Wait!
I might have spoken too soon!
What about this one?
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/bourns-inc/3382H-1-103/2080233
Edit:
So in this page there’s a video showing how this rotary resistive sensor works, and it works the same way except this one only rotates 330 degrees which is enough for my application.
I took the other one apart to see if I could reduce the size and they’re built the same way.
That’s just a standard joystick-type pot.
All regular pots should work.
A single pot is good for volume and other things that have a low/high value.
Continous rotation is better for things like adjusting color I think. (Since it goes back to the beginning, just like a color wheel.) However, you can still use one that doesn’t go all the way around.
I see…
My original idea was to have a high and low value as the knob I have has a stop, that I could remove but then the numbering in it would loose meaning ase it goes from 0 to 30 and I wanted to keep that as part of the functionality.
I know it’s limiting, but Like it that way.
I don’t mind going through some colors and back without having to go all the way around.
Just like if I can make the blade go unstable I wouldn’t want it to reset back if I kept going I. The same direction, I’d rather it goes all the way unstable when I hit the stop in one direction and go back to normal if I go all the way in the other direction , that’s just one example.
I ordered that pot because it fits perfectly inside what I have, would that one be ok?
Also, by connecting both leads to two analog inputs, would that mean we can have two different actions at the same time, one per analog?
So in that way one analog could call for a change in color while the other for a change in blade stability?
The only difference is that while one goes up, the other one goes down, but it should be possible, no?
This would require some coding, but should be doable.
Sure. Two pots that do two different things should just work.
Now I’m confused.
lol!
No confusion, you got what I meant, that was just me trying to add context and failing miserably, but you got what I meant.
I’m glad it’s possible, even if it requires a bit of coding.
Did you get the LCD screens?
Yes, but I haven’t had time to do anything with them.
(Because I’m busy setting up the xmas display.)
Priorities!
I get it! 
Have fun!!
It’ll be a while before I can install it on my saber, as I’m in the 3D CAD stage, and it looks like it’ll take a while as this is a hard one!
But any time you’re able, let me know and I can hook the board to the screen and help you test whatever you need.
what about on the fly blade length and speed. A sliding potentiometer coded directly to the led strip? getting the sound to follow might be a trick but still
Do you mean that this would be a part of a settings menu, or do you mean that this would be how you actually extend the blade? (Either way, I have some reservations.)
I think, he means changing the length of the blade and/or extension/retraction speed depending on the current potentiometer value.
While I can see why speed of extension/retraction modulation via potentiometer could be a cool feature, I’m failing to see the use of blade length modulation, what would be the purpose of having the blade partially illuminated?
To me it would look like a malfunctioning saber.
Do you not need to query to initiate a read from RFID? The board I was using for a different project required that, which is why I ask…
The board I was using didn’t even have a way to receive data.
Interesting…
HI, sorry for vanishing
So yes for how I would actually control the blade. Giving the user the ability to control not only the speed of the ignition but the length. Idea came from a friend I’m building a saber for , he reads a bunch of the books and they speak about a jedi being able to control the speed of the ignition as well length on the fly depending on the situation. The term he used was “urgency”
I agree with you on the length thing, actually I rarely but blades in my sabers. I build them to handle and enjoy all the details. That said I don’t really care about the length honestly I just assumed that one kinda follows the other using the types of led strips we use . Probably a bad idea to assume
Urgency?
What urgency do you need to meet that is faster than the speed of light?
I mean, I totally get what you mean, but the length of the blade has no effect in urgency when a blade can come out as fast as what the light takes to travel it’s length.
And while yes, a shorter distance means light travel less, at that speed it’s just negligible.
It’s a cool idea though, but adjusting the length would look like part of the blade doesn’t work.
I don’t think it would look as good in practice as it appears to be in concept.
It can probably be done though…
yeah I agree on the length thing but again it was take from StarWars books. I would think from a code stand point the addressable LEDS would get tied to the “range” of the potentiometer. If so you could control each LED as you slide the potentiometer forward. ( like a mixer control ).
It would be trivial to use something like:
InOutHelperL<AnalogReadPin<data4Pin>>
to directly control the blade extension with a potentiometer, however, the sound wouldn’t match up, and there isn’t an easy way to make it match up, so something would have to be done about that.
Would something like
InOutHelperL<Divide<WavLen<>,AnalogReadPin<data4Pin>>>
be a thing?
Sure.
A sensible thing? No, I don’t think so.
What are you even trying to do?