Open Source Russian Vacuum Fluorescent Tube Clock
ptorrone writes "Hacker extraordinaire Ladyada (whose open source hardware projects we have discussed before) has just published a complete how-to, with design document, on making your own open source Russian vacuum fluorescent clock. The vacuum fluorescent tubes aren't as dangerous as (high-voltage) Nixie tubes, and there seem to be more of them available in the world. If you're not interested in building a clock from scratch, you can also pick up a kit version. All the schematics, source code, and files are available on the project's page."
but it's hackable and they even saved a few bucks by using the microcontroller to create the HV to run the tube.
The microcontroller is an atmega168, just like what's in the Arduino but I didn't see if it was straight C or Arduino code.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
First off, LadyAda is awesome. I really don't need to say any more than that.
I've been wanting to make something like this for a while now. A year or two ago, I bought a big box of the same old Soviet 'vacuum fluorescent indicator' tubes, but I was always having trouble working out the hardware involved, especially the power supply. Using a boost converter is a great idea which might have occurred to me if I had had any experience with them at the time. (Other projects have since taken priority)
My enclosure design wasn't quite as...ah, 'conservative' as a nice simple laser-cut plexiglass box though :) http://media.giantpachinkomachineofdoom.com/blog/2008-06/images/clockwip3.png
Now I'm going to have to take another try at it! :D
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
And what if I want to add a stopwatch or countdown timer mode to it? Or make it count in an alternate base or time system?
You could just rip the clock out of an old VCR.
I'm not sure that the "Open Source" moniker has any relevance to hardware projects like this. In software, the "source code" is the actual raw material that a complied application is made of. In hardware, the "source" is physical electronic components.
I guess you could call the freely-available plans and schematics "the source" but that doesn't make much sense, because without hardware components, you can't compile it into a working device. So the term doesn't really apply, especially as we've had freely available electronic schematics for decades, and nobody ever called them "open source." This terminology just seems to be a way to seem cool and trendy.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I had a digital watch in 1979 that could do a stopwatch and day of the week. Do you honestly think it had a programmed CPU in it? It was all hardwired TTL logic on a single chip. You can do quite a lot with hardware alone - ask the creators of Pong.
That's called a schematic or circuit diagram. It isn't "the source."
It's not the source *code*.
There are "open source" beers and colas. This is in that same vein. Making a big fuss over the word "source" is a bit silly.