Searching \ for '[PIC:] Beginner looking for suggestions' 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/microchip/begin.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'Beginner looking for suggestions'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC:] Beginner looking for suggestions'
2004\06\05@174725 by Matthew Shoemaker

flavicon
face
Hello, I was wondering if anyone could give me suggestions as to were to
start learning about pics?  Any software to help, websites, anything?  I
have not be working with electronics much, but am hoping to get back
into it.  Because of this I also would like ideas of where to start in
my journey back into the world of electronics.  Thanks!

Matthew

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@185727 by John J. McDonough

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Shoemaker" <spam_OUTbroncosportTakeThisOuTspamMCHSI.COM>
Subject: [PIC:] Beginner looking for suggestions


> Hello, I was wondering if anyone could give me suggestions as to were to
> start learning about pics?  Any software to help, websites, anything?

OK, maybe a little self-serving, but http://www.amqrp.org/elmer160

72/73 de WB8RCR    http://www.qsl.net/wb8rcr
didileydadidah     QRP-L #1446 Code Warriors #35

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@190349 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:37:07PM -0500, Matthew Shoemaker wrote:
> Hello, I was wondering if anyone could give me suggestions as to were to
> start learning about pics?  Any software to help, websites, anything?  I
> have not be working with electronics much, but am hoping to get back
> into it.  Because of this I also would like ideas of where to start in
> my journey back into the world of electronics.  Thanks!

Tough question. The problem isn't the fact there is little information on the
subject, in fact it's exactly the opposite. There's way too much information
for the average novice to swallow. So instead of pointing out some specific
resources (many of which I'm sure you'll get in replies to your query) let
me throw out some suggestions from one perspective - mine ;-)

1. There will be more than enough time to try to learn everything. So don't
  do that now. Instead focus on getting a handful of simple yet useful
  projects going.

2. Don't spend an arm and a leg on development tools. All of the software
  resources you need are freely downloadable, and depending on your
  electronics comfort level, there are a bunch of simple methods for
  programming PICs that you can use. My personal recommendation is to
  at least consider using a bootloader, as then no "programmer" at all
  is required. Most of my successful projects have been developed using
  Wouter van Ooijen's WLoader bootloader (http://www.voti.nl/wloader)
  for example.

3. The Microchip Reference Manuals and the Datasheets for your chip are
  absolutely required. You may not have to print the manual (it's over
  600 pages) but you'll want to have it handy due to the complete explanations
  and code examples for everything under the PIC sun.

4. Start with and use PIC assembler until you understand why you need to know
  it, and then consider why you may want to ditch it for something else.
  The key point here is that PIC assembly is the lingua franca language of
  PIC development. You have to know it simply to have an intelligent
  conversation about how something gets done. For example the above referenced
  code examples are all in PIC assembly.

5. Follow the measure it thrice, cut it once rule. Simulators are most
  excellent if ferreting out silly errors. So simulate what you need to do
  before committing it to a circuit.

6. This is the tough one, and I'll probably get some flak over it: whenever
  possible, use hardware resources to get things done. This is important to
  know because a lot of PIC resources are directed towards chips that lack
  hardware resources, specifically the 16F84. Limited timers, no hardware
  USART/I2C/SPI, no PWM/capture, no ADC or comparitors among other things.
  So a lot of tutorial material is geared towards software solutions to the
  lack of hardware resources. I firmly believe that this is a mistake for
  the hobby PIC user. Since there isn't an economy of scale issue (we need to
  save 4 cents on the Bill of Materials to enjoy a quarter million savings
  on the project yadda yadda...) use as many of the resources that are
  available to help. It's one reason I'm so high on the 16F88. It has
  absolutely everything a hobbyist would want in an 18 pin package including
  nanowatt features and self programmability. But since it cost more than
  the 16F648A or the 16F72 (in a 28 pin package) the professional BOM crowd
  shuns it. But it's perfect for hobby use, just add power!

7. Some encouragement: do it because it's fun to do. Build something whimsical
  or something useful to you.

BAJ (http://www.finitesite.com/d3jsys)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@192009 by Matthew Brush

flavicon
face
The link below helped me A LOT to learn the cool stuff you can go with a
PIC.  I don't use Assembly anymore since all my PIC stuff is for fun and
it's so much easier for me (as a desktop programmer) to move to a C-style
language.  I hear there are some very good free C compilers as well as
compilers closer to Pascal and Basic, etc.  I'm sure you'll find tons of
different compilers on Google.  I would make sure you can at least follow
the assembly code though, since most examples and tutorials are in ASM, then
it's just a matter converting that into C (ie. save some typing :)

Good luck, and definitively check out these links:


(BTW.  These are the two first results in Google with "Pic Tutorial" as a
search term, I guess that means others find them useful).

