Searching \ for '[OT] Arduino was pointless (V G) - History of Ardu' 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/index.htm?key=arduino+was+pointless
Search entire site for: 'Arduino was pointless (V G) - History of Ardu'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Arduino was pointless (V G) - History of Ardu'
2010\12\20@134534 by Bruce Fleming

picon face

On Dec 19, 2010, at 9:40 AM, V G wrote:

{Quote hidden}

You can easily develop with a "full" Arduino board, and then use it to simply program more chips that you are going to use in other projects. Installing a ZIF DIP socket on the Arduino board makes it trivial. Your Arduino board is filling the same role (with the same order of expense) as a PICKIT2. Just as with PIC chips, an ATmgea can be used in a project with very little external hardware.
If you have the tools and knowledge to be productive with other systems, that's great. Don't turn your nose up at folks using Arduinos just because they don't have to know assembler to use them.

>>>-Pete
Arduino has an interesting story behind it. Without getting into all the background, Arduino is meant for anybody who wants to build an interactive project. Check out the http://www.processing.org/    website. Have a look at the Exhinition link. There are so many cool projects that probably would not have happened if the creators of Processing and Arduino had not made programming so accessible to those with little esoteric knowledge.
Processing was a project for a course in university that was produced to allow artists to express themselves with a computer. The Arduino IDE is based on Processing and the two interact very easily, or so I read, and hope to find out soon. BTW, I do have some electronics background from community college so I am not just using it for artistic purposes and will be learning PIC's and AVR's as well as Arduino. I have already used the BS2.
Arduino is a great avenue for all people who want to start using mcu's. It lead me to investigate AVR's.
Bruce
                                         

2010\12\20@140456 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Bruce Fleming wrote:
> Don't turn your nose up at folks using Arduinos just
> because they don't have to know assembler to use them.

Sounds like a legitimate reason to me.

There is nothing wrong with using a easy tool just to get a particular job
done.  However, there is a big difference between someone just using the
tool and someone that understands how it works.  Many people can drive cars
effectively without understanding their innards, but there is still a useful
and important distinction between a mechanic and the ordinary non-mechanic
driver.

This is the PIClist (the mechanic's list).  "Turning up your nose" is
perhaps not the right way to express the distinction, but the distinction is
still meaningful, and it's useful to know which side someone is on.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2010\12\20@141922 by David Robertson

picon face
>
>
> >>You can easily develop with a "full" Arduino board, and then use it to
> simply program more chips that you are going to use in other >>projects.
> Installing a ZIF DIP socket on the Arduino board makes it trivial. Your
> Arduino board is filling the same role (with the same >>order of expense) as
> a PICKIT2. Just as with PIC chips, an ATmgea can be used in a project with
> very little external hardware.
>
>
Actually, (as much as I do like arduino) the AVRs must first be programmed
with a bootloader by traditional in-system programmer before they can be
programmed using an arduino board, however one can still use the arduino IDE
to write and compile code which can then be used with stock AVRs programmed
by an ISP. Or, there actually is a way to use the arduino as an AVR
programmer, but not in the way you described. It involves leaving the
arduino AVR in the arduino and loading the ArduinoISP sketch (included in
the latest version of the IDE) and connecting the arduino to another AVR to
be programmed. More information is available here
http://arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/ArduinoISP

2010\12\20@170322 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:18 AM, David Robertson wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Yes, I've used that method. The Arduino IDE uses avdude under the hood to program the device. One can use any avr compatible toolchain to build images which can then be written using your programmer of choice. Lots of ways to get from code to a programmed chip.

The point I was trying to make was that the PICKIT should have been compared to a full arduino board, not just a ATmega chip.

As somebody else pointed out, the Arduinos are handy for prototyping and one-offs. Building a commercial product around a full Arduino board would be cost prohibitive.

-Pete

2010\12\20@171246 by A S

picon face
V G wrote:
> True. But I'd rather not spend $30 for an Arduino when I can get my choice
> of PIC for around $5 for a high end, or $2 for a low end, or Launchpad for
> $4.30. Without the Arduino support components and development platform, it's
> just an ATMega328, which is just as easy/hard to get started as a PIC.
> Besides, the PICKIT2 is incredibly awesome. All I need is the PICKIT2, a
> PIC, some wires and I'm ready to go.

