FireBox: A Tiny DCC Train Controller

[dcutting]

@dcutting

I know the unit does not have a Loconet connection but is there any way to use this in conjunction with a UR92 for use on a layout where some users do not have a wifi type throttle and only have the radio/IR throttles?

I would like to try and use this on some of club's travel layouts and not everyone if WIFI capable.

I'm not 100% certain on this, but I do imagine that with a locobuffer-USB or PRx device, you could hook up the loconet bus to your computer in addition to the FireBox, and use JMRI as the interface between the two systems. Like I said, I'm not totally certain about details on that.

Quick update - I'm scheduled for FCC testing on Friday of next week, so ordering of boards is coming quickly. Assuming, of course, that FCC testing goes well. Keep your fingers crossed!

[ridinshotgun]

I'm not 100% certain on this, but I do imagine that with a locobuffer-USB or PRx device, you could hook up the loconet bus to your computer in addition to the FireBox, and use JMRI as the interface between the two systems. Like I said, I'm not totally certain about details on that.

Quick update - I'm scheduled for FCC testing on Friday of next week, so ordering of boards is coming quickly. Assuming, of course, that FCC testing goes well. Keep your fingers crossed!

Not knowing enough about expansion boards and such, can a USB connection be added to an extension board then connected through that and a USB cable to a lococbuffer and thence to the UR92?  That could be a self contained system or am I wrong in thinking that?

The firebox only has one usb connection, correct?

[dcutting]

Not knowing enough about expansion boards and such, can a USB connection be added to an extension board then connected through that and a USB cable to a lococbuffer and thence to the UR92?  That could be a self contained system or am I wrong in thinking that?

The firebox only has one usb connection, correct?

That's a good thought - I see a couple issues though. First, the FireBox only has one USB. You could free up that USB by using the WiFi chip to communicate with the device, but the USB is a slave device only, and could not communicate with the UR92 because it is also a slave device. You have to have a host somewhere in there, and for that you're going to have to run a computer. In order to interact with the LocoNet system, I would have to design a custom board for the FireBox. Not sure that Digitrax would really license a LocoNet device that is directly replacing their main products. For now I'd suggest sticking with JMRI running on a Raspberry Pi, etc.

David

[C855B]

... For now I'd suggest sticking with JMRI running on a Raspberry Pi, etc.

Bingo.

And beware the "feature creep" monster. Legends are made of really good concepts that morphed into boat anchors because of "...can you add this?..." requests.

[POVC]

I'm not 100% certain on this, but I do imagine that with a locobuffer-USB or PRx device, you could hook up the loconet bus to your computer in addition to the FireBox, and use JMRI as the interface between the two systems. Like I said, I'm not totally certain about details on that.

Quick update - I'm scheduled for FCC testing on Friday of next week, so ordering of boards is coming quickly. Assuming, of course, that FCC testing goes well. Keep your fingers crossed!

Any updates on how the FCC Testing went?

[dcutting]

Any updates on how the FCC Testing went?

Just got back from Colorado last night, the test lab is in Longmont. That was a lot of driving, 8 hours from Logan UT to Longmont, CO.

FCC testing was successful! We had a 10dB margin below the allowed limits, which is really, really good. They said it was almost too good to be true. Turns out that the locomotive I tested with the system was way out of FCC spec, even on DC. I won't name the manufacturer here, but it was a reputable HO scale manufacturer. We believe that it was a result of the brushed motor arcing and spewing all sorts of nasty frequencies. The hobby should really think about moving to brushless design motors. Those tend to be much quieter.

David

[Rivet Miscounter]

beware the "feature creep" monster. Legends are made of really good concepts that morphed into boat anchors because of "...can you add this?..." requests.

This.  x1000.

And sign me up for not being in a hurry, and would prefer ample testing to getting it in my hands tomorrow.   There have been a lot of changes since most of us signed on the dotted line.  Don't get me wrong...I think it's great that the support received was so overwhelming that improvements could be proffered.   But just know from my perspective I'm patient and willing to let this thing run out a little longer.  I appreciate your efforts for this project/product.

[C855B]

FCC testing was successful! We had a 10dB margin below the allowed limits, which is really, really good. ...

Most excellent! Having a side gig for many years chasing spurious RFI (...and being the source of it on occasion...), that is impressive. Would have liked to see what the spectrum analyzer had to say. Any chance of posting an output image? 

[dcutting]

Would have liked to see what the spectrum analyzer had to say. Any chance of posting an output image? 

Yup!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[C855B]

Yup!

Thanks! Interesting fundamental there around 350MHz, but very little at the 2nd harmonic where I would expect an artifact, and nothing but noise where the usually-pesky 3rd would be. Nice job!

[peteski]

. . .
We believe that it was a result of the brushed motor arcing and spewing all sorts of nasty frequencies. The hobby should really think about moving to brushless design motors. Those tend to be much quieter.

David

Brushless motor would require a special driver circuitry for DC and DCC, or have the driver integrated into the DCC decoder.  The brushless motor driver is a bit more complex than the usual PWM driver for standard motors.   Sure, it would be possible, but it would likely take a while to get it generally accepted.

As far as American models and RFI from the motor go, that is a problem.  While European model manufacturers have been including an RFI suppression circuit (pair of chokes, and 1 or 2 caps) in their models for 50 years, American manufacturers do not (not sure why - FCC probably has more forgiving rules than the equivalent European organization).

So models made for American market spew out all sorts of RFI from the motor.  But as the production of American models was outsourced to China (where many European models are also manufactured, more and more American models do include the RFI suppression circuit. But that causes another problem:  Some DCC decoders do not "like" that extra circuitry, and they cannot control the motor speed really well, so it ends up being removed, and we go back to the motors spewing lots of Radio Frequency noise.

[u18b]

History...
IMHO.... one of the loudest, sparkiest stiff 3-pole motors I have encountered in the last 20 or so years in our models was the one in the Arnold S-2.
I really did not like that motor at all.

Present...
I know David wants to protect the manufacturer from needless speculation and critique......

.... but I sure am curious which motor (locomotive) he used.   

[u18b]

I'm getting excited about these.
Looking forward to them.

[BobRunty]

Just got an e-mail the project has been abandoned. Hopefully get some money back.

[ridinshotgun]

I got the same email. That is more than a little disappointing.