This one:
http://www.mstracey.btinternet.co.uk/pictutorial/picmain.htm

And this one:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk/pic_tutorial.htm

And this one would've been REALLY helpful before I learned it (thanks to
rixy04 on the piclist):
http://www.pic101.com/interface.htm

MJ Brush

{Original Message removed}

2004\06\05@192216 by Shawn Wilton

flavicon
face
I've always considered the definitive source to be
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com

-Shawn


Byron A Jeff wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@193252 by Anthony Toft

flavicon
face
having just bought a "grab bag" of parts from ebay I am now looking for
datasheets on older parts...

Is there a resource out there with this type of information?

Thanks

Anthony
--
Anthony Toft <.....toftatKILLspamspam@spam@cowshed.8m.com>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@194334 by Lindy Mayfield

flavicon
face
>
> 6. This is the tough one, and I'll probably get some flak over
> it: whenever possible, use hardware resources to get things
>  done.
> BAJ

All the things you wrote are great and good advice.  I just wonder, why would anyone give you flak over this?  Am I understanding things correctly?  You're saying that using the on-chip USART is preferential to big-banging it?  
If this is correct, I rack my brain trying to think of any advantages bit-banging on a PIC would have over an on-chip USART.  What am I missing?



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@194956 by Shawn Wilton

flavicon
face
He's saying use hardware instead of software.



Lindy Mayfield wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@195412 by Lindy Mayfield

flavicon
face
So why would someone argue against telling someone that hardware is better than software?  (I feel stupid, like I'm missing something here. (-ö: )

> {Original Message removed}

2004\06\05@195826 by Shawn Wilton

flavicon
face
Couldn't tell you.  Perhaps to gain more EE experience.  not certain. BAJ will have to clarify.

Lindy Mayfield wrote:

> So why would someone argue against telling someone that hardware is better than software?  (I feel stupid, like I'm missing something here. (-ö: )
>
>
>>{Original Message removed}

2004\06\05@201902 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> If this is correct, I rack my brain trying to think of any advantages bit-banging on a PIC would have over an on-chip USART.  What am I missing?

Generally you're right. However, there are a few cases where bit-banging
can be necessary:

1. You need one more than provided. Perhaps you're using a 10Fxxx PIC
  which have no USART.
2. Perhaps you want something other than standard serial, such as SPI
  or I2C on a chip that doesn't support it or again, you want one more
       than are provided.
3. You want a protocol which isn't provided on the chip.

Basically all of these go to one general rule:

 You want one more of something than the chip provides.

Other than that I don't see any reason to bit-bang.

However, this is for my personal use. If I wanted to sell something in
large quantites, it might be more economical for me to spend the programming
time to bit-bang something on a less expensive chip.
--
D. Jay Newman           !
jayspamKILLspamsprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@203559 by Lindy Mayfield

flavicon
face
Hello Matthew.  I'm just a beginner too.  And this is a great and very friendly group.  They are very helpful for when you get stuck.

I'm curious, at what stage are you? Why are you curious about pics?  Are you starting from scratch, or do you have some things already?  Are there things you have in mind you want to build?  
I'll tell you how I got here, which isn't far, as it might help you.  I got an ARobot as a present.  Also a friend of mine had told me about his playing with microcontrollers (Cygnals) and I realized that there was a whole new world that I didn't know about.  
After a little research I realized that the Basic Stamp was WAY too expensive and from a little research on the web I gathered that PIC's were the right choice.

So I got the PICKit demo board/programmer that came with a 12F675. A cool 8 pin chip, I think.  It was a great setup to learn how to program the chip and a bit about the hardware.  I had to learn some debugging techniques, but it was cool. I learned PIC assembler, how to use MPLAB, and to find problems using the SIM debugger.

My particular problem was that I needed to communicate with the robot.  So after a long time I put together a bit-bang (software implementation of a communications protocol) program that would communicate with a Basic Stamp, but it only kinda-sorta worked.  But I was frustrated because I was spending all my programming time on the protocol.