You may wish to give a try to "Netduino - .NET Micro Framework Arduino
Compatible Board" in C# / Visual Studio. http://www.netduino.com
C# / Visual Studio may have some advantages over MPLAB (and some
disadvantages as well)

2010\12\20@181908 by RussellMc

face picon face
The chase:

A suitably serious sounding Arduino & Assembler course is described here

                http://people.reed.edu/~jimfix/442es/
Comment:

> Bruce Fleming wrote:
>> Don't turn your nose up at folks using Arduinos just
>> because they don't have to know assembler to use them.

> Sounds like a legitimate reason to me.

Should we* be surprised ? :-)

That in part deep-ends on whether you assume that "don't have to" is
synonymous with "can't".
Which, in this case, it's not **.

I would only just barely know an Arduino if I fell over one (quick
read through a moderate amount of material re what's involved some
while ago), but it seems there are some people 'out there' doing some
seriously serious machine language stuff with them. This may well be
reinventing the 'intended core focus' somewhat, but whether it is or
not, the basic platform is not prevented in any especially serious
manner from being used in any way which it's capable. (Unlike some
bootloader based systems which explicitly try very hard indeed to
prevent users plumbing the deeper depths (usually for reasons of
commercial gain).

Any 'platform' which allows of this degree of capability and inquiry
and education, and which allows the great unwashed to wander or to be
lured, relatively unfazed into the entranceways of the hallowed halls,
where those found worthy may then be suborned or wooed into acquiring
the darker and more worthwhile aspects of the art, sounds like one
eminently desirable and practical approach to the field.

Compared to the Littleton approach of building a dark and mysterious
tower with no doors and small high-up windows and beating off eager
devotees with a Tukey-Cooly butterfly, so that only the most avid and
persistent and (perhaps) capable, manage to crawl, bleeding and
submissive and grateful into the portals of the inner sanctum  halls,
it may perhaps have advantages.

The course outline seems worth quoting, in part, see at end.

See also (some redundancy):

http://www.eevblog.com/2009/11/21/eevblog-45-arduino-picaxe-and-idiot-assembler-programmers/

http://music.columbia.edu/pipermail/dorkbotpdx-blabber/2008-January/001320.html

http://forums.adafruit.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=13479

___________


The course:    http://people.reed.edu/~jimfix/442es/

  " ... The charge this semester is to design and implement the
language and runtime system of the AVR microcontroller that forms the
core of the Arduino board. We will be working with the Unix AVR
utilities avr-as, avr-gcc, avr-libc, and avrdude to write software,
namely in C and AVR assembly, to program the Arduino board.

We will start by looking at the architecture of microprocessors, in
general, studying digital circuit design at the gate level. We will
study the design of the functional components that make up a basic
processor, namely the instruction decode logic, the ALU and the
register file, and see how these work in conjunction to execute
program instructions. We look at machine arithmetic, and the design of
efficient circuits for performing two's complement addition and
multiplication. We will then focus on the AVR microcontroller, its
interrupt and I/O system for embedded applications.

In preparation for building a language for the Arduino, we will look
at the C conventions for managing memory on an AVR. This includes
calling conventions for passing values in registers and on the stack
for subroutines and also memory heap management.

Finally, we will build a compiler and runtime system for a programming
language that provides concurrent threads of control. Compilation will
ivolve, parsing, semantic analysis and optimization of the
intermediate code, and assembler code genertion. The runtime system
will perform basic memory and thread management, scheduling, and
synchronization primitives.

Time permitting, we might also look at the design of the memory
hierarchy in general purpose computing systems, look at concurrent
garbage collection, and survey networked and distributed computing. ..
"



   Russell


* Not royal.

** The point I make WAS somewhat made. However, ...

> There is nothing wrong with using a easy tool just to get a particular job
> done.  However, ...

