Searching \ for 'Other' 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=other
Search entire site for: 'Other'.

No exact or substring matches. trying for part
PICList Thread
'other local pic user from bbs '
1994\01\17@174850 by jory

face picon face
Date: Thursday, August 5, 1993  6:08pm                             /APPLICN
From: Kenmun                                                     Msg#: 7755
 To: ** ALL **
 Re: Help for SHAWN                                              (1 reply)

Shawn Dienhart, are you out there?
I could give you some pointers on assembly language programming.  I'm
not an expert, but I could offer some caveats that could help you out.
Call me if you need to  1-413-684-3155  EST.

Or write:
      Kenneth Pergola
              122 Hemlock Hill
              Dalton, MA  01226-1732


KENMUN          P.S.   Hang in there buddy; it gets easier!


'ANOTHER PROGRAMMER (Was Re: Parallax or Picstart?)'
1994\09\01@215433 by -Kellogg High School
flavicon
face
I have the PGM16 from Advanced Transdata Corporation.  Having never seen
a picstart or paralax programmer, it might be an OEM or clone of one of
them, but in my sample of 2 parallel ports to connect it to (clone
DX-2/66 and Zeos sub-notebook) it runs great.

I regularly travel with the Zeos & programmer.  Very convenient.  Their
real time ICE also runs well on the Contenda - I can't imagine tucking my
desktop system in the back seat of the plane to take my development
system on the road.  AS it is, an old briefcase serves as a complete real
time ICE / programmer capable system.

If anyone knows if this PGM16 critter is a clone of one of the other
programmers please let me know.

/s/ Bill

'other microcontrollers' lists'
1994\09\08@175855 by crocontroller discussion list

flavicon
face
The following is info I have on a 68HC11 mailing list:

Welcome to the MC68HC11 mailing list. (last modified 15 March 1993)

This list is dedicated to discussions concerning the MC68HC11
single-chip microcontroller, its support chips, and the popular
EVB system.

Also, for the time being, discussions on the hc16 dsp chip
are welcome until such time as another forum is created, or
the volume of traffic dictates a split.

This is a semi-moderated group.  Requests to subscribe,
unsubscribe, or other administrivia is handled on a case by
case basis.

Please help keep the clutter in the group down. If you want
to subscribe, de-subscribe, or have other requests to make
about the mailing list, please send that sort of mail to
spam_OUTmc68hc11-requestTakeThisOuTspamhipp.etsu.edu rather than the submission address,
.....mc68hc11KILLspamspam@spam@hipp.etsu.edu. In order to avoid generating
endless mail loops (messages bouncing back and forth between
mindless mailers) some heuristics are applied to messages to
screen out those which appear to be errors or requests to be
added / deleted - if your message is less than 25 words or
longer than 5000 words, or contains "suspect" phrases
(such as subscribe) it will be routed to me and not sent
to the list.  If necessary, I'll post it manually when I have
a chance to look at it.

Additionally, please read the FAQ list below before posting.
Your question might be answered before you get your first
article!

Incidentally, hipp stands for the "Historic Image Processing
Project" - the main use of the storage on this PC.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

0. "Who are you?"

       Nick Sayer orginated the list, but found it growing very
       rapidly and straining the connectivity resources of his machine.
       I voluenteered to take the list over since I've been using the HC11
       EVB in my classes for several years.  There are now about 300
       subscribers on the list located in 13 different countries.

The list is originated at the Department of Computer and Information
Sciences of East Texas State University, located in Commerce, Texas
about 60 miles east of Dallas.  It was previously located in Flagstaff
Arizona, but was moved from there due to the lack of support for the
list and the fact that the administratior was laid off due to budget
cutbacks in higher education in Arizona.

Perhaps of some interest is that the list is being run on a 386 based
PC using the GNU copyleft 386BSD unix system, a terrific piece of
software for the price (free).

        ---Bob Wier,
              list admin (wierspamKILLspamhipp.etsu.edu or .....wierKILLspamspam.....merlin.etsu.edu)

1. "What is the MC68HC11?"

It is a group of single-chip microcontrollers made by Motorola
based on the 6800 CPU. Unlike many such chips, however, the
chip can boot into an extended mode which replaces two of
the parallel ports with a complete address and data bus.
The very same chip, therefore, can be used for prototype AND
for the final product. This is truly a terrific chip!

The base model is the MC68HC11A8. It has the 6800 CPU, 8K of
factory programmed ROM, 512 bytes of EEPROM, 256 bytes of RAM,
1 serial port, 8 A/D converters, a timer/counter unit, a serial
communications channel (NOT an asynchronous serial port),
and 5 parallel ports. The A1 is used in the EVB, and is the same
thing without the ROM.

2. "What is the EVB or MC68HC11EVB?"

It is a circuit board containing a MC68HC11A1, a PRU (port
replacement unit - replaces the two ports taken up by the address
bus), 8K of external ROM - which contains a powerful monitor, and
two RS-232 ports.

You can plug one end of a cable into the EVB and the other end
into a socket in a product that would take a MC68HC11 and use
the monitor to debug the prototype hardware, or plug that cable
into a big storage scope and debug the software.... the mind
boggles.

3. "How and/or where can I purchase an EVB?"

       For the past several years, Motorola has run a "student design
       contest" which has encouraged the use of the hc11/evb in
       university courses.  Thus universitys are frequently in a
 position to order the EVB (or you may find them available off
       the shelf at the U bookstore).

       A number of "standard" electronics and component suppliers also
       carry the board.

       The EVB actually comes in three flavors -

       The original EVB - which is what the moderator has used for several
       years in design courses - a terrific deal for students at the
original
       price of $68.11 (cute...).  Instead of having them buy a text
       (which would probably cost that anyway), they just bought an EVB
       and got to take the computer with them at the end of the semester.
       The course(s) was taught from the technical manuals included with
       the kit.