Now remember, I was really ignorant, and had no one to ask for help (and didn't know about this group yet).  I wanted to play with programming other PIC's and so I wanted a new board.  Remember, the PICKit is great because it simply plugs into the USB port on the PC.  So I thought all things worked that way, and so I bought the ICD2.  So imagine my surprise when I got it and couldn't figure where to plug in the chips! (-:  Whoops.

So when fixing that mistake (by ordering the PicDem4) I made another one, which I won't talk about.  Suffice to say that I now have the PicKit, the ICD2, the PicDem4, and the PicDem2+.  (Boy did I get yelled at when that bill came in.)

But!  To be able to debug the chips in real time is really nice, and all the software is free.  I've gone hardcore (for learning purposes) assembler, so I won't touch C or Basic for the now.

At this point for me, I'm just learning about sensors, which for me is requiring a lot of study on the electronics end of things.

I'll tell you the books I have.

Getting Started in Electronics
       Forrest M. Mimms, III
       Great beginners book on electronics.

Robot Building for Dummies
       Roger Arrick
       This one got me started in all this.  Very well written book.

PIC Robotics
       John Iovine
       Good, robotics based, and the code examples are in basic.

PIC Microcontroller Project Book
       John Iovine
       Same as above.

Serial Communications Using PIC Microcontrollers
       Roger L. Stevens
       Most excellent if you are doing communications.  Fat and         full of examples.

Programming and Customizing PICmicro Microcontrollers
       Myke Predko
       Everything you want to know about pics from A to Z.
       Well done, thorough, well written. The best one I have so far.


Hope this helps you make better choices.

Cheers, Lindy



> {Original Message removed}

2004\06\05@204013 by Lindy Mayfield

flavicon
face
Your right! I didn't think of that.  The fact that the chip may be cheaper, and also that fact that you may want to do something outside the USART protocol, like for instance auto-baud recognition.  Good point.

> {Original Message removed}

2004\06\05@234834 by Jason S

flavicon
face
This is always the hard part for me; coming up with fun and interesting
projects.

Right now, as an educational project, I'm working on building a timer, the
user enters a time on a keypad and presses pound to start the time.  The
time counts down on an LCD display and a piezo buzzer is triggered when it
elapses.

Its good practice because it needs to scan a keyboard, and drive an LCD,
neither of which I've done before.  I also added a LM335 temperature sensor
so it display the temperature on the LCD and I decided I will use a DS1307
RTC to keep time so I can learn to use I2C and I'll have a real time clock
on the LCD.

It's not really a fun or whimsical end result, but at least it will be
useful :).

This could be the start of a great thread.  What sorts of projects have
people here done that are primarily for fun?

Jason

----- Original Message -----
From: "Byron A Jeff" <.....byronKILLspamspam.....CC.GATECH.EDU>
To: <EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [PIC:] Beginner looking for suggestions


> 7. Some encouragement: do it because it's fun to do. Build something
whimsical
>    or something useful to you.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\06@021446 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Hello, I was wondering if anyone could give me suggestions as
> to were to
> start learning about pics?  Any software to help, websites,
> anything?  I
> have not be working with electronics much, but am hoping to get back
> into it.  Because of this I also would like ideas of where to start in
> my journey back into the world of electronics.  Thanks!

- you've found the piclist
- http://www.voti.nl/swp

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\06@052540 by michael brown

picon face
Jason wrote:
> This could be the start of a great thread.  What sorts of projects
have
> people here done that are primarily for fun?

I've done a couple of relatively useless projects just to expand my
skills.  One is an IR controlled (TV remote) Dallas 1-wire temperature
reporting system.  It searches the bus (an unused pair on my house
telephone wiring), enumerates the detected sensors and then reports the
appropriate temp when you press number keys on the TV remote.  I guess
it's not really all that useless, maybe a bit eccentric though.  ;-)

Another was a Caller-id display powered by "stolen" electricity (~3mA)
from the phone line using a software based modem on the pic.  I did it
to gain some experience with analog external parts.  I never did get it
to work 100% as it got occasion bit errors.  It was >99% correct, but
even a single bit error is often disastrous.  :-(  It WAS allot of fun
working on it though.  I hypothesized that the bit errors were due to
60Hz interference, but since I don't have a DSO or logic analyzer, I
can't quite be sure of that.