2010\12\21@132743 by Peter

picon face
RussellMc <apptechnz <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >> Don't turn your nose up at folks using Arduinos just
> >> because they don't have to know assembler to use them.
>
> > Sounds like a legitimate reason to me.
>
> Should we* be surprised ?
>
> That in part deep-ends on whether you assume that "don't have to" is
> synonymous with "can't".
--snippage--

Arduinos in their native form (with non assembly 'painless' IDE) are to embedded
computing what 100 line BASIC "programs" written by middle schoolers as school
assignments between dates and wii matches are to computer science.

Most addictive or dangerous habit forming products come with warning labels and
an age limit. Not so for the A-word product.

Unlike 100 line spaghetti Basic "programs" an A. wired up to some hardware can
and will produce copious amounts of smoke, sparks and much worse than that,
probably much more than the amount of fireworks bought for the equivalent
monetary value. 99% of the A-word future victims who turn up in IRC channels
asking scary questions about how to interface their A-word thing to something
lethal such as mains, lead acid batteries or even LiPoly cells and worse than
that prominently show that there is a tremendouls pressure for Nature to catch
up on its quota of Darwin awards. So the A. is the Basic of embedded. It has all
the easy lures, promises and bad habit forming attributes Basic had. The ones
which Basic damaged people had to be weaned off of when and if they did take CS,
with the added wrinkle of extremely lethal "skills" involving electrical
installations picked up off of the Internet and backed by superstition-based
"logic" reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

Now taking A. to the next level implies real knowledge and is ... hacking. The
A. was
not intended to be programmed in any other way than using its high level IDE. So
programming it otherwise is technically a hack. If it happens to be an academic
hack/exercise which is more or less the core of an embedded computing
introduction course constructed by academic teachers, then it might be better
than something picked off of Make. In any case, that is a hack, and it is not A.
as intended by its makers. After all, A. is just a harmless "universal" embedded
board when stripped of its Basicish personality, and one could run any embedded
code in it, even industrial strength if needed. Several name brand washing
machines and fridges are controlled by microprocessors of the same class as the
ones used in A's, with hardware not much more complex than A's. Calling the
result of hacking an A. from scratch, an A., is, again, wrong. It is a *hacked*
A.

And I believe that the Littleton-type approach has its place, probably far away
from impatient newbies who need to register small immediate successes to stay
focused, in the hope that they will stay on and learn something more serious
with time.

-- Peter

(who is ticked off by people on the net suggesting A.s for such things as
building a simple relay thermostat or a 30 minute timer - paraphrasing the
microscope and nails saying, if all you have is an A. then any project must be
an A. project - and who sees a LOT of these scary questions coming up lately)

2010\12\21@134808 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Peter <.....plpeter2006KILLspamspam@spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (who is ticked off by people on the net suggesting A.s for such things as
> building a simple relay thermostat or a 30 minute timer - paraphrasing the
> microscope and nails saying, if all you have is an A. then any project must be
> an A. project - and who sees a LOT of these scary questions coming up lately)

One of Steve Ciarcia's "Priority Interrupt" articles in a recent
Circuit Cellar has an extreme case of this. I checked, and it's not
online, so I'll have to give you the basic premise as I remember it:

Military contractor has to design black-box device that must keep one
circuit closed after receiving a 50mS pulse of 8VAC (actual numbers
foggy in my brain) and switch on another circuit when 75mS pulse of
24VDC applied, while switching off the first circuit. It must keep
state through unknown power outages. Must have some insanely high
reliability..

At the design meeting, people start talking about uninterruptable
power supplies, microcontrollers, firmware, etc... [Steve?] with
20-100 years experience says "how about a dual coil latching relay?"

I'm a firm believe in the theory that people will use whatever tools
they're most comfortable with, even if it takes them ten times as
long. I'm not sure why this is a problem for hobbyists who get little
to no benefit from making something cheaply or quickly. If all you
have is a $30 microcontroller board, and all you need is a 30 minute
timer, why not use it?
-- Martin K

2010\12\21@141249 by Dave Tweed

face
flavicon
face
M.L. wrote:
> One of Steve Ciarcia's "Priority Interrupt" articles in a recent
> Circuit Cellar has an extreme case of this. I checked, and it's not
> online, so I'll have to give you the basic premise as I remember it:

Actually, it is. You can get to it through my index:

  http://www.dtweed.com/circuitcellar/caj00244.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of the page, click on "HTML".