       The EVB requires a dumb ascii terminal or better (Mac or PC
       recommended) and a power supply with +5, and +/- 12 v (to run the
       RS232 interface).

       Unfortunately the current production status of the EVB is unknown.

       In the fall of 1991 Motorola introduced two new products, the EVBII
and
       the EVBU:

       The EVBII is a redesign of the EVB using "modern" technology, such
       as a charge pump chip to develop the RS232 voltages. It also has
       available a subsidary logic analyzer board.  I've not had time
       to look at this extensively yet.  Also, the price range is up around
       $150, making it too expensive for an individual student purchase
       plan (at least at state supported universities).

       To fill the gap left by the EVB, there is the EVBU (university
       model) which is available at the original EVB price of $68.11.
       (The last I heard, the EVB was available at $88, but hasn't been
       confirmed recently).  The EVBU is a usable microcontroller, but
       is limited in such respects as memeory supplied.  It does have
       a wire wrap area (and in fact one student group here this spring
       used and EVBU in a project and wire wrapped in a subsidiary
       EPROM chip - not a big deal). It also includes a Real Time
       Clock chip (although a number of boards received here early in
       the production run were missing it).

       Using a Mac or a PC with the EVB / EVBU / EVBII gives you a
       complete development system at a VERY reasonable cost (assuming
       you already have the computer).  Freeware / Shareware is
       available (cross - compilers, monitors, simple C compilers)
       either at the ftp site here or elsewhere.

       There was also an EVM (evaluation module) which was a higher
       level product than the EVB.  I'm not sure if it's still in
       production or what it might cost.

The address and phone number for Motorola University Support is:

       Motorola SPS
       University Support 56-106
       P.O. Box 52073
       Phoenix, Az 85072
       602-952-3855
       602-952-3621 (FAX)

There is an excellent introductory article in June 1991 issue of
Computer Craft (formerly Modern Electronics) on M68HC11 micro-
controller and the EVB along with the above mentioned pricing
and availability infromation. Circuit Cellar also publishes
       articles from time to time on the HC11.

       HC11 information has also appeared in Circida's Circuit Cellar Ink,
       (he also had a column in BYTE magazine for a number of years)
       and Midnight Engineering magazine (strong on micro controller
content).
       Also, if you qualify, Embedded Systems magazine is very worthwhile
       (a "controlled circulation" magazine).

I strongly recommend that anyone interested in buying the EVB should
call the University Support to confirm availability and price, before
sending in any money.

Disclaimer: I am not connected with Motorola or Computer Craft in any
way other than being a happy customer.

4. "How can I get in touch with Motorola to get technical info?"

As far as I can tell, Motorola University support (as they like to
call themselves) is headed by Fritz Wilson.

His office is in the Semiconductor Products Sector in
Phoenix, Arizona.

Fritz: 602-952-3855

They can help you with pretty much anything, but beware, it's
usually pretty hard to get in touch with them, and they have
a real annoying voice mail system. ;)

All requests to them must be in writing.  Students should include
a copy of their ID along with their written request.
FAX requests are accepted at the FAX number: 602-952-3621.

Otherwise, they give the address of:

P.O. BOX 52073
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2073

But, on another card I received, there is also listed the following:

3102 North 56th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85018-6606

When paying for something, they hold onto personal checks
until they clear the bank, so you may want to send a cashiers
check.  If you can get your university to pay for it, you
can just send them the purchase order, and they will bill you.

5. "Where can I get support software?"

Right Here! Just anonymous ftp into pub/hc11 on hipp.etsu.edu
       and you will find hc11 support software, mirroring the
       Motorola freeware bulletin board (see below).  Motorola
       has given permission to make this available to encourge
       wider distribution of hc11 tools via the Internet.
       I plan on reorganizing this when I get a chance to make it
       more logical. Honest.

       You can call the Motorola "Freeware BBS" at 512-891-FREE (3733)
(1200/2400 bps). They have cross assemblers, sources for
the BUFFALO monitors, etc.

       Other likely sites: here is an ARCHIE listing (as of 24 Apr 1992):

      LOCATION (anonymous ftp via Internet) (many of these require BINARY
                file transfer!)

      aix370.rrz.uni-koeln.de /programming
      bode.ee.ualberta.ca /pub/DOS/motorola/68hc11
      sugrfx.acs.syr.edu /pub/vr/powerglove/hc11
      ee.utah.edu /admin
      karazm.math.uh.edu
      calvin.stanford.edu /motorola/68hc11
      calvin.stanford.edu /new_uploads
      hpcsos.col.hp.com /misc/motorola/68hc11
      lth.se /pub/languages/assembler
      munnari.oz.au /pub
      nic.funet.fi /pub/msdos/interfaces/emulators
      plaza.aarnet.edu.au /micros/pc/oak/emulators
      rigel.acs.oakland.edu /pub/msdos
      sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de /pub/msdos/simtel/emulators
      wuarchive.wustl.edu /mirrors/msdos/emulators

      The OLD archive/mailing site was rainbow.cse.nau.edu or alternately,
      red.cs.tcu.edu. These should NOT be used since they have been
      superceeded by the etsu site.

       If you find anything really neat at these sites, I'd appreciate
       a note so I can put it in here.

6.      What is the PowerGlove HC11 machine?

The powerglove is a device originally manufactured for video game usage,'
but which has been adapted as a general position sensitive input device.
It's of interest here because one of the major interfaces was developed
using the hc11 - doing an ARCHIE search turns up the following sites for
more information.