Then there's the T6963 graphical display controller that can display an
OCR type font that I stole from windows by typing the characters in
Windows Paint program and saving as a bitmap file, followed by careful
extraction using some C code in Linux.  ;-))))

And then there's.......

michael brown (wishing I could get a job interview somewhere)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\06@140522 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:38:31AM +0200, Lindy Mayfield wrote:

> Your right!

To a point. The caveats are important.

> I didn't think of that.  The fact that the chip may be cheaper,

But as I pointed out in my first post, it's pretty much irrelevant for
one off hobby projects. Any PIC you'd ever want to use are $10 USD or less
in singles. And Microchip will happly sample you whatever you want if you
simply tell them what you're working on.

> and also that fact that you may want to do something outside the USART
> protocol, like for instance auto-baud recognition.  Good point.

True. But each and every one of these proposed applications are outside of
ordinary usage. The point I was making, which seems ridiculous to contemplate,
it to plan to use hardware first.

But there have been extensive arguments on this list what states that legacy
code and initial simplicity are more important for novices than using
hardware facilities. That's the flak I was referring to.

Check out my other post for a sample.

BAJ

>
> > {Original Message removed}

2004\06\06@140936 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 01:41:25AM +0200, Lindy Mayfield wrote:
> >
> > 6. This is the tough one, and I'll probably get some flak over
> > it: whenever possible, use hardware resources to get things
> >  done.
>
> > BAJ
>
> All the things you wrote are great and good advice.

Thanks.

>  I just wonder, why would anyone give you flak over this?
>  Am I understanding things correctly?

Yes.
>  You're saying that using the on-chip USART is preferential to big-banging
> it?

Correct.

>
> If this is correct,

It is.

> I rack my brain trying to think of any advantages
> bit-banging on a PIC would have over an on-chip USART.

You would think.

>  What am I missing?

A couple of things.

First is just the simple weight of legacy. There's a whole bunch of 16F84
code out there. Note it doesn't have a USART.

The second is outlined by John J. McDonough in Appendix A of his Elmer160
tutorial here: http://www.amqrp.org/elmer160/lessons/e160aa.pdf on page 10.
I copy the text of that page for your study and my commentary:

----------------------------------------------------



Appendix A  Elmer 160 Elmer 160 Appendix A.doc  PIC Microcontroller Varieties

Page 10 of 10    Revised:  28 Dec 2003 - 03:01 PM John J. McDonough,
WB8RCR    Printed:  28 Dec 2003 - 03:01 PM

Why did we choose the 16F84  Introduction  In a previous section, we
mentioned that we would not recommend the PIC16F84 for new projects, yet we
chose it for the PIC-EL.  We have been asked this question before we started
the course, and it continues to come up.  Most often it is asked in the form
of "Why didn't you use the 16F628?"  Here is some of the rationale.

The major reason is simplicity.  Some have argued that the 628 is no more
difficult to use than the 84.  This is close to true, if you are already
familiar with the PIC.  For many of the folks taking the course, this is
their first foray into microcontrollers.  Certainly, after the course, they
should be able to apply a 628 as easily as an 84, but  starting out, the 628
is pretty intimidating.  Multi-use pins  On the PIC16F84, 12 of the 13 I/O
pins are nothing more than I/O pins.  The user just learning the PIC can use
most of the capability while more or less ignoring the one oddball pin,
expecting to learn about it later.  Even so, if the new programmer treats
that 13th pin just like the other 12, it will behave as expected.  The user
only needs to  learn more when he is ready to do more.  On the PIC16F628,
every pin has three or four uses.  The new developer is faced with an
alphabet soup around every pin of confusing acronyms.  Not only that, but
several of the I/O pins require circuitry changes to make them useable.
These changes require giving up something, and the designer has to consider
these tradeoffs.

To further add to the confusion, some of the "old style" I/O pins are no
longer plain I/O on power up.  Special initialization needs to be performed
to make them  accessible.  Memory Banks  On the PIC16F84A, the only registers
that require bank switching to access are the TRIS registers and some
registers dealing with EEPROM.  Since most programs don't use EEPROM, the
only time a developer needs to consider memory banking is when he is setting
the direction of the I/O lines.  This is conceptually relatively  simple ...
switch banks to access the TRIS registers, do your business, switch back.
Nothing mysterious happens.

On the 628, however, most of the user's data space is also banked.  The
switch to bank 1 causes most of his program variables to disappear.  Now he
needs to carefully  consider where he places the variables so that they are
available in bank 1.  Not hard, but another source of confusion.