-- Dav

2010\12\21@143119 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Thanks - I sent the link to a bunch of people I know! That's a great
little story.

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Dave Tweed <picspamKILLspamdtweed.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2010\12\21@153259 by Walter Banks

picon face


"M.L." wrote:

> At the design meeting, people start talking about uninterruptable
> power supplies, microcontrollers, firmware, etc... [Steve?] with
> 20-100 years experience says "how about a dual coil latching relay?"

A few days ago I got a press announcement for a new release of
a 555 timer. This 8 pin part has been around forever almost always
doing basic timer functions.

The interesting thing is that it needs to have external components
and although I am sure that the new 555 timer parts are the best
most reliable parts ever made they cost about three times the cost
of a small 8 pin processor part. Maybe we could go full circle and
emulate the 555 timer functions in a 8 pin micro.

All the best of the season,


Walter..
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com


2010\12\21@163407 by RussellMc

face picon face
You'd want a decent output drive capacity.
Not an essential but useful in many designs.


>  Maybe we could go full circle and
> emulate the 555 timer functions in a 8 pin micro.
>

2010\12\21@164952 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face
I should abide by my resolution to stay out of trollish  conversations.   But...

On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Peter wrote:

> Arduinos in their native form (with non assembly 'painless' IDE) are  
> to embedded
> computing what 100 line BASIC "programs" written by middle schoolers  
> as school
> assignments between dates and wii matches are to computer science.

Arduinos are rather like Basic Stamps and (earlier) BASIC-52 systems.   Both of those were quite successful within their niches.

Except the Arduino is cheaper, faster, runs the host environment on  multiple types of systems, is fully open source, has a better  transition to "real" products, has a better transition to "real"  programming, uses a more currently popular language, is more portable  to new platforms, is more easily extensible, and is much more widely  available...

BillW

2010\12\21@165959 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 21, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Walter Banks wrote:

> Maybe we could go full circle and
> emulate the 555 timer functions in a 8 pin micro.

I keep thinking of that, and I keep becoming depressed by the things  you need to add to a small microcontroller to meet the specs like  200mA push/pull output capability, supply/inputs/outputs 4.5 to 18V,  etc...

BillW

2010\12\21@171903 by Derward Myrick

picon face
Bill, you are so right.  The digital people forget that the analog world
has need for a timer but also generally need more than 5 volts and
by micro standards need large currents.  When you do all that where
are you in parts and cost?

Derward Myrick KD5WWI


{Original Message removed}

2010\12\21@172300 by Walter Banks

picon face


William \"Chops\" Westfield wrote:

> On Dec 21, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Walter Banks wrote:
>
> > Maybe we could go full circle and
> > emulate the 555 timer functions in a 8 pin micro.
>
> I keep thinking of that, and I keep becoming depressed by the things
> you need to add to a small microcontroller to meet the specs like
> 200mA push/pull output capability, supply/inputs/outputs 4.5 to 18V,
> etc...

Output drive and the internal resistor chain and wide range
of allowable voltages plus some of the quirky things people
have done with 555 essentially prevents it from being emulated.

I have started down that path a couple times and each time
only some of the functionality can be implemented.

It is a surprising part that has lasted for a very long time
40 years and there are still new revisions coming out

w..



2010\12\21@174648 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Walter Banks wrote:
> Output drive and the internal resistor chain and wide range
> of allowable voltages plus some of the quirky things people
> have done with 555 essentially prevents it from being emulated.

Fully emulating a 555 with a micro is essentially impossible in a
economically effective way.  However, that's pointless anyway.  Most
individual 555 applications only use a subset of its capabilities, and many
of those can be quite effectively performed with a micro.

For example, 555s were often used as oscillators.  That's something a micro
with a trimmed internal RC oscillator can do more accurately.  555s were
also used to create PWM signals.  A digital PWM can do better in a lot of
applications.