Host compute1.cc.ncsu.edu   (152.1.10.46)
Last updated 02:47 15 Mar 1993

   Location:
/mirrors/wustl/graphics/graphics/mirrors/sugrfx.acs.syr.edu/powerg
love
     DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x       512  Dec  5 18:23   hc11

Host ftp.nau.edu   (134.114.64.70)
Last updated 02:41 15 Mar 1993

   Location: /
      DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x       512  Dec  5 04:30   hc11

Host frosch.cosy.sbg.ac.at   (141.201.2.16)
Last updated 16:33 14 Mar 1993

   Location: /pub/mirror/vr/powerglove
     DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x      1024  Feb 13 15:17   hc11

Host wuarchive.wustl.edu   (128.252.135.4)
Last updated 19:12  5 Mar 1993

   Location: /graphics/graphics/mirrors/sugrfx.acs.syr.edu/powerglove
     DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x       512  Dec  5 17:23   hc11

Host sunsite.unc.edu   (152.2.22.81)
Last updated 01:00  3 Mar 1993

   Location: /pub/academic/computer-science/virtual-reality/powerglove
     DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x       512  Dec  3 07:22   hc11

Host plaza.aarnet.edu.au   (139.130.4.6)
Last updated 06:43 27 Feb 1993

   Location: /graphics/graphics/mirrors/sugrfx.acs.syr.edu/powerglove
     DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x       512  Feb  1 00:59   hc11

  -    Bob Wier, keeper of the list

1994\09\14@081332 by crocontroller discussion list

flavicon
face
>>Why on earth would you want to go and use an 8051, when you could use a
>>perfectly good PIC to do the job?
>>Rgds
>
>Although I prefere PICs I was "forced" to use 8032 in my last project
>and only because I COULDN'T GET WANTED PART :((
>Supplyers in Germany are not very eager to sell stuff by mail, and
>local shops doesn't even bother to order some PICs, but Intel is
>represented on their shelves quite well...
>So, please if you know any supplyers near Croatia (lets say in Austria or
>Italy ) let me know of them.
>
>Tibor
>
>( EraseMEtiborspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmvsrce.srce.hr )

Hi,
I don't know if this is considered as unwanted commercial advertising, but
I think will be told :-), and besides, I don't work for them - just happen
to have their catalog lying next to me:
RS Components have a reasonable (?) set of PIC processors and development sets
(PICStart 16B, 17A and 16C, PICMaster 16B, Promaster, PIC
16C54/55/56/57/64/84, 17C42).

According to my catalog, their telephone number for Austria is 02852 - 505,
for Germany 061 05 401 234, for Italy 02 27 425 1.

Their prices are generally not very low, but they promise to send any
amount of parts - down to a single resistor.

In addition, I still have a few postcards for catalog requests. So if you
just send me your address, I could mail them for you.

Bye
 Markus  (bd24spamspam_OUTrz.uni-karlsruhe.de)


'Another Intro'
1995\01\26@123710 by Errington A
flavicon
face
Hi

Since we are all introducing ourselves I would like to say hello.  I
subscribed to the list last week, and although it went a bit quiet I am
interested in what is going back and forth now.

My name is Andrew Errington and I work as a PC consultant at Lancaster
University (UK).  My interest in PICs came about after building a project
with a BASIC Stamp last year and deciding I could do more if I controlled
the processor directly.  I bought Microchip's Embedded Control Handbook,
which is _full_ of cool ideas, and I built the 16C84 development programmer
detailed in there.  I modified David Tait's controller software so I now
have a development environment that cost me about ?20 (or $30).

The PIC84 is excellent for development as it's EEPROM memory allows you to
recode and reprogram with no effort.  I have a project underway (in my spare
time (ha ha!)), and I will probably be looking at the other PIC's with extra
features for later projects.

[This is my third attempt at getting something onto the list.  I hope that
the other two are not marauding somewhere else...]

Andrew M. Errington
PC Consultant
Lancaster University
@spam@a.erringtonKILLspamspamlancaster.ac.uk
Tel: +44 1524 592678
Fax: +44 1524 844011

1995\01\26@133854 by Pic User

flavicon
face
Hi my Name is James Kelly. I work in computer services for the University
of Kansas. I am an Old timmer with Robotics (since 81) and of all the
things I've seen come and go the PIC has contributed a good balance to
help bring the next generation of Robotics in to the 90's.

 Hi to all you fine folks. Looking forward to Learning with you all.
James K.
"Wisdom is more valuable than Gold or Silver."

'Another PIC user introduction'
1995\01\26@184928 by Tracy R. Reed

flavicon
face
On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, Paul Haas wrote:

> For your entertainment the hottub is at:
>   http://hamjudo.com/cgi-bin/hottub
> The refrigerator is at:
>   http://hamjudo.com/cgi-bin/refrigerator

Hahahahahahahaha!!!! That's great! Sorry to hear about the rubber duckie,
I know it must have been quite a blow. What a gratuitous use of
electronics. :) Perhaps I will be able to set up something like this
someday. Your setup ranks right up there with the coke machine at MIT and
the coffee pot in some guys office at some place I cannot remember at the
moment. I'm gonna add a link to your appliances from my homepage. :)
There's only one thing missing...a camera on the hottub to show us what
(or who) is going on there! :)

1995\01\26@185756 by Robert Dale Bourque

picon face
Hello everone,

My name is Robert Bourque, and I am a senior EE student at the
University of Maryland.  My introduction to PIC's was through my
senior project, which is to design a 50 MHz digital scope.
We (there are 5 in the group) used a PIC for the PC-scope communication
and to setup the various components on the board prior to each
memory-capture period (which is controlled by a MACH).

My main responsibility in the project has been the PIC programming,
as well as some of the CAD layout.

I have co-op'ed with General Dynamics and also with TeleDanmark, the
Danish telecomm.  I am now taking my last class at night, and finishing
the scope project in my spare time.  I still have my student job on
campus (office gopher) but am really interested in finding a full-time
engineering job doing hardware/software related to realtime control, etc.

I am quite interested in the robotics applications of PIC's too.

1995\01\31@130633 by holster

flavicon
face
I tried sending this last week, but it didn't get out.

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

Gee, I guess there was somebody home after all!  Now to let you know who
I am.