Summary
-------

There is little doubt that the PIC16F628 is a more capable chip at a much
lower price.  However, that capability comes at a cost in complexity that
can be intimidating for someone who is just learning.  Once one is familiar
with the PIC, using any new feature is simply a matter of looking it up in
the datasheet.  From that perspective,  one part is no more complex than
another.  But for someone who is just learning, the PIC16F84 is simple, with
far less complexity than the newer parts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it. Trade off complexity later for simplicity now. I disagree
with the assessment. Let's take them point by point first then add a couple
to ponder afterwards.

* Multiuse pins are irrelevant initially. The multiplexed functions can be
put off until a later discussion. As for analog pins, the 5 second explanation
of why pins start off analog (so they can handle any voltage instead of just
Vss and Vdd) and how to change them (ADCON/CMCON) along with the requisite
line of code should be sufficient. Yes I agree that it's added complexity,
however the semantic cost is minimal.

* Both the 16F628 and 16F88 have 96 bytes of memory available in Bank0. More
than enough for a novice to get started. No need to bank switch except for
I/O. Explain banking and teach the BANKSEL macro and be done with it.


* The bottom line is that the newer parts run 16F84 code with extremely minor
modifications. So adding/changing a line or three of code isn't debilitating
even to a novice.

Now the flip side:

* People generally use what they learn early. Since the 16F84 is device of
the useful hardware devices, software techniqes that substitute have to be
taught first. But the tendency is to use what you learn early as you
proceed.  So bit banging, timer sharing, software PWM and capture, are all
techniques that are forced upon the student early on.

* Hardware facilitates multiplexing. While it's easy to teach PWM or bit
banging in isolation, one you start to utilize multiple tools in the same
application, the management of these software tools are much more complex than
the setup and usage of the hardware features. So by teaching this early, even
with a bit more setup, it'll easy the real usage of the part later on.

Now software is still useful, believe you me. But the best thing is to get
the novice used setting up an using hardware features as a first crack, then
only think about software only solutions as a backup. But to do that you have
to have the hardware features available in the first place, and you have to
teach it early. That's why I personally think that 16F84 based  tutorials
end up doing the student a disservice, because it presents the how of tackling
problems either backwards (software first, then hardware) or only half the
picture.

Just me thoughts.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\06@142428 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> teach it early. That's why I personally think that 16F84 based  tutorials
> end up doing the student a disservice, because it presents the how of tackling
> problems either backwards (software first, then hardware) or only half the
> picture.

I agree. I refuse to buy any PIC book that is based on the 16F84. On
seeing that I assume that the author either disagrees with me too
much philosophically to be of use, or the book is no good. IMNSHO, of
course.
--
D. Jay Newman           !
jayspamspam_OUTsprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\06@150618 by John J. McDonough

flavicon
face
Byron

Thanks for posting this.  I was about to repeat much of the same thing again

----- Original Message -----
From: "Byron A Jeff" <@spam@byronKILLspamspamCC.GATECH.EDU>

[big clip]

> * People generally use what they learn early. Since the 16F84 is device of

This, in my mind, is the biggest downside of teaching the F84.  I don't know
why it is, but people seem to develop an emotional attachment to computers,
whether it is an old S-100 CP/M machine, or a microcontroller.  It seems
like you need to get a half dozen different machines under your belt before
you can take them for what they are worth.

I've tried to combat that by describing some of the differences between
other parts, framing the ICSP section as a way to program other, more
capable parts, and in the lesson currently under development, I am speaking
largely from the perespective of the 8K parts, because the PCLATH register
really doesn't make a lot of sense except in the context of these larger
chips.

Many of the students have little exposure to programming at all, and even
less to a RISC microcontroller.  While some are already producing very
exciting projects on their own, others are really struggling. I still think,
on balance, reducing the complexity when they are first learning outweighs
the advantages of using a more capable part right off.

72/73 de WB8RCR    http://www.qsl.net/wb8rcr
didileydadidah     QRP-L #1446 Code Warriors #35

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\06@152533 by Matthew Brush

flavicon
face
> This could be the start of a great thread.  What sorts of projects have
> people here done that are primarily for fun?

I'm working on:
- Remote data logger
- Keyboard Video Mouse Switch
- A PIC video card (MDA) for an old Green Screen Data Terminal (not RS232)
- A climate/environmental control dealy for my terrarium
- A PIC Programmer/Bootloader thingy
- Frequency Counter
- Telephone Interface

None of these are 100% done, but some are close.  Then I have some analog
stuff in the works too.

