Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[PIC]: PIC10F2xx series'
I have looked in the PICLIST archives and I have not found what I am
looking for so.....
One of my clients is considering a project that could possibly use the
PIC10F2xx series of controllers. I am a little concerned with these
devices due to there limited program size and 12 bit instruction set.
(Been there done that with the 16F506 device. Lots of pain and anguish
with the program space and usable RAM.)
What are groups thoughts on this series?
I know that it has a limited number of I/O's and small program space
but do you have some guidelines for its use?
Where would you recommend it? What type of apps?
Where would you be afraid of it? Looks good but just doesn't cut it.
Thanks for your advice and thoughts.
Phil Keller wrote:
> What are groups thoughts on this series?
I love those little guys!
> I know that it has a limited number of I/O's and small program space
> but do you have some guidelines for its use?
It depends on what you want to do with them of course. One thing to
consider is that ICSP must not be an afterthought since 5 of the 6 pins will
participate. I find this to be this toughest challenge for designing with
the 10Fs, especially since the original 4 10Fs always have the internal
pullup on MCLR enabled when the MCLR pin is configured for that role.
Fortunately the new ones don't have that problem, but they are more
expensive and therefore less interesting.
I discuss ICSP issues in more detail at
> Where would you recommend it?
Anyplace 4 I/O pins, 512 instructions, 24 bytes of RAM, and 4MHz are
sufficient. They are particularly good for high volume applications. The
price gets pretty low when you want to buy a few 100K to a few 1M of them.
> What type of apps?
I've used them a lot for simple switching power supply controllers. In fact
I may be teaching a class at Masters on that subject this year. I've also
used them in other applications.
My most complicated 10F application is a active RFID tag that runs from a
coin cell and every 10 seconds sends out a manchester encoded message
followed by an IR signature. The IR modulation and the carrier itself are
all produced by the 10F202. The IR LED goes on when a pin is high, and off
when low. Everything else is firmware. There is also a button on the tag
that is debounced. A short press increases the button counter in the RF
packet and causes an immediate transmission. A long open causes other
things to happen.
Another application was an intelligent reset controller and watchdog timer
all in one.
> Where would you be afraid of it? Looks good but just doesn't cut it.
I don't understand the question. Either it has enough resources to do the
job or it doesn't. I don't see how fear is relevant.
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
I just finished a little project with the 10f200. It reads a rotary
encoder and generates up or down pulses to drive the volume control inputs
(which were designed to accept switch closures to ground) on a cinema
sound processor. It worked out great!
As mentioned by others, ICSP and in circuit debugging can be interesting.
I did debug using the simulator and staring a code, modifying something,
programming the chip again, etc. ("crash and burn" debuggin). ICSP didn't
turn out to be an issue here since the encoder detents to open circuit.
The other PIC pins are outputs that leave the boards, so if the board is
standing alone, the pins are available for ICSP.
In this application, I wanted open drain outputs so multiple devices could
be on the same set of control lines. So, instead of pulsing the PORT
register, I set it low and pulsed the TRIS bits. The outputs went from
open circuit (TRIS=1) to low (TRIS=0).
Anyway, that was my first try at using the 10F200. It worked out great!
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com
This PIC is very useful for miniaturization.
I plan to using the 10F203 in a datalogger. With a sensor (LDR or
something), a 24AA512 serial EEPROM and 3 contact points for download (could
use IR too). On the computer I could fit the whole circuit on a 5x8mm single
sided board with a wristwatch battery on the bottom. While I was busy
perfecting the design, another idea was presented to me which I am now
researching, that is transmitting the sensor values using an Ultra Wide Band
transmitter. It should not take a lot of space since there's no need for
external transmitter circuitry. I am a little concerneed about the
transmission range though.
On 1/27/06, Harold Hallikainen <hallikainen.com> wrote: harold
Oops, make that 10F206. I was thinking, the fourth 10F2xx, and forgot they
skipped odd numbers.
You have any more details regarding this UWB transmitter?
On 1/28/06, Mark Jeronimus <gmail.com> wrote: zombie.piclist
David P Harris
Mark Jeronimus wrote:
>This is the general principle of UWB:
>I also got some clues from section 3 of this document:
>I hope this is what you need.
Looks to me like the transmitter is very simple, but the receiving is
very hard. The receiver has to filter *syncronized* to the transmitter,
or else you have to slide the receiver filter along until you get the
signal. It doesn't look at all easy to build that par - but I hope I
Also, the last url above should probably be:
I'm experimenting with single-end audio communication and pulse frequency
modulation (modulation strength 0.2x f0 around f0). The receiving side
doesn't have to synchronize, but just convert the frequency to volts. I've
made a working simulation using a resettalbe integrator, reciprocal
calculator (for audio FM only), ac coupling and an antialiasing filter on
0.58x f0. The last 4 steps are best done in a microcontroller.
On 1/29/06, David P Harris <telus.net> wrote: dpharris
M. Adam Davis
On 1/29/06, David P Harris <telus.net> wrote: dpharris
> Looks to me like the transmitter is very simple, but the receiving is
> very hard. The receiver has to filter *syncronized* to the transmitter,
> or else you have to slide the receiver filter along until you get the
> signal. It doesn't look at all easy to build that par - but I hope I
> am wrong!
Receiving is very similar to spread spectrum technology, with a
sliding comparator. At least conceptually. So it's a solved problem,
we just need to implement it.
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006
, 2007 only
- New search...