My name is Dan Houlton.  I got my BA in CS from UofM a little over a year
ago and have since been working as a Software Engineer for General Dynamics
in the Detroit, MI area.  Some of my interests are motorcycling and flying RC
airplanes.  I've only recently become aware of PIC controllers and thought
it would be pretty fun to play around with, and since I like flying (not
repairing) RC, I thought I'd tinker with a wing leveler or autopilot.  It
seems to be a pretty tall order though, the more I research it.  The basic
idea is to use a PIC, a gyro (probably from a model helicopter), and maybe
an altimiter to control attitude and (maybe) altitude.

I got copies of Microchip's Data and Embedded Controller Handbooks to help
me decide what to use and was thinking of getting the PICStart package they
have.  I know Motorola 68030 assembly and I'm sure I could pic up PIC, but
I'm a C programmer at heart, so if anybody knows of any good cross compilers,
please let me know.

I think I'll get the the book "The PIC Source Book" mentioned in the FAQ, but
I'd really like to get "A Beginners Guide to the Microchip PIC".   This is
the one printed in the UK, and I haven't been able to find it here in the US.

So that's me.  I noticed some others were dealing with RC as well.  If any-
one has any advice about what to use, how to use it, or where to look for
more info please let me know.  I'd really like some US sources for the book
I mentioned above.  Who knows?  I might actually get to the point where I'm
saving more airplanes than I crash (that's a nasty habit of mine 8-(  ).


--Dan


'Yet another PIC programmer'
1995\05\01@153250 by David Tait
flavicon
face
A reference to interest UK hobbyists:

Robin Abbott, "PIC Programmer", Electronics Today International,
Vol 24, No. 6, pp 52-56, June 1995.

This article (to be continued next month) describes a simple PIC
programmer which connects to the serial port of a PC.  It uses two
voltage regulators, three transistors, a MAX232 and a pre-programmed
16C57 to provide a programmer capable of programming the PIC16C54, 55,
56, 57, 58 and any serial mode PIC including the PIC16C64, 71, 74 and
84.  The serial mode devices may also be programmed in-circuit using a
4-wire interface.  Cost: UKP 35 (around $55) including software. The
PCB pattern is reproduced 1-1 in the mag.

I guess ETI should be available in the USA.  If you can't find it
contact:

Wise Owl Worldwide Publications,
4314 West 238th Street,
Torrance,
CA 90505.

Tel: (310) 375 6258
Fax: (310) 375 0548

David
--
KILLspamdavid.taitKILLspamspamman.ac.uk

'Real-Time Clock and other problems...'
1995\05\18@054526 by divanov

flavicon
face
Dan says:

... snip snip ...
> ... So, the latest vote is Philips is not a plug-n-play solution.  If not,
> does anyone have any sources for I2C routines or a better way to do this?
... snip snip ...

Look at Microchip application notes AN541 and specifically AN554 (I2C
master mode implementation). I could mail you another master mode
implementation using the Parallax assembly code, if you'd like me to...

Can someone help me sort my PCLATH problem. I'm trying to access two look-up
tables, each about 200 bytes long, in a 16C84. The first table is located in
the fist 256 bytes of the prog memory and works OK, but the second one is a
real bugger to access. I tried shifting the table around and modifying PCLATH,
but don't seem to get it right. Please assist.

Regards,

Richard Ivanov, Cape Town <-- new politically correct sig

1995\05\18@111056 by KG Systems

flavicon
face
Thank you all for your responses regarding a RTC for 16C84... Sorry if I
sounded like I was snip...snip...snipping.

Between all of your contributions ... the most recent of which included:

- Jordanis H.'s  ... use a Dallas DS1494 TIC (Time-in-a-can) chip
- Aaron S.'s ....... '54 source code for I2C
- R. Ivanov's ...... referral to AN541 & AN554 for I2C info and offer of
                    source code for I2C driver.
                    (which would be gratefully accepted if it is handy)


I think I've got plenty to work with!  I hope to be contributing answers
instead of questions in the near future.


Best Regards,

Dan Garlen


Kg Systems, Inc.    12 Prospect Street Bloomfield, NJ   07003  |
                   PHONE: 201-429-9300  /  FAX: 201-429-2298  |
                   EMAIL: RemoveMEkgsysTakeThisOuTspaminteractive.net ______________|


'Another IRDA source'
1995\06\21@134408 by Doug Smith
flavicon
face
Another possible way to do IRDA is with the CS8130 chip from Crystal
Simicondutor.  They faxed over specs and sent a data book and it looks
pretty good.  The chip will do IRDA and a few other IR protocols.  There
is an evaluation board available but I haven't ordered mine yet.  I'll
let you know more about it after I get one to play with.  Here is the
contact person who sent me the information...

>   Brent Wilson
>   Infrared Applications Engineer
>   Crystal Semiconductor Corp.
>   email: spamBeGonebwwspamBeGonespamcrystal.cirrus.com
>   Tel: 512 912 3554
>   Fax: 512 445 2831
>   t/f: 800 888 5016 ext 3554

--
Doug Smith, SGA * Loves Park, IL * dougs%TakeThisOuTsgaEraseMEspamspam_OUTwheaton.wheaton.edu
AppleLink: G0231 * CompuServe: 72727,3532


'Configuration words and other confusion'
1995\07\04@095835 by Albert J. Fahey
flavicon
picon face
In my attempt to use in system serial programming I decided
to write my own code to program PICs via the PC parallel port.

I'm using David Tait's code and the AN589 code to guide me, but I'm
trying to make the code versatile enough to program any of the
PICs that support issp.

I've encountered discrepencies (or my own inability to understand
something) while reading the Microchip literature.  One of them
follows ... perhaps someone knows the answer.

1) When programming the configuration memory the Programming
Specification never tells you what data to send with the "Load
Configuration" command.  The spec. implies that you program the
configuration memory with a programming cycle at location 0x2007
in the configuration memory.  David Tait sends the fuse data for
both commands!  Apparently this works ... but what is going on
here?