Peace

MJ Brush

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\06@223709 by Herbert Graf

picon face
>- Telephone Interface

Hmm, any chance you can post details about this project? I'm beginning a
similar project and could use a jumpstart. Thanks, TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\07@051338 by hilip Stortz

picon face
something i've always wanted, and will eventually do, is an ordinary
digital alarm clock, but one with a keypad for setting time and alarm
time!  i.e. just key in "7:45am" instead of the stupid forward backward
or worse yet just forward counting buttons which i've always considered
stupid and a pain.  i've even seen clock/calculator combinations that
still make you do things the hard way when they already have the
keyboard available!  it might even be nice to be able to set a
"relative" alarm, i.e. set it for now + the time period keyed in so you
could easily nap for "x" amount of time, when you are too tired to do
math well.

Jason S wrote:
>
> This is always the hard part for me; coming up with fun and interesting
> projects.
--------

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\06\07@054529 by Matthew Brush

flavicon
face
I plan on eventually making an alarm like this (sans the keypad idea) and I
plan on using an RTC from Dallas (pretty much the same as in a PC, maybe
exatcly: DS1887 i think).  It would be ideal IMHO to use a similar RTC
because it has a good crystal in the DIP package as well as a backup battery
which makes it ideal for an alarm clock.  It has NVRam also including
locations to set alarm IRQ etc, and has a pretty simple parallel interface.

Anyway, thought I'd mention it because it would simplify your digital alarm
clock idea a lot and I think they're neat.

Later, Peace

MJ Brush

{Original Message removed}

2004\06\07@061344 by hilip Stortz

picon face
thanks.  actually, maxim/dallas also makes a more accurate 32.??khz
oscillator for rtc clocks as well, targeted at servers that need a more
accurate clock independent of temperature variations.  i may even put it
in one or more of my machines and use one for a network time server when
i get my network up (soon).

Matthew Brush wrote:
>
> I plan on eventually making an alarm like this (sans the keypad idea) and I
> plan on using an RTC from Dallas (pretty much the same as in a PC, maybe
> exatcly: DS1887 i think).  It would be ideal IMHO to use a similar RTC
> because it has a good crystal in the DIP package as well as a backup battery
> which makes it ideal for an alarm clock.  It has NVRam also including
> locations to set alarm IRQ etc, and has a pretty simple parallel interface.
-------

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\06\07@134737 by Koen van Leeuwen

flavicon
face
NTP is probably more long-term stable and -with a good setup- more
decentralized and thus more stable.
Speaking of setting times, do RTC's exist that utilize DCF77 and similar
signals? That would be great for a DIY alarm clock :o)

On Monday 07 June 2004 12:14, Philip Stortz wrote:
> thanks.  actually, maxim/dallas also makes a more accurate 32.??khz
> oscillator for rtc clocks as well, targeted at servers that need a more
> accurate clock independent of temperature variations.  i may even put it
> in one or more of my machines and use one for a network time server when
> i get my network up (soon).

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\06\07@194740 by Jason S

flavicon
face
That sounds a lot like my project.  I envision it growing in the ultimate
kitchen alarm clock.  I'd like to have pre-set time-periods so you can time
commonly used intervals at the press of 2 buttons.  I agree with you about
the stupid set buttons.  My watch has a calculator keypad that it uses to
type in the time.  Since I bought a PDA a few years ago, I haven't used the
watch as anything but a time piece, so I've wanted to get something a bit
more stylish, but it's that set method that's keeping me hooked on the old
one.

On a related note, does anyone know a good source for those keypads?  I
recently moved cross-country and lost most of my equipment, and I don't know
of any good electronics stores around here.  By mail-order a basic 12 button
phone keypad seems to be $5, and I used to buy them for 35 cents.  It seems
like you can't even buy a decent soldering iron in Seattle.

Another really simple project I did was use an LM335 temperature sensor to
decide what color to light up an RGB LED, so from -10 to 40 Celcius, it
fades from blue through green, yellow, orange, and red.  At some point I'll
add a switch to have a smaller indoor range like 15-25 so I can see more
than just shades of yellow indoors.  I like the RGB LEDs, but it's hard to
come up with things to do with them besides just random color fading.

Jason




{Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...