Searching \ for '[EE]: 8 bit uController with Lowest power consumpt' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/power.htm?key=power
Search entire site for: '8 bit uController with Lowest power consumpt'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]: 8 bit uController with Lowest power consumpt'
2006\06\19@062802 by Pang

picon face
Hi all,

Been searching for a 8 bit or 16 bit microcontroller
with the lowest power consumption possible. Any
recommendation? I am looking for those with at least
10 GPIO. My intention is to power the uC using a
3000mAh battery for maybe 5 years...? Is this
possible? The uController may be in normal mode at
most 4 hours a day and the remaining in sleep mode...

Thanks for any infor provided.... If there are no such
a low powered uC,any battery that can provide a higher
mAh?

Have a good day.

chicken_feet

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

2006\06\19@072654 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 6/19/06, Pang <spam_OUTmailtopangTakeThisOuTspamyahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Been searching for a 8 bit or 16 bit microcontroller
> with the lowest power consumption possible. Any
> recommendation? I am looking for those with at least
> 10 GPIO. My intention is to power the uC using a
> 3000mAh battery for maybe 5 years...? Is this
> possible? The uController may be in normal mode at
> most 4 hours a day and the remaining in sleep mode...
>
> Thanks for any infor provided.... If there are no such
> a low powered uC,any battery that can provide a higher
> mAh?
>

It is said that MSP430 family is one of the best in
this type of applcation.

2006\06\19@080424 by John Chung

picon face
Xiaofan,


  Is the usage nanowatts? You are basing your
consumption on 32kHz Xtal?

John

--- Xiaofan Chen <.....xiaofancKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2006\06\19@090931 by Stef Mientki

flavicon
face


Xiaofan Chen wrote:

{Quote hidden}

For a typical application, at 3V,
mainly running on 32 kHz or asleep,
sometimes running on 8MHz, the 16F88LP used just as little as the MSP430.
Although the circuit was never build it should run 10 years on a CR2033
(twice the capacity of a CR2032).

Stef Mientki

2006\06\19@093807 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>   Is the usage nanowatts? You are basing your
> consumption on 32kHz Xtal?

If you do the calculations you'll see that the mean consumption can be
hundreds of microwatts - well within the scope of some processors. As
you note, he needs to be more specific about the task for anyone to be
able to give a really useful answer.


       RM







2006\06\19@100158 by John Chung

picon face
> For a typical application, at 3V,
> mainly running on 32 kHz or asleep,
> sometimes running on 8MHz, the 16F88LP used just as
> little as the MSP430.
> Although the circuit was never build it should run
> 10 years on a CR2033
> (twice the capacity of a CR2032).
>
> Stef Mientki
> --
10years! WOW! The only application that I know runs
that long is a RTC clock from Dallas with embedded
battery! 16F88 is one uChip that I am impressed with.
Read the datasheet before and was amazed by it's
afforability and accessibility.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

2006\06\19@103342 by Mike Harrison

flavicon
face
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:01:57 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>> For a typical application, at 3V,
>> mainly running on 32 kHz or asleep,
>> sometimes running on 8MHz, the 16F88LP used just as
>> little as the MSP430.
>> Although the circuit was never build it should run
>> 10 years on a CR2033
>> (twice the capacity of a CR2032).
>>
>> Stef Mientki
>> --
>10years! WOW! The only application that I know runs
>that long is a RTC clock from Dallas with embedded
>battery! 16F88 is one uChip that I am impressed with.
>Read the datasheet before and was amazed by it's
>afforability and accessibility.

There is often not a huge difference in power consumption between micros doing similar amounts of
work. Where the important differences lie is in how flexible they are in controlling how fast they
run, plus issues like available wakeup methods, ability to disable BOD in sleep etc.
In some cases you can actually achieve lower overall consumption using a faster clock - you just
don't run it for as long.
You need to look carefully at your app and see where you can save power, then look at a micro that
is capable of running 'only just' fast enough, and is capable of getting sufficiently close to 'only
just' for as much of the time as possible.  
The nanowatt PICs score heavily as you have lots of clock options that can be changed on-the-fly as
the application demands, even for a few cycles if necessary.
Need to wait a while (say, for an external analogue sensor to settle)? - just drop to 31KHz clock
for a cycle or two..!