                                       Albert

1995\07\04@104102 by David Tait

flavicon
face
Hi Albert,

> In my attempt to use in system serial programming I decided
> to write my own code to program PICs via the PC parallel port.

Good luck.

> 1) When programming the configuration memory the Programming
> Specification never tells you what data to send with the "Load
> Configuration" command.  The spec. implies that you program the
> configuration memory with a programming cycle at location 0x2007
> in the configuration memory.

This was discussed recently on the list.  Here is the answer
according to Brian Boles of Microchip:

: The "load configuration" and "load data for program memory" commands
: are both actually commands that load data for program memory. The
: only difference is that the "load config" command will also set the
: address pointer to 02000h i.e. near the configuration register
: (actually 2000 is the start of our test memory area).

: So the answer to the question "What is in the 16 bit field?" is that
: normally you will place your data for the bits in the configuration
: register here with the "load config" command, and then do 7 increment
: commands to point the address to 2007 then do a program command.

So there.  The only problem for me was that the spec said you should
do the increments and then perform a program cycle (i.e. load data,
begin prog, wait 10ms) but perhaps Brian is implying you can get away
without the load data part of the program cycle.  As you say, what I do
works, but maybe it wasn't what was intended according to the spec.

David
--
RemoveMEdavid.taitspamTakeThisOuTman.ac.uk


'Another PIC system with Basic Interpreter!'
1995\09\01@114400 by Don McKenzie
flavicon
face
This months issue of Silicon Chip (Australia) carries an advertisment for
yet another Basic Interpreter system.

I thought someone out there may know more about it or at least be
interested in its existance. The Ad. reads as follows:

FBASIC TICkit has 21 I/O

>From VersaTech PIC16C57 @ 20MHz, on a 65mm square board, has an on-board
interpreter, 16 GP I/O, plus 5 I/O for IRQ, IRQ ack RTC/Counter IIC buss,
handles SRAM and LCD too! Stores program in 8K EEPROM.

Don...

Don McKenzie                ~~   _--_|\    ~~   Email: donmckEraseMEspam.....tbsa.com.au
29 Ellesmere Cres.,         ~~  /      `\  ~~   Phone:   + 61 3 9338 6286
Tullamarine 3043 Australia  ~~ (         ) ~~  Mobile:   + 61 019 939 799
(10 Miles from Melbourne)   ~~  \/~^~\_@/  ~~   Same address for 21 years
See my promo.zip disk at:   ~~         v   ~~
ftp://rasi.lr.ttu.ee/pub/sis/prod/microchip/3rd-Party/Don.McKenzie/


'ByteCraft vs. CCS C compiler vs. others?'
1995\10\06@135130 by John Loch
flavicon
face
I've searched the net high and low for PIC C compilers.  Can anyone comment
on these compilers?  Are there others that aren't listed below?  Thanks.

1.) Custom Computer Services (CCS) - $99
       Supports most PIC's with built-in special functions
       http://execpc.com/~ccs/picc.html

2.) Parallax ByteCraft C Compiler - $795
       Supports 16C5x, 16C6x, 16C7x, 16C8x, and 17C42.
       http://www.parallaxinc.com/pictools/c_compilers/

That's all I could find.  Is the ByteCraft compiler worth the extra $700???

- John Loch
EraseMEjohnlochspammtt.com

1995\10\06@235451 by Andrew Warren

face
flavicon
face
John Loch <RemoveMEjohnlochEraseMEspamEraseMEMTT.COM> wrote:

>I've searched the net high and low for PIC C compilers.  Can anyone
>comment on these compilers?  Are there others that aren't listed
>below?  Thanks.
>
>1.) Custom Computer Services (CCS) - $99
>        Supports most PIC's with built-in special functions
>        http://execpc.com/~ccs/picc.html
>
>2.) Parallax ByteCraft C Compiler - $795
>        Supports 16C5x, 16C6x, 16C7x, 16C8x, and 17C42.
>        http://www.parallaxinc.com/pictools/c_compilers/
>
>That's all I could find.  Is the ByteCraft compiler worth the extra
>$700???

John:

I think so.  The Bytecraft compiler (by the way, it isn't a Parallax
product any more than the PIC microcontrollers are) is called MPC;
aside from being a better compiler, it's much more compatible with
Microchip's emulator (which can debug MPC programs at the source
level), and there are some new developments coming soon for MPC which
should make it even better.

-Andy

--
Andrew Warren - RemoveMEfastfwdspam_OUTspamKILLspamix.netcom.com
Fast Forward Engineering, Vista, California

1995\10\09@104212 by Paul Greenwood

flavicon
face
I have the $99 one and I like it alot.  I haven't had any problems but I only
use it in a hobby fashion.....  I haven't stressed it much.

> I've searched the net high and low for PIC C compilers.  Can anyone comment
> on these compilers?  Are there others that aren't listed below?  Thanks.
>
> 1.) Custom Computer Services (CCS) - $99
>         Supports most PIC's with built-in special functions
>         http://execpc.com/~ccs/picc.html
>
> 2.) Parallax ByteCraft C Compiler - $795
>         Supports 16C5x, 16C6x, 16C7x, 16C8x, and 17C42.
>         http://www.parallaxinc.com/pictools/c_compilers/
>
> That's all I could find.  Is the ByteCraft compiler worth the extra $700???
>
> - John Loch
> RemoveMEjohnlochTakeThisOuTspamspammtt.com
>


--

           -- Paul Greenwood --  (EraseMEpablospamspamspamBeGoneaustin.ibm.com)

Ten years of rejection slips is nature's way of telling you to stop
writing.
               -- R. Geis

1995\10\09@124523 by John T

picon face
> I've searched the net high and low for PIC C compilers.  Can anyone comment
> on these compilers?  Are there others that aren't listed below?  Thanks.

