ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HEADS ASSOCIATION

January 2019

Featured Article


Remote Access Hardware Laboratories: Are these useful and why not just use simulation?


By: Carlo Manfredini, R&D Director, EMONA TIMS

In the wake of the recent devastation in Puerto Rico, which disabled travel about the region, and with the incoming deluge of IoT device usage, this article seeks to explore the relevance of “remote access”, sometimes known as “virtual” hardware laboratories for use in EE and ECE engineering courses. EE and ECE courses are uniquely positioned to make use of remote access labs because the signals being viewed ie: electrical signals, are already abstracted and mediated to the user via the oscilloscope. You are not controlling a tank of water or a mechanical device you can touch, but are only ever viewing signals on an oscilloscope screen even when seated in front of, and in contact with, the equipment.

Firstly, let us quickly define what is meant by “remote access” hardware labs. We are referring to a traditional hands-on “knobs & switches & connections” laboratory equipment which can be fully controlled and utilised remotely. By “remotely” it is meant via a browser-based control panel GUI with the actual physical equipment communicating to the browser via a LAN or WAN. The access can either be local ie; in the same lab, or at a very large distance ie: international via the internet.

The key issue is the relative learning benefit of this methodology. Let us consider that there are 3 modes of delivery for a laboratory component of an ECE course. The first is “hardware”: the student sitting in contact with and in front of the real hardware experiment in the lab. The second is “simulation”: the student controls a program which mathematically simulates the signal processing of the circuits in the experiment. No experiment equipment is involved at all. Thirdly is control of the experiment via a distance, BUT still controlling real circuits and viewing real signals; not simulations.

Most people agree that using real hands-on hardware is the superior methodology because the direct interaction between student and equipment yields the uniquely-human learning experience as the student explores the experiment through trial and error. The knowledge the student has that they are controlling the experiment parameters reinforces the learning experience: “learning by doing”.

Simulation of course is a magnificent compromise. Some would say superior to even hands-on hardware but perhaps a fairer assessment is that it is an excellent complement to hands-on hardware (ie: pre-lab learning via simulation the night before a lab session has been shown in studies to result in superior learning outcomes in students.) The implementation of electrical signals onscreen via the magic of digital signal processing enables students to explore concepts anywhere and anytime. However the beginning student may or may not realise that the digital implementation of signal processing is vastly different than what happens in the real world:  trigonometric multiplication and addition of sinusoids in continuous time. But, the convenience of simply clicking until a result which appears to be correct shows up conveniently masks this difference between the digital and the analog.

Professors in the field we have met often state that beginning students tend to treat simulators like video games, clicking furiously until they achieve a result without the understanding behind the result in many cases. And if the result is unexpected, they seek to blame the software itself.

Where is the real “learning” occuring in a laboratory component of a course? It is the introductory user’s belief that they are actually in control of a “real world experiment” and that unexpected aspects of signals can occur and can be viewed, such as  saturation, offsets, distortions, imperfections, etc. Working with “real” signals allows the students to (i) prove to themselves that theory they’ve been “taught” correlates with real world behaviour and (ii) prove that the real world includes effects which are unexpected, go beyond introductory theory and need to be explained and resolved.

So with this in mind, the idea of the third methodology, the compromise of studying the real signals from a real experiment, albeit at a distance, becomes a reasonable proposition.

In effect, a wide range of components and equipment can be connected and explored via multiplexed oscilloscope channels and crosspoint switches. Not as many as in a typical simulation package, however enough to give the students an opportunity to reinforce their understanding.

However, in order for this approach to be practical and economical, it needs to cater to multiple students at the same time otherwise you are simply replicating a costly hardware lab at a distance. The beauty of the signals in ECE captured on an oscilloscope is that once the equipment settings have been adjusted and the signal  has been captured ie: by a single shot mode on the oscilloscope, the remote system is free to share itself with another user. It has the possibility to be in effect a “multi-user system”, which is something a traditional hardware lab cannot be.

