Logic Foundry: Rapid Prototyping for FPGA-Based DSP Systems

We introduce the Logic Foundry, a system for the rapid creation and integration of FPGA-based digital signal processing systems. Recognizing that some of the greatest challenges in creating FPGA-based systems occur in the integration of the various components, we have proposed a system that targets the following four areas of integration: design flow integration, component integration, platform integration, and software integration. Using the Logic Foundry, a system can be easily specified, and then automatically constructed and integrated with system level software

The Chirps Prototyping System

Oregon State University has been a pioneer in developing a “Platform for Learning” using their TekBots platform as a fundamental part of their electrical and computer engineering curriculum. At George Fox University, we fundamentally affirm this concept of a “Platform for Learning,” but we additionally desire a “Platform for Prototyping.” By “Platform for Prototyping,” we mean a platform that will enable our engineering students to create significant engineering projects as part of a myriad of service-learning projects, student research, course projects, and the senior capstone experience. To be effective across our curriculum, this system must not only be usable by mechanical, electrical and computer engineers, but by engineering students at the end of their first year in the engineering program. As it is difficult to conceive of a significant engineering application that does not have some form of embedded control system, it is almost imperative that these students obtain the ability to understand and control some form of an embedded control system early in the curriculum. This presents some challenges. Many embedded processing systems make use of one microcontroller controlling a variety of sensors and actuators, requiring that one microcontroller program be written to control every detail of the embedded system. Even simple embedded systems can require a multitude of tiny details including modulation for multiple infrared sensors, pulsewidth modulation control for various dc and servo motors, and interfaces to various components such as LCD displays and wireless interfaces. This level of programming sophistication is generally reserved for upper-division ECE courses where interrupts and timers are discussed in great detail. To address these issues, we have developed a distributed embedded processing system called “Chirps.” Chirps are a suite of boards that can communicate with one another using short command bursts, or “chirps.” Rather than having a central controller that needs to manage pulsewidth- modulation and encoder processing for a variety of motors, a Chirp system will contain a Chirps motor controller board that can be accessed using simple commands such as “Move Forward 100 ticks.” This Chirp abstraction will provide users the ability to rapidly assemble and control larger systems (such as robots) from Chirp modules and easily control them using “chirps.” Although detailed functions are moved to individual control boards, a central controller must still be provided to control the system and send and receive “chirps.” For this purpose, we have enhanced the very popular open-source suite of hardware and software provided by the Arduino project. The Chirps controllers are built on the foundation of the Arduino Diecimila board, with a power and communication interface added to facilitate the “chirp” system. In the first-year engineering sequence, students are taught how to program the basic controller and make calls to the various Chirps boards. Upper-division ECE students develop new Chirps boards as part of the microprocessor course. These boards are targeted toward the needs of the various projects being developed throughout the curriculum. Using the Chirps system, Y University engineering can rapidly prototype and control a variety of significant engineering systems

Observations upon Entering the Kettle

An oft told parable relates how a frog, when dropped in a kettle of hot water, will instantly jump out. But if you drop that frog in a kettle of cold water, and slowly heat it up, the frog will not be aware of the gradual change in its environment and will die in the kettle. I had formerly limited the kettle analogy to the broad concepts of the “worldly culture” alluded to by pastors who use this imagery. Then, after completing educational experience at major state universities and a fifteen year career in industry, I decided to enter upon a career as a professor at a small, Christian, liberal arts university. This change has been quite a shock to my system, but unlike the clever frog, I did not immediately jump out. This experience alerted me to the fact that the kettles in which we live are much smaller and more distinctive than I had previously thought. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the environment of these kettles may be gradually changing, and the results of these changes might affect me in ways that I might find … unpleasant. In having my eyes opened to the Christian-college culture, I have made a few observations about how this kettle seems quite different from the others in which I have previously existed. These observations include aspects about the people who make up this institution, the purpose and mission of the institution, and the operation of the institution. For example, I have been stunned by the diversity of this small group of mostly white, American, Christians. This diversity has profound effects on the mission of the University, as well as the communities of the students and faculty in ways that I did not expect. We have factions, battlegrounds, independent agendas, differing personality traits, insightful viewpoints, and all of these differ wildly from what I have experienced in “other kettles.” It is not my purpose in this paper to set about an agenda for change. As a first year faculty member, I think that it would be naïve of me to assume that I not only have the answers, but that I can even adequately determine the questions. This paper simply purports to put down many of my observations about this culture and to ask myself to what degree I want to reject, embrace, or engage these elements. I reserve the right to change my opinions in the future (which may be seen as adapting to the kettle). Finally, I would like to stimulate dialog amongst other engineers who have gone through this process and ask them where they find that they have rejected, embraced, or engaged this culture – and to what degree these actions were intentional. It may very well be my Lord is asking me to be like the frog and to die in a number of areas – that these observations might indicate not what is out of balance at this institution, but what is out of balance in my own life and in the other kettles in which I have existed. Please forbear me any grievances you might have against my questioning of ideas or institutions that you might hold dear. It is my desire that we all come together in unity for the cause of Christ. It is my hope that this conversation might help us to do so together