There is another C-Complier coming from Avocet Systems. I've been told it will
ship in November. Demo disks are supposedly available.

Contact Avocet at 800 448-8500 or RemoveMEavocetKILLspamspammidcoast.com

John Magrane
FAE Bell Industries
408 734-8570
72712.2347STOPspamspamspam_OUTcompuserve.com

1995\10\11@142526 by Tim Braun

flavicon
face
> Date:         Fri, 6 Oct 1995 12:00:01 -0700
> From: John Loch <spamBeGonejohnlochSTOPspamspamEraseMEMTT.COM>

> I've searched the net high and low for PIC C compilers.  Can anyone comment
> on these compilers?  Are there others that aren't listed below?  Thanks.

> 1.) Custom Computer Services (CCS) - $99
>         Supports most PIC's with built-in special functions
>         http://execpc.com/~ccs/picc.html

> 2.) Parallax ByteCraft C Compiler - $795
>         Supports 16C5x, 16C6x, 16C7x, 16C8x, and 17C42.
>         http://www.parallaxinc.com/pictools/c_compilers/

> That's all I could find.  Is the ByteCraft compiler worth the extra $700???

> - John Loch
> KILLspamjohnlochspamBeGonespammtt.com

The PIC architecture doesn't lend itself to stack-based languages like C,
IMHO.  Those are the two compilers that I know of.  I bought them both,
guess in what order :).

I've heard of happy CCS customers, and I suppose for some PIC variants for
some projects their product is fine.  And then it's a good value.  I couldn't
use it for my project, as it was c57 based, and needed more than one page
of code.

The MPC compiler (I bought mine straight from ByteCraft) allowed me to complete
the project and deliver to the customer.  That was worth US$700 to me.

Tim Braun                             | Voice: 204-942-2992 ext 228
Continental Healthcare Systems Canada | FAX:   204-942-3001
1900-155 Carlton St                   | Email: EraseMEtimspamEraseMEchs.mb.ca
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3C 3H8    | www: http://www.chs.mb.ca/~tim/home.html

'another request!'
1995\10\23@125701 by MARAMI%IREARN.bitnet

flavicon
face
Dear friends,
thanks for your reply to my first request.i found PIC assembler and
simulator in http://www.ultranet.com/biz/mchip but i could not
get them .because our INTERNET line in IRAN is very slow(9600 bps).
so i have a new request.may you treat me kindly and send me these programs
by e-mail? if you have in mind to do this kindness please use uuencode
to change  binary file to ascii for e-mail.
thanks for your kindness and cooperation.
A.Marami
ELECTRONICS engineer
e-mail: @spam@marami@spam@spamspam_OUTrose.ipm.ac.ir

'FTP by mail. (was: another request!)'
1995\10\27@162336 by Sheldon Ward

picon face
At 08:18 PM 10/23/95 +0330, you wrote:

>simulator in http://www.ultranet.com/biz/mchip but i could not
>get them .because our INTERNET line in IRAN is very slow(9600 bps).
>so i have a new request.may you treat me kindly and send me these programs
>by e-mail? if you have in mind to do this kindness please use uuencode
>A.Marami

There are many computers around the world to do just that!  They're called
FTP by Mail servers.  One is at spamBeGoneftpmailspamKILLspamSunSITE.Unc.EDU, but you should use
one that is close to you.  You tell it (via email) where the file is and it
will get the file and email it to you.  Easy to use.  Some sites have long
waiting lists but others are very quick.

Try it out!

Later,

Sheldon
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*                                                                   *
* .....Sheldonspam_OUTspamDirect.Ca            In beautiful Langley, B.C., Canada   *
*                                                                   *
* The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect my own.  *
*                                                                   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


'PICSTART for 14000, and other Microchip News'
1996\03\16@022455 by Dan Matthews
picon face
------ =_NextPart_000_01BB12CE.F2452000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

                       Microchip News                  3/13/96

Pardon the fairly blatant endorsement for Microchip products. But since =
that's what this list is all about I will take the space expecting most =
of you will be interested.  I have taken this thread as a good =
opportunity to  pass on some news.  There's so much good news from the =
development systems group and the silicon lads that I had to.  Pardon =
the disclaimer but; in an email like this, content can change as easily =
as the message changes hands, or details left out. So verify any =
noteworthy facts yourselves.


The questions were asked:

     Is there was a new PICSTART programmer for the PIC14000?

     If  that PICSTART would be made available at the seminars?

     and (implied) will there be seminars?

The answer is yes to all three.

       Development Tools

"PICSTART Plus"  is a universal development programmer. It will program =
the PIC16C5X, PIC16CXX, and PIC17CXX. That's all three main =
microcontroller families, something none of our development programmers =
have done before  (of course Pro Mate does). This also includes many of =
the parts derived from their cores, like the PIC14000 (and others to =
remain nameless for now). This programmer is designed to be European CE =
compliant (an emissions standard), so it is enclosed in a metalized =
plastic case.  It is also going to operate under MPLAB, the Microchip =
IDE (Integrated Development Environment).  Ready just after or during =
the May/June seminars, but advanced orders will be taken at seminar =
registration.

MPLAB, as most of you probably know, is now the Windows interface for =
nearly all of our tools. It began as the front end for the PICMASTER =
emulator. It has a powerful code editor built in.  From the source code =
window MPLAB interfaces directly with our new Windows assembler (and the =
MPC C compiler), so code can be edited and assembled/compiled from the =
same platform.  With a PICMASTER emulator installed, MPLAB displays =
program memory, register files, watch windows, breaks, traces, etcetera. =
Making it ideal as the front end for our soon to be released MPLAB =
Simulator.  Look for the simulator around the time of the seminars.