So we don't want to replace a 555 as a part on its own, but we do want to
and largely have already replaced it in specific applications.  Purposes
that I might have used a 555 timer for 30 years ago are now subsumed into
the micro that is already there for other reasons because the projects today
are much more digital oriented and contain logic function you just did
without 30 years ago.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2010\12\21@184428 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Olin Lathrop
<.....olin_piclistKILLspamspam.....embedinc.com> wrote:
> Fully emulating a 555 with a micro is essentially impossible in a
> economically effective way.  However, that's pointless anyway.  Most
> individual 555 applications only use a subset of its capabilities, and many
> of those can be quite effectively performed with a micro.

Indeed - I very recently came across somebody using one to flash LEDs
- but get this, his circuit not only had the extra components needed
to work a 555, it also had a drive transistor as he'd had problems for
some reason with different junction voltages on his LEDs meaning some
didn't light without that. I have code for a Tiny85 which does that
and more with no need for all those extra components (and I find the
Tiny85 perfectly capable of driving enough current for the LEDs on its
own without an external FET!)

Chris

2010\12\21@210343 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

>> Most individual 555 applications only use a subset of its  
>> capabilities, and many
>> of those can be quite effectively performed with a micro.

Agreed.

The electronics magazine "design idea" columns (where readers send in  circuits for possible publication and glory and token payment) have  been publishing the most amazing collections of analog and discrete  circuitry recently, to accomplish things that really seem like they  should have been trivially implemented on a micro.  I don't get it.   (example: http://www.edn.com/article/510420-Tricolor_LED_emits_light_of_any_color_or_hue.php   )

BillW

2010\12\21@215331 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:03 AM, William "Chops" Westfield
<EraseMEwestfwspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmac.com> wrote:
>
>>> Most individual 555 applications only use a subset of its
>>> capabilities, and many
>>> of those can be quite effectively performed with a micro.
>
> Agreed.
>
> The electronics magazine "design idea" columns (where readers send in
> circuits for possible publication and glory and token payment) have
> been publishing the most amazing collections of analog and discrete
> circuitry recently, to accomplish things that really seem like they
> should have been trivially implemented on a micro.  I don't get it.
> (example: www.edn.com/article/510420-Tricolor_LED_emits_light_of_any_color_or_hue.php
>  )

Just to come back to the original topic, I can only assume they are
the same people as those who think you're not doing embedded
processing properly if you're using an Aruduino rather than assembler
;)

Chris

2010\12\21@221913 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 21, 2010, at 6:53 PM, Chris McSweeny wrote:

>> should have been trivially implemented on a micro.
>
> I can only assume they are the same people as those who think you're  
> not doing embedded processing properly if you're using an Aruduino  
> rather than assembler

Sadly, I doubt it.  There seems to be a mentality that just doesn't  "get" software.  I suppose I should understand, since I don't get  radio or relay logic.  But I realized back in High School that pretty  much every electronics project I had ever built could have been  programmed on a COSMAC ELF instead, and my direction was set...

BillW

2010\12\21@231002 by Jesse Lackey

flavicon
face
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> The electronics magazine "design idea" columns (where readers send in
> circuits for possible publication and glory and token payment) have
> been publishing the most amazing collections of analog and discrete
> circuitry recently, to accomplish things that really seem like they
> should have been trivially implemented on a micro.  I don't get it.
> (example: www.edn.com/article/510420-Tricolor_LED_emits_light_of_any_color_or_hue.php
>    )
>
> BillW
>

Hi, yes I've noticed this too, things like this are almost quaint and nearly useless except as little "thought design" problems.  My guess is that (a) they publish what they have sitting around from whenever, they (b) publish what people happen send in, and (c) a design that is a micro, decoupling caps, with just a few bits specific and some code doesn't grab any attention.  So even though (c) with some discussion as to why this presented solution is the best one for working design engineers, its just not going to happen anytime soon.

Alas.