MEADE: A Modular, Extensible, Adaptable Design Environment for ASIC and FPGA Development

We present MEADE, a Modular, Extensible, Adaptable Design Environment. MEADE has been developed to answer the need for an adaptive design framework for encapsulation of Computer Aided Design (CAD) tools and management of the massive amounts of data associated with the design process. Other frameworks have existed but lacked the critical open source requirement that enables rapid adaptation to a rapidly advancing design methodology. While the initial application and development of MEADE is targeted toward ASIC and FPGA design, the MEADE engine can be easily adapted to abstract any procedural application. MEADE allows the definition of procedures, which are defined as some sequence or flow of actions, which can be performed by potentially multiple different agents. With this system, design methodology management is specified in the procedures. Tool interoperability is handled by the action definitions. The unique agents perform tool interchangeability (the use of “best-inclass” tools). All details of procedure implementation are extended outside of the MEADE microkernel to the individual agent modules (Source code control, code builds, multi-user simulations, etc.). With an open, extensible system, the design community will be able to integrate specific design flows and account for sitespecific variances. Additionally, new CAD tools can be rapidly integrated into a design flow for effective evaluation. It is believed that the simple modular interface and open-source philosophy will enable MEADE to succeed where other CAD frameworks have failed

Creating a Portable MP3 Player Three-Band Graphic Equalizer and Amplifier for a Circuits Laboratory Final Project

At George Fox University, all engineering students are required to take the sophomore level circuits course. In an effort to more effectively engage the students in the course, a new final project was designed to leverage the interest in music and audio that is shared by undergraduate students. This paper details the design and implementation of a battery powered, three-band graphic equalizer and amplifier for a portable MP3 player or IPOD® and the associated labs and project that accompany it. There are three circuit design elements of the final project, the first teaching students how to use comparators to create a graphic display, the second detailing active filters, and the final lab describing peak rectifiers and the mixer that ties everything together. As a final project experience, each student is given a kit containing a PCB, a speaker, an on/off switch, a batteryholder, and every electronic component required to construct the final system. Students are also required to write a major lab report detailing the operation of the final project. After providing the experience one time, student engagement was noticeably higher, the results of the final project being significantly beyond the expectations of the course instructors

Ongoing Development and Evaluation of an Engineering Service Course

George Fox University has a service-learning course required of all engineering program graduates. The course began in 2010 as a one-credit per semester, four-semester sequence starting in the spring of the sophomore year. This structure provided an overlap of students in their first and second year in the course. All student teams met concurrently one evening per week to work on faculty-provided projects. Each faculty member was responsible for approximately four teams. Faculty and students began each year of the program with excitement, but over time, a number of significant challenges emerged, among these the explosive growth of the George Fox University engineering program and its potential effect on the sustainability of the program. Therefore, in this paper we follow-up on our published review of the first few years of the program. Here we discuss the mechanics of these changes and their continuing effect on the overall program. An increasing number of students necessarily required an increasing number of projects. Faculty had already expressed difficulty in managing four projects and in finding clients with appropriate engineering challenges. Faculty had also recognized that some students lacked motivation to participate in some of the provided projects, especially during their second year of the course. To meet these challenges, the course was restructured as a two-credit per semester, two semester sequence in the junior year. This cut the number of students (and therefore projects) in half. Faculty were generally assigned to oversee one team. Finally, the task of finding projects was given to the incoming juniors who became responsible to propose and present projects for instructor approval. In addition to describing the evolution of the program, statistical analyses of student perceptions of the design process and the influence of service experiences will be presented. These longitudinal data are used in the evaluation of the program as well as the overall presentation of the design process in the engineering curriculum. The details of this paper will provide information to other programs in their development of similar courses. Through the discussion of ongoing areas of concern, those implementing similar programs will gain exposure to issues that are sure to arise

Preparing Engineers for Service

George Fox University has a strong service mentality. As the result of the university’s “Serve Day” at the Oregon School for the Blind, faculty members developed a passion to connect engineering students with service opportunities that require a technical solution. In the spring of 2010, the engineering department initiated a course sequence required for all engineering students. The program affiliated with the EPICS program (started at Purdue University) and utilized much of their course material for documenting the design process. Students’ initial excitement for the course waned as they began to feel burdened by the large documentation requirements; the instructors agreed with their assessment. In this servicelearning context, the intention was to emphasize service, however academic demands dominated. Because of the hands-on design-and-build curriculum, the instructors felt that students could perform effectively as engineers without additional “academic” material overhead. Thus, much of the documentation requirements were curtailed. When the requirements eased, student passion returned; yet, the instructors soon discovered that with this excitement came reduced project performance. Though the faculty was teaching the design process and engaged students with multiple projects throughout the curriculum, students had not effectively learned how to develop project requirements and specifications. Therefore, the instructors revamped the approach and implemented a detailed design-cycle template with a weekly assessment form using Google Apps. The students were not enthusiastic about the added documentation requirements, but they recognized that these processes enabled them to achieve their goal of providing service to others. In this paper the authors detail the development of a service-learning course, recounting the various changes in the approach. They suggest that this learning is a prerequisite for effective engineering service and emphasize that if students are to serve, they must first learn