MPLAB is free to seminar attendees (schedule below).  In fact it is =
already free via download (sans Windows Simulator of course)  from the =
Microchip BBS or Web Site.  Perhaps at least a few newcomers may not =
know that the BBS is accessed through the local CompuServe connection - =
connection instructions in databooks and other documents, and the =
Microchip web site is at: "http://www.mchip.com/microchip" and =
"ftp.mchip.com/biz/mchip".

       Seminars

The seminars will be held this year in 32 cities during May and June.  =
Below they are listed by State/Province (mostly) for North America. I do =
not have a schedule for other geographies here.

The seminars will be conducted in two sessions:

  Morning - Introductory Session
An overview of the Microchip product line, with emphasis on the =
Microcontrollers.  This session is highly recommended to those that have =
never attended a Microchip seminar, and those with the time to kill to =
here about lots of neat (many new) products.

 Afternoon - Advanced Session
Take notes. We will cover as many aspects of designing for a PIC16/17 =
microcontroller as time permits (3 1/2 hours).  We will cover the =
development tools you leave with, program structure/content, interrupts, =
resets, timers, peripherals, paging, program counter manipulation, =
design tips, you get the idea.  Be there if you plan on starting a =
Microchip design.

 Admission Price
----------------------
$25     One Session, morning or afternoon (includes lunch)
$40     Both Sessions
$99     PICSTART-16B1 and either or both sessions. =20
          '16B1 programs PIC16C5X and 18 pin PIC16CXX.
$99     PICSTART-16C and either or both sessions.=20
          '16C program the PIC16CXX family except 18 pin.

$149    PICSTART Plus and either or both sessions
           Plus programs PIC16C5X/6X/7X/8X/62X, PIC17CXX, and PIC14000

Everyone attending the seminar will get a copy of the new MIcrochip =
CDROM. If you have a MAC or a PC, you can use the Acrobat Reader =
software included on the disk. The CDROM contains Acrobat PDF files of =
our datasheets, programming guides, software Users Guides, Sales Office =
Listings, Product Selection Guides, Development Tools guide and =
megabytes more. =20

You will also get a copy of MPLAB.

The seminars run in May and June.  We will be taking registration calls =
soon, try around 4-1-96. I will post back with the phone number to call =
when I find out  we are staffed for the call influx.  If you do not get =
back here often, you can get more details from the ads running soon in =
several trade magazines.

       best regards,
               Dan Matthews
               Microchip Technologies
               "I heard it cry out, then smoke came out of it"

St/Pr   City            Date
-------------------------------
AZ      Phoenix         6/20/96
BC      Vancouver       6/11/96
CA      San Gabriel     5/21/96
CA      Irvine          5/23/96
CA      San Jose        6/13/96
CA      San Diego       6/18/96
CO      Denver          6/27/96
CT      Waterbury       6/25/96
FL      Orlando         5/31/96
GA      Atlanta         5/14/96
IL      Chicago         5/7/96
IN      Indianapolis    7/9/96
MA      Waltham         5/14/96
MD      Bethesda        6/4/96
MEX     Monterrey       7/9/96
MEX     Mexico City     7/11/96
MI      Detroit         6/6/96
MN      Minneapolis     6/4/96
MO      Kansas City     5/21/96
MO      St. Louis       5/23/96
NC      Raleigh         5/16/96
NJ      Fairfield               6/27/96
NY      Rochester       5/16/96
NY      Long Island     5/29/96
OH      Cleveland       6/18/96
OH      Dayton          6/20/96
ONT     Toronto         5/29/96
OR      Portland        5/9/96
PA      Philadelphia    6/6/96
QUE     Montreal        5/30/96
TX      Dallas          6/11/96
TX      Houston         6/13/96
UT      Salt Lake City  6/25/96
WA      Seattle         5/7/96
WI      Milwaukee       5/9/96


----------
From:   Lee Jones[SMTP:TakeThisOuTlee.....spamTakeThisOuTFRUMBLE.CLAREMONT.EDU]
Sent:   Thursday, March 14, 1996 4:23 PM
To:     Multiple recipients of list PICLIST
Subject:        PICSTART for 14000

>> When can I get a low cost PICSTART for this beauty?!

> A new version of the low cost PICSTART device programmer which
> will support the 14000 will be available around June.

Will this year's Microchip traveling seminar series cover the
PIC 14000 product(s)?

Last two years, the PICSTART-16B and PICSTART-16C were available
as package deals with seminar registraion.  Will the new PICSTART
for the 14000 be available as a package with this year's seminars?

                                               Lee Jones

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jones Computer Communications             TakeThisOuTleeKILLspamspamspamfrumble.claremont.edu
509 Black Hills Dr, Claremont, CA 91711         voice: 909-621-9008
-------------------------------------------------------------------



------ =_NextPart_000_01BB12CE.F2452000
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BB12CE.F2452000--


'Other PIC discussion groups??'
1996\05\16@094650 by Hamish Seaton
flavicon
face
Are there any other PIC discussion groups around the place.  Ive had a look
at a few FAQ's etc, but nothing really useful.  Heaps of info here though!

'Teaching a Class: Need comparisons to other popula'
1996\05\23@081409 by Thomas Coonan

flavicon
face
    One of the fun tasks I get to do, is teaching short courses on various
    technical subjects to engineers here at SA.  You guessed it - I'm
    doing a short course on the PIC.  I would like to include a quick
    comparison to competing "low end" microcontrollers (AD2100, 8051,
    6805, 6811).  I'm thinking about a fairly quick and unscientific gross
    comparison and not a detailed engineering analysis.  I'd love to hear
    any comments and gut impressions y'all might have ("what? engineers
    with opinions about different processors?").  Here are some short
    notes I have (please, throw rocks at these statements).