2010\12\21@232427 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 22/12/2010 03:19, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 6:53 PM, Chris McSweeny wrote:
>
>>> should have been trivially implemented on a micro.
>> I can only assume they are the same people as those who think you're
>> not doing embedded processing properly if you're using an Aruduino
>> rather than assembler
> Sadly, I doubt it.  There seems to be a mentality that just doesn't
> "get" software.  I suppose I should understand, since I don't get
> radio or relay logic.  But I realized back in High School that pretty
> much every electronics project I had ever built could have been
> programmed on a COSMAC ELF instead, and my direction was set...
>
> BillW
>

It's also back to the fact that a lot of folk stick with what they know and feel at home with, which in many cases holds them back.
Plus maybe some people like the challenge of doing something a clever or interesting way, which I suppose is fine in cases where money/time is not wasted (i.e. from a hobby perspective, where simply enjoying the process plays a big part, and the focus is less on quick/cheap)
Personally I would hate to limit my "toolkit" by sticking to what I know, and try to learn constantly. To me it makes more sense not to dismiss solutions because there is some new technology/knowledge involved (within reason, depending on schedules/budget) as sooner or later you are likely to fall behind as others are finding ways to do things in better/faster/cheaper ways. I try to ignore the snobbery surrounding certain technologies - not tried one, but if an Arduino did happen to be the best tool for a project then I would use one without hesitation.
It does amaze me how many circuits I see that could be half the size/complexity, and not just the older ones, but of course the net is littered with designs that use the same old ideas/chips as if nothing had improved in 20 years or so. Sure there are beginners out there ordering otp PICs still based on some old article they read... :-)

2010\12\21@235905 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> Hi, yes I've noticed this too, things like this are almost quaint and
> nearly useless except as little "thought design" problems.  My guess is
> that (a) they publish what they have sitting around from whenever, they
> (b) publish what people happen send in, and (c) a design that is a
> micro, decoupling caps, with just a few bits specific and some code
> doesn't grab any attention.  So even though (c) with some discussion as
> to why this presented solution is the best one for working design
> engineers, its just not going to happen anytime soon.
>
> Alas.

One of the magazines recently had an engineer write in saying the design
ideas were kinda dumb. They then asked him to review the new designs and
comment on them. I think his comments were pretty good. I don't remember
which magazine it was in, though.

Earlier this year I was redesigning an IR transmitter for use in movie
theaters. The existing transmitter transmitted two FM signals (2.3MHz and
2.8MHz). It used a somewhat complex varactor tuned LC oscillator for each
frequency. Distortion was pretty high. The oscillator output went through
an LC low pass filter (removing harmonics), then through a Schmitt trigger
(putting the harmonics back). I replaced the LC oscillator and surrounding
circuitry with an LTC6907. Much simpler, much lower distortion, FM noise
about 58dB below 75kHz deviation.

The circuit has two audio compressors. Pretty standard stuff. The RMS
detector of each compressor drove a pair of comparators. One to drive a
peak flash LED to set audio levels. The other comparator drove, of course,
a 555 timer that would hold the carriers up for 30 minutes after audio
disappeared. Timing 30 minutes with a 555 is a good trick!

So, this all used a bunch of parts. I put in a PIC that reads the
compressor RMS detector voltages, drives the peak flash LEDs, does the
timing for carrier on and off, etc. It also controls a third carrier
(1.8MHz) that I added to run closed captions. All that in one part.

So, now the circuit is much simpler. Of course, after I finished it, I've
thought of a few more things to simplify. Maybe next time. The PIC with
the internal RC oscillator and PLL is really nice. No external components
required. It just works.

Harold
"The ideal design has zero parts."




-- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available

2010\12\22@075453 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
'William Chops" Westfield ' <westfwspamspam_OUTmac.com wrote:
> The electronics magazine "design idea" columns (where readers send in
> circuits for possible publication and glory and token payment) have
> been publishing the most amazing collections of analog and discrete
> circuitry recently, to accomplish things that really seem like they
> should have been trivially implemented on a micro.  I don't get it.
> (example:

Yeah, the days where all electronic problems could supposedly be solved with
555 timers, 741 opamps, and 2N222A and 2N3055 transistors are long gone.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...