I recently came across the rodeostat and was quite intrigued as it looks a lot like the design I've independently been kicking around in my head over the last few months - e.g. use the built in ADC and DAC in the teensy and use the arduino development environment for code (or in my case, coded poorly). I also sponsored a group of students to build a simpler version of a potentiostat using an Arduino Uno, but the R-C filtered PWM signal is not ideal.
I'm an interested buyer - in our lab we could use a second potentiostat that we could fit inside our anoxic gloveboxes and not take up too much space.
However, the CV's on the website look kind of "hairy". One example is this: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1091/6464/products/ascorbate_cv_1024x1024.png?v=1501974528
I'm wondering if that is an issue from a previous iteration or is it still a drawback of the Rodeostat?
Also, looking at the design schematic, there is a capacitor in the feedback loop of the control amplifier connected to the counter electrode. In other words, the control amplifier is an op-amp integrator. Is it the discharging/charging behavior of this capacitor on each voltage step that causes the CVs to look like that? (I don't know, but it is a hypothesis.) I suppose alternatively it could be also due to charging of the capacitors in the transimpedance amplifier feedback loop. Clearly the problem doesn't manifest itself in the data I see for the chronoamperometric measurements you've posted on the website. That sort of makes sense because the potential is fixed in those measurements.
Do you have thoughts on this, and would there be a simple design change to avoid it?