2006\06\19@111353 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
I agree. The PIC16LF88 proved to be incredibly easy on the battery once
everything that wasn't needed was turned off (ADC, unused timers, used
at 32Khz, etc).

--Bob

Stef Mientki wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\06\19@121341 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 11:28 AM 6/19/2006 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Been searching for a 8 bit or 16 bit microcontroller
>with the lowest power consumption possible. Any
>recommendation? I am looking for those with at least
>10 GPIO. My intention is to power the uC using a
>3000mAh battery for maybe 5 years...? Is this
>possible? The uController may be in normal mode at
>most 4 hours a day and the remaining in sleep mode...

It depends on the clock speed. At 32kHz for your several
hours per day there are probably solutions. At 4MHz, probably
not.

Look at the MSP430 series as well as the nanowatt series PICs.
TI has generally done a better job than Microchip in designing
peripherals such as BOR which will consume very little current.
Their port leakage spec is also *much* better than Microchip's
(50nA vs. 1uA). Obviously that current has to come fromm the
power supply, and is multiplied by the number of I/O.

The very lowest power consumption is probably from some mask
programmed single cell 4-bit controllers designed for watches and such
like, but they are not practical for low-volume applications.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speffspamspam_OUTinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->>Test equipment, parts OLED displys http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff


2006\06\19@134506 by Stef Mientki

flavicon
face

> Look at the MSP430 series as well as the nanowatt series PICs.
> TI has generally done a better job than Microchip in designing
> peripherals such as BOR which will consume very little current.
> Their port leakage spec is also *much* better than Microchip's
> (50nA vs. 1uA).
Reading the specs I see, for the power supply current:
16LF88 sleep mode typ=0.1 uA, max 0.5 uA
MSP430 LPM4       typ=0.1 uA, max=0.5uA
Is that why you put "much" inbetween quotes ;-)

Stef Mientki

2006\06\19@210030 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Stef Mientki wrote:

>> Their port leakage spec is also *much* better than Microchip's
>> (50nA vs. 1uA).

> Reading the specs I see, for the power supply current:
> 16LF88 sleep mode typ=0.1 uA, max 0.5 uA
> MSP430 LPM4       typ=0.1 uA, max=0.5uA
> Is that why you put "much" inbetween quotes ;-)

I read that "port leakage", not "supply current". In addition to the
current into the supply pin of the processor, you possibly have currents
into input pins (depending on the circuit). These may be more significant
than the current into the supply pin.

Gerhard

2006\06\20@141721 by Stef Mientki

flavicon
face


Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Stef Mientki wrote:
>
>  
>>> Their port leakage spec is also *much* better than Microchip's
>>> (50nA vs. 1uA).
>>>      
>
>  
>> Reading the specs I see, for the power supply current:
>> 16LF88 sleep mode typ=0.1 uA, max 0.5 uA
>> MSP430 LPM4       typ=0.1 uA, max=0.5uA
>> Is that why you put "much" inbetween quotes ;-)
>>    
>
> I read that "port leakage", not "supply current". In addition to the
> current into the supply pin of the processor, you possibly have currents
> into input pins (depending on the circuit). These may be more significant
> than the current into the supply pin.
The sun is shining and therefor it's very hot ;-)

The only current you can't bypass is the supply current,
so that should be first one to compare.
The input leakage current, only yields for used inputs,
and can be switched off by using low leakage switches or FETs.

So I don't think there's a general processor with the lowest power
consumption,
(as someone already mentioned),
only when you know the exact application,
you can choose the one with lowest power consumption.

In the design I had in mind, I've choosen 16LF88,
where the one input I needed would have been buffered with some FET.
The achieved power consumption was equal to the MSP430,
but the main advantage was that I'm familiar with PICs.

cheers,
Stef

2006\06\20@231011 by Pang

picon face
Hi all,

Thank for everyone feedback on the post. I am still at
a prelim. study stage, as such, many things are not
decided yet. Anyway, I have just checked on a battery
size C (roughly the size of two AA) that provides
8.5Ah  at 3.6V with up to 10 yrs shelf life. That's
good news. :-)  Need to check out on the discharge
rate though...

The 4 hours are just a total estimated time of active
operation per day.  The temperature can be sub zero at
times but can never be above 50 Celcius.

I intend to run it at 3.3V and most probably at 35kHz
since my main operation is to read the sensors and
display on the LCD. Thanks to several listers for
reminding me on the 'port leakage' and 'current into
input pin' criteria.

