
the mini-conf.
However, I certainly don't want to kill off the discussion. In fact,
quite the opposite. It's too cool.
And, if I've been too forthright (and incorrect) in performing this
discussion fork ... please say so (I won't be offended).
Vik wrote:
> I was actually serious about putting an SMD CPU on the flip side.
I really like the idea of the Pebble also being the basis of an
(optional) stand-alone Arduino.
As do others, who have mentioned the same idea.
> Beginners can ignore it - or populate it at home.
Yes, that's exactly right. If it is possible to do this ... then, it
doesn't impact upon the simplicity of the board for beginners.
I spoke to Luke about this last night ... and he said it was too
hard. Which I took to mean ... it was too hard right now, in the
context of getting the board done promptly (personally, I know that
Luke can do anything he puts his mind to).
However, there is a temporary workaround ... an ATMega 28-pin DIP chip
can easily fit in the available prototyping area, so for those of us
keen to take this idea (standalone Pebble) to the LCA2010 mini-
conf ... we can at least prototype the idea with the existing V1
board. I think I'll make one, just for fun !
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm anticipating that we'll have further iterations of the Pebble
board ... and should start a "design_2.0/" directory in Luke's GitHub
repository. Depending upon the status of another project, I may be
able to fund Luke to undertake this next design iteration before too
long.
With GitHub, you can easily "fork" and start your own design iteration
(if you are able) and we can merge the changes at an appropriate time.
Or, you can ask Luke for write-permission ... and start putting ideas
into a "design_2.0/" directory.
At the very least, we can continue this discussion on this thread ...
whilst at the same time, ensuring that the Pebble V1 board is
progressing quickly for the LCA2010 mini-conf.
Is everyone cool with this approach ?
cheers andyg (geekscape)
Vik Olliver
So if we ignore the mini-conf aspect, what I'm looking towards is a
proto board that can turn into an Arduino - or a Pinguino depending on
which chip you put in it. I'd suggest SMT for the Atmel and DIP for an
18F series PIC. So for the Atmel (it being on the flip side), the
prototyping area is preserved. With a PIC, you'd lose most of the
prototyping space, but would have an Arduino-compatible board.
Vik :v)
Jonathan Oxer
> So if we ignore the mini-conf aspect, what I'm looking towards is a
> proto board that can turn into an Arduino - or a Pinguino depending on
> which chip you put in it. I'd suggest SMT for the Atmel and DIP for an
> 18F series PIC. So for the Atmel (it being on the flip side), the
> prototyping area is preserved. With a PIC, you'd lose most of the
> prototyping space, but would have an Arduino-compatible board.
That sounds like a very handy board for use as a teaching tool. Perhaps
there's enough interest in developing the Pebble into a more
comprehensive project in its own right to justify a list or something
for it.
That way anyone interested in more specific technical discussion can go
into it in more depth and with a broader vision than just the miniconf,
while discussion on this list can be at the level of whether / how to
use it for LCA2010.
Luke, it's your project: do you think it's ready to take on a life of
its own?
Cheers :-)
--
Jonathan Oxer
Ph +61 4 3851 6600
Geek My Ride! <http://www.geekmyride.org/>
Mitch Davis
>
> I've forked this discussion, because it adds non-trivial cost, time
> and testing to the critical path of getting hardware ready for the
> mini-conf ...
Yes.
> However, I certainly don't want to kill off the discussion. In fact,
> quite the opposite. It's too cool.
Indeed.
> Is everyone cool with this approach ?
Yes. There's a lot of things we can do for v2, but meanwhile, we have
to get v1 out.
Mitch.
Luke Weston
Regarding adding the surface-mount AVR chip... well, I'm sure you
could re-design the board to include it. But where would you
physically have the room to fit it?
You'd probably have to sacrifice the prototyping area. It's basically
not something you can just add onto the existing board without non-
trivial redesign time.
But with this current iteration of the board laid out, complete, and
seemingly usable, I want to avoid too much feature creep.
I checked that you can fit one of those extra-small breadboards from
Sparkfun on top of the prototyping area... yes, assuming you haven't
attached a female header to the bottom row of pads for the LCD, it
will, only just, fit.
