Anonymous

Project talk:Classroom HackSpaceChallenge: Difference between revisions

From London Hackspace Wiki
no edit summary
No edit summary
Line 41: Line 41:


I'm not sure how components will be obtainable around the world, but the designs would mean that alternatives could be made from other materials. There is no need for it to be MDF.
I'm not sure how components will be obtainable around the world, but the designs would mean that alternatives could be made from other materials. There is no need for it to be MDF.
==== Proposal ====
I believe this is a good idea because it is a basic scientific tool that many schools cannot afford. It would teach A-Level students about
fundamental chemical and physical properties and processes, whilst allowing younger students to conduct experiments that would otherwise be beyond the capabilities of their school.
The open nature will allow the students themselves to improve on the design should they want to.
It's enclosure can be constructed with simple components (MDF) and fittings that are all available at the hackspace, and the optics are
easily available to purchase. Full documentation of the spectrometer's workings means that schools should be able to maintain the equipment
themselves should any component fail, as most schools I have seen have D&T departments that are staffed by clever people with cool kit.
The science is well developed, we simply have to come up with our own implementation and optimise it. For this I think the Czerny-Turner
design would work best to give optimal performance, and fewest parts. This would mean that we can spend more time fixing problems, than
coming up with a workable idea.
Realistically we are not (unless we are spectacularly lucky) going to obtain analytical grade resolution, but we should get something that
is more useful than nothing, and a lot cheaper than £1000+. The inclusion of the "secret ingredients" should be easy, it will need
a microcontroller of some kind to handle motor control. The addition of a battery, although something I originally did not think to
include, would be of benefit to the design allowing the possibility of "field" experiments.
My initial idea is to build an enclosure, optics mounts and motor gears from 3/4mm MDF/ply cut on the laser cutter. This can all be held
together with nuts, bolts and rods from a hardware shop. I will spend some time this evening planning the design.
My plan for the implementation would be:
# Design optic mounts (I have an idea for these) (6 hrs)
# Design diffraction grating mount, this includes connection to stepper motor. (12 hrs)
# Design crude electronics: stepper/servo motor controller, light dependent resistor and a white LED. (6hrs)
# Test design on a table in a dark room, or underneath a cardboard box. Controlling the stepper motor, and taking down LDR readings by hand to see what we get. (6 hrs)
# Design bed for optics to be mounted on, this fixes them in position once we know how they are working. (12 hrs)
# Design box to go over the top to block out as much light as possible. (6 hrs)
# Design software that can scan wavelengths (move stepper/servo), take readings from LDR and present them nicely. (12 hrs)
Total 5 days work if we work constantly.
Bearing in mind that we won't work constantly I expect it to take about 3 weeks to get a working prototype and the rest of the time to
optimise and fix bugs. Some tasks can be done in tandem, like the electronic design, optic positioning and software. Once that is done
we can perhaps try experimenting with different light sources, incandescent bulb, different white LEDs, or maybe something more exotic.
With the skill sets of those involved and sensible division of labour (code stuff for coders, arduino stuff for Sol, etc) I really think we
can get this done quickly and build something people will actually want to use.
Anonymous user