Anyway, still waiting for the reply from Atmel on the
availability of the Pico Power products while
gathering info for the power consumption on the
Microchip Nanowatt Technology and the Renesas Super
Low Power Tiny uC. The problem is that, you can only
get a general listing of the current consumption and
most of the time with different parameters (speed, Vcc
level ). Anyway, will list out all these again on this
list when I finally get hold of all the details in
summary form.

Thanks and good day ahead.

Best rgds,
chicken_feet





Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

2006\06\21@005033 by Chetan Bhargava

picon face
Apart from active mode, MSP430 has 5 LPM (Low power modes). It runs
off of a 32KHz xtal and has an internal DCO (digitally controlled
oscillator). For long life of the processor, the processor normally
runs at 32KHz. When processing speed is required, the user program
enables the DCO in < 1µSec. The DCO can go up to 16 MHz.

Way it works out is that the processor sleeps for long intervals,
wakes up, wakes up DCO for the processing, turns off DCO, and sleeps
again.

More details can be had from http://ti.com/msp430

Cheers,

--
Chetan Bhargava
Web: http://www.bhargavaz.net
Blog: http://microz.blogspot.com

2006\06\21@223832 by John Chung

picon face
Pang,

   Standard batteries especially alkaline tends to
leak after leaving it for a while in the unit. I had
to repair quite a few units at home thanks to their
low quality. This happens to energizer and duracell as
well. You may want to use better grade batteries.

John

--- Pang <@spam@mailtopangKILLspamspamyahoo.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2006\06\22@015558 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>    Standard batteries especially alkaline tends to
> leak after leaving it for a while in the unit. I had
> to repair quite a few units at home thanks to their
> low quality. This happens to energizer and duracell as
> well. You may want to use better grade batteries.

Are you sure that it was *alkaline* batteries that you had leak.

Whereas I have seen innumerable "carbon-zinc"/Le Clanche cells leak
when left in equipment, I do not recall having seen a single Alkaline
do so. (Which isn't to say that it doesn't happen). Alkaline batteries
have very much greater shelf lives than basic carbon-zinc and I
imagine would not 'leak' at least until they were essentially
exhausted. That should be 5+ years if unused.


       Russell McMahon

2006\06\22@024256 by Robert Rolf

picon face


Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I have had MANY brand name alkaline cells leak. Most still
had a reasonable (20%) charge left in them. Quite the mess in
remote controls, MP3 players, digital cameras, etc.
Even the 'Industrial' Duracell and Energizers have leaked.
I could find no obvious reason why some in a batch would leak,
and others would not. None were in hostile environments. e.g.
left in the sun.

Le Clanche cells leak because the zinc wall is consumed by the
chemistry of producing electrons.

I have never seen a lithium battery leak, but I suspect it
probably can.

Robert

2006\06\22@035045 by John Chung

picon face
Very tempted in driving a knife through a lithium
coin........ Evil.:)=

John


>
> I have never seen a lithium battery leak, but I
> suspect it
> probably can.
>
> Robert
>
> --

2006\06\22@075933 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 6/22/06, Russell McMahon <KILLspamapptechKILLspamspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:

>
> Are you sure that it was *alkaline* batteries that you had leak.
>

Yes I am very sure I have both Energizer and Duracell batteries
leaking after a long period of time.

2006\06\22@081657 by Dave Lag

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
>>   Standard batteries especially alkaline tends to
>>leak after leaving it for a while in the unit. I had
>>to repair quite a few units at home thanks to their
>>low quality. This happens to energizer and duracell as
>>well. You may want to use better grade batteries.
>
> Are you sure that it was *alkaline* batteries that you had leak.
>
> Whereas I have seen innumerable "carbon-zinc"/Le Clanche cells leak
> when left in equipment, I do not recall having seen a single Alkaline
> do so. (Which isn't to say that it doesn't happen). Alkaline batteries
> have very much greater shelf lives than basic carbon-zinc and I
> imagine would not 'leak' at least until they were essentially
> exhausted. That should be 5+ years if unused.
>
>         Russell McMahon


I had a batch of duracells leak at home in a rediculously short amount
of time. I wrote them a real nasty letter (told them they were were
worse than carbon zinc), they replaced all the batteries and the ruined
devices.


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...