The oscilloscope only needs to consume 5 ms of real time to capture 10 cycles of a 2kHz signal, and then 10 ms for unit overheads such as setting up the crosspoint switches, and then the unit is free to be used by another user. The unit can queue the “requests” for a signal-snapshot incoming from multiple users and deal with them in order, so multiple users are invisible to each other. The internet adds about 1 second of latency to each request and whilst a student muses the response to their latest interaction or writes in their lab journal,  the remote unit busies itself servicing multiple other users.

From our experience with this type of equipment over the last 15 years a typical unit can service 30 -50 students at the same time independently and transparently.

So now we can think of the third methodology as a multi-user, hardware platform with no setup, no maintenance and no inventory required. Just plug it into the LAN, allocate an IP address and let students log in.



 

Student access can be controlled via uploaded enrolment database files ie spreadsheet files and student activity can be monitored and recorded for confirmation of utilisation levels, time of access (ie: when they all log in 15 mins before the midnight deadline they can be encouraged to get started before the deadline !) etc.

An important aspect to consider when using a remote system is that the student user must “believe” they are actually controlling the hardware unit themselves. To achieve this “confidence” a webcam can be directed to show the unit with an external oscilloscope placed alongside it so that users can view their activities resulting in the remote changes on the oscilloscope in real time. Once this “confidence” in the remote unit is established, the webcam is no longer needed.

We live in an era where we interact with spacecraft millions of miles away, albeit with a rather longer latency than 1 second, so our ability to relate to and benefit from the use of remote hardware is no longer in question. The IoT, something we’ve had since the beginning of remote industrial control panels, suggests that this third alternative to hardware and software has its place in situations where distance is an issue, or cost of multiple lab stations is prohibitive, or availability of lab time scarce. So this compromise can be useful and complementary to the others.

In conclusion, the twin pillars of the laboratory, hands-on-hardware & simulation software remain the main tools of preference, however the third wheel of “remote access hardware” has a place as a complement and a compromise between these two pillars. As Benjamin Franklin famously said “Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn”.

-----
Carlo Manfredini is the R & D director and co-founder of EMONA TIMS, Australia, who have been designing and manufacturing ECE teaching laboratory equipment, both hardware and software for 30 years. As well for the last 15 years they have also delivered a large number of remote access ECE laboratory units throughout a diverse range of countries such as USA, Thailand, Australia, Syria, China, Qatar, Vietnam, Costa Rica, UK. As designers and manufacturers of 3 different methodologies of laboratory solutions they uniquely understand the merits and limitations of each, and attempt to briefly address some of these in this article based on their years of  experience.

 




 
 Follow ECEDHA on Twitter
 


 

View the latest issue!
‚Äč

On Demand Webinars
From Concept to Communications: Putting the
ECEDHA Brand Toolkit to Work

In partnership with Tailfin Marketing
 
New Tools for State of the Art Research and
Industry-Ready Students
Sponsored by Keysight Technologies
 
A Case Study on Connected Maintenance Reliability
Sponsored by Fluke Corporation
 
Rethinking Electronics Fundamentals
Sponsored by National Instruments
 
Oscilloscopes for the Classroom
Sponsored by Keysight Technologies

E-mail the event date, name and link to information@ecedha.org to be added to the calendar.

July 25
2019
Great Lakes Regional Meeting 
University of Illinois at Chicago - Chicago, IL

October
TBD
Northwest Regional Meeting
UMass Lowell - Lowell, MA

March
18-21, 2020:

 2020 ECEDHA Annual   Conference and ECExpo
 Renaissance Orlando Sea   World -  Orlando, FL

Support ECE education! 
Become an ECEDHA Corporate Sponsor

Exhibit and sponsorship opportunities for 2019 are now available!


>> View Sponsorship Prospectus

Contact Kim Simpao
for more information
+1-773-315-7779 (mobile)
ksimpao@ecedha.org

Corporate Members


 


 

 
 


 

 

 

 
 



 Mouser

National Instruments 

 quanser

 
 

 Texas Instruments