From: Doug Sutherland (wearable_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 2001-12-07 08:21:03
Hi Moritz,
I feel like I should aplogize for chewing up so much
band width and having so many opinions. Especially
for someone who hasn't done much! I think I will try
to listen more than talk from here on in ...
> 1. Could we agree on the idea to improve the current
> modularEEG design first before considering anything
> totally different from this?
That's what I'm interested in. All of these designs
are interesting, but I like the microconroller based
designs. There is some serious potential with these.
> I think stand alone devices would also be interesting,
> but not right now.
I agree, and I think a standalone design will be much
more challenging to do a good job at. With a PC on
the back end you have an infinite number of ways to
explore charting, graphing, logging, many types of
filtering, many protocols, etc. With a standalone
device you have very few cycles and storage to play
with, and you really have nothing till its all done,
you can't really develop incrementally very easily.
> Also all ideas without the microcontroller (comEEG,
> soundcard and so on) would in my opinion result in
> an eeg with much less features.
Agreed. Not to downplay the potential or the work
that was done (very interesting!), but the UC based
designs are a lot more flexible.
> We should at least make a design that's better
> then the brainmaster.
Sounds good to me. Here are the specs:
http://www.brainmaster.com/productinfo/bmr2emodule/systemspecs/systemspecs.html
WaveRider has better software than Brainmaster. I am
going to do some research/analysis on all of the low
end EEG systems, will post a report here when I am
done with that.
> About complexity: We now have all these cool features
> like right-leg driver and shield drivers for better
> signal quality.
Better signal quality sounds great to me.
> Without these, we could get a simpler design (like
> Joergs first RS232EEG).
I'd like to hear Joerg's opinion on this. Which one
should be target for building prototypes? Should we
just use the RS232EEG or wait for ModularEEG to be
verified as ready for home assembly?
> Also, the current design is intended for home-made
> assembly. The circuit board can also be easily
> etched at home. Thats why no SMD parts are used.
I'm glad, and I hope it stays that way. I have done
a lot of fiddling around with circuits on proto
boards, but I've never etched any PCBs. Can someone
direct me to some good info/instructions on how to
do that please?
> 2. More people should register at SourceForge and
> contribute things there. It would be better to put
> some of the great links and so on to our homepage
> and to get some order in all these information.
I have tons of good links and I would be happy to
add them to the sourceforge site. I will try to
register and explore how to add web pages.
> It would be nice if we could get some substructures
> with individuals responsible for different parts of
> the project.
Right now it's hard to tell even where to start. The
code for the microcontroller based designs will be
very different that ComADC for example. We need to
pick one and go with it.
> The most interesting part will be the open-source
> software development. But this can only really start
> if the programmers have devices....
Yes. I am ordering the Atmel microcontrollers and
most of the other parts right away. I will have a go
at home etching the ModularEEG PCB as soon as Joerg
says it's ready for using.
Question: There is a sample data stream in the
RS232EEG download. Is this the same format as the
newer ModularEEG? Can we start programming without
the hardware?
-- Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:33 BST