Hi Terry, > > If the control logic looks like being at all complex you'll probably > > want to simulate the system all in software; your control logic > > versus random events/you acting as the gods. ... > Thanks. I'll look into that, although I doubt that we'll be writing > software for some time. We need to get the system design nailed down > first and we can't do that until we've built and tested some sensors.
That seems quite a strict order to progress. Build and test some sensors; levels, flow, ..? Repeat until they work. Design a theory of how they can be used. Make enough sensors and put them in planned positions. Have Pi gather data. Implement logic. Work out how far to backtrack and re-do based on problems found. Or, model system to see what minimal simplest sensor allows the desired result, e.g. binary "water at my level" switch, no flow. Logic is continually varying the pump PWM as it responds to these flipping switches in a "plate spinning" up-a-bit, down-a-bit, scramble to keep feet dry and attain equilibrium. Some "emergency off" or "all hands to the pump" switches could override the river-level ones. The river flow might undulate a bit, though that could make it more interesting to see. No idea if that could work, but software simulation seems an easier way to experiment, or a system could even be "run" on paper or a spreadsheet with rows being time-passing "ticks". Playing around in the water with sensor design could be in parallel, if only there was enough volunteer time. :-) Cheers, Ralph. -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Tuesday, 2017-06-06 20:00 Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ New thread: mailto:dorset@mailman.lug.org.uk / CHECK IF YOU'RE REPLYING Reporting bugs well: http://goo.gl/4Xue / TO THE LIST OR THE AUTHOR