One slight disadvantage of this present board is if you've got Arduino
--> Pebble board --> LCD all stacked on top of one another, and
especially if you've got Arduino --> Ethernet shield --> Pebble board
--> LCD all stacked on top of one another, it won't sit balanced on a
desk for you to play with it... some standoff bolts or something would
be needed, since the Pebble board is a bit larger than an Arduino, to
balance it.
One idea that I've had in this regard which might be nice might be to
make another PCB with the same dimensions as the Pebble board, with
female headers with the same footprint as an Arduino, so the Pebble
(or any other Arduino shield device) can be plugged in, and
incorporate on that board an AVR (in other words, identical hardware
to an Arduino, probably including an FTDI chip) and an Ethernet
chipset integrated as well.
So, you don't need Arduino --> Ethernet shield --> Pebble board -->
LCD, you've got Integrated Arduino/Ethernet board --> Pebble shield --
> LCD instead.
And since the bottom board is the same size, it will sit upright by
itself without any fuss.
Cheers,
Luke
follower
> to an Arduino, probably including an FTDI chip) and an Ethernet
> chipset integrated as well.
--Phil.
Jonathan Oxer
> Like this: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbiddulph/2489332318/> ?
but didn't know it was being turned into a production board. That's
really cool.
I'm confused about the date though. Flickr says the photo was uploaded
in May 2008, which means it should have been well and truly on the
streets by now. Is this a project that was prototyped but never went
into production? It seems like a huge shame.
I'd be up for building a batch of those if nobody else has done it yet
(for values of "build" that equal "pay a fab house to build a bunch
for me". I'm not crazy enough to try hand-soldering that Wiznet chip
even with the help of garden tools).
Cheers :-)
follower
> Woah, now that got my attention. I remember seeing your Netduino page
> but didn't know it was being turned into a production board.
the Arduino team put together.
> I'm confused about the date though. Flickr says the photo was uploaded
> in May 2008, which means it should have been well and truly on the
> streets by now. Is this a project that was prototyped but never went
> into production? It seems like a huge shame.
Yeah, it never reached production, essentially they concentrated on
the shield because they didn't have a useful way to get code on the
board apart from ISP. (Something that the 328 might have solved.)
It's come up in the forums a few times that that form factor would be
good but I don't think the design has ever been released. I think my
previous thoughts on that have been well documented. :)
--Phil.
Luke Weston
But does that have the USB socket and FTDI chip on it, or has that
been eliminated?
It would be much nicer to keep the FTDI chip on the board and use the
standard Arduino program-over-UART system, plus the ethernet too.
If you can add the program-over-LAN functionality *as well*, well, so
much the cooler.
Trent Lloyd
If you read the comments; basically no - the only way to program it
was ICSP and with the 168 no way you could fit an ethernet based boot
loader on it and have enough code to fit an ethernet app on it. They
said the 328 might solve this altho I suspect it'd still be tight.
Altho if you compiled some kind of combnined boot loader / normal app
with the wiznet libraries in only once its conceivable that might just
work.. esp. with the 328.
Hence it never went to production.
Regards,
--
Trent Lloyd
http://lathiat.net/
Vik Olliver
> Regarding adding the surface-mount AVR chip... well, I'm sure you
> could re-design the board to include it. But where would you
> physically have the room to fit it?
> You'd probably have to sacrifice the prototyping area. It's basically
> not something you can just add onto the existing board without non-
> trivial redesign time.
Um, no - just stick it on the other side of the board, under the
prototyping area.
Vik :v)
Luke Weston
holes from the PCB?
Hmm, not a bad idea. You could still stick a mini breadboard on the
top of the board, in that space.
Vik Olliver
> Under the prototyping area? So, you mean eliminate the proto-area
> holes from the PCB?
Yup.
> Hmm, not a bad idea. You could still stick a mini breadboard on the
> top of the board, in that space.
Indeed. Or patch-solder it for permanet use.
Come on, who has left breadboards in final hardware for years? :)
Vik :v)