    - PIC's one cycle 120ns instruction is pretty fast, especially when
    compared with 8051.  (however, aren't their accelerated 8051
    look-a-likes that *are* as fast as PIC?)
    - Availability (especially through DIGIKEY) is much better than rivals
    like, say, Motorola...
    - If one counted up the numbers of steps to program a PIC at one's
    desk (and $$$) versus the others, the PIC would win...(one could argue
    "so what?" but this is nice for prototyping, at least.
    - PICs prices are pretty competitive (2100s around $10 (?), but 8051s
    can be gotten pretty cheap, right?)
    - My use of PICs has been for very low-end stuff where assembler was
    completely adequete.  My gut feeling is that when you start
    contemplating larger C programs, 68HC11s start looking much more
    manageable.  Maybe new higher-end PICs can dispute this reaction.

    Thanks!

    .....Thomas.CoonanspamRemoveMESciatl.com  (Scientific Atlanta, that is)

1996\05\23@114038 by John Payson

flavicon
face
>      - PIC's one cycle 120ns instruction is pretty fast, especially when
>      compared with 8051.  (however, aren't their accelerated 8051
>      look-a-likes that *are* as fast as PIC?)

Dallas makes a part that runs a clock of 33MHz (I think) and runs "90%" of
instructions in 4 clocks.  Unfortunately, that 90% is only a measure of
opcode space mix, not dynamic or even static instruction mix.  To understand
this, consider that the CPU needs a lot more opcodes for instuctions like

       mov a,r0
       mov a,r1

etc. (one-byte instructions--4 cycles execution) than for

       mov a,#imm
       mov a,direct

(two-byte instructions--8 cycles execution) or

       mov direct,#imm
       mov direct,direct

(three-byte instructions--12 cycles execution).

To be sure, many instructions would require two instructions on the PIC to
replace them, but PIC's handy skip instructions often more than make up for
that; further, the PIC's addition and rotate instructions can operate with
memory as a destination whereas the 8051-clones' cannot.

1996\05\23@131445 by Roger Books

flavicon
face
<bit about 33MHZ processor with different instruction times snipped>

How do you count time on this?  On a PIC you know how many instructions
you have and can get a fair (perfect?) execution time count.  Do you
run through a simulator and hope you catch all the cases?

Roger
(Fortunately, everything I've ever had to do was minimizing instruction
times, not be councerned about using a known time.)

1996\05\24@110328 by Martin McCormick

flavicon
face
       I once wrote a 6502 routine to decode 1200 baud data and found that
the easiest thing to do was to minimize instructions as previously mentioned
and then add adjustable delay loops since it is easy to retune the loops
when you modify the code.

       On a 1 MHZ 6502, 1200 baud got pretty touchy.  I highly recommend any
other way to do this if possible.  It was a real pain, but it would be a
great learning exercise.

Martin McCormick 405 744-7572   Stillwater, OK
OSU Center for Computing and Information services Data Communications Group

'Division by 5 (10) - another cat comes lurking'
1996\05\30@121738 by Martin Nilsson

picon face
> Everyone knows a cat has 9 lives. We have used three on this problem, so there
> are probably six more solutions lurking out there.
>
>
> Scott

Ok, here is another way of doing it:

1. Given x, we first find r = x mod 5 by repeatedly adding the nibbles
of x, and taking this sum mod 5, for instance with a 16-entry table.

2. Then we compute (x - r) * 13107 mod 2^16 (13107 = 3333 hex, ever
seen this one before? :-) = 65535 q mod 2^16 = -q mod 2^16. q is the answer
(exactly).

-- Martin

Martin Nilsson                           http://www.sics.se/~mn/
Swedish Institute of Computer Science    E-mail: RemoveMEmnspamspamBeGonesics.se
Box 1263, S-164 28 Kista                 Fax: +46-8-751-7230
Sweden                                   Tel: +46-8-752-1574

1996\05\30@133422 by Scott Dattalo

face
flavicon
face
Martin Nilsson wrote:
>
>
> Ok, here is another way of doing it:
>
> 1. Given x, we first find r = x mod 5 by repeatedly adding the nibbles
> of x, and taking this sum mod 5, for instance with a 16-entry table.
>
> 2. Then we compute (x - r) * 13107 mod 2^16 (13107 = 3333 hex, ever
> seen this one before? :-) = 65535 q mod 2^16 = -q mod 2^16. q is the answer
>  (exactly).
>
>  -- Martin

A couple of comments:

1) r = x mod 5 ==>   0 <= r < 5

2) I think you want to add instead of subtract:

  ((x + r) * 13107 ) mod 2^16

Because if you subtract, your rounding down and your answer will always be 1
less
than the correct answer unless x mod 5 = 0.

As far as the 0x3333 thing, I think that was mentioned (at least indirectly) in
the
first posting. The original objective is to divide by 10. However division by
some
constant, N, can be convert to multiplication by 1/N:

 X           1     2^m
---  =  x * --- *  ---
 N           N     2^m

        x    2^m
     = --- * ---
       2^m    N

For 16 bit integers, m = 16. And 2^16/10 = 0x3333. Thus,

 x
--- = 0x3333 * x >> 16
 10


Since this is the same cat, Martin, we're now down to 5 lives. But, I've got yet
another to skin this guy. One of Andy's steps in solving these arcane problems
involves
looking up Knuth (the messiah of numbers). While riding home last night, I
somehow recalled
a formula that I once saw in "The Art of Computer Programming: Seminumerical
Algorithms",
Vol II. Consider the power series expansion of:

  x        x    /     / e \   / e \2  / e \3      \
-------  = --- * | 1 - |---| + |---| - |---| + ... |
v + e      v    \     \ v /   \ v /   \ v /       /


In our case, we are dividing by 10. So our first shot for v and e might be:

let  v = 8, e = 2

In which case we get:

 x      x
--- =  --- * ( 1 - 1/4 + 1/16 - 1/64 + ... )
 10     8

After some (O.K. a lot of) simplification and rearranging, you end up again with
Andy's
formula.

5 down, 4 to go.

Another combination of v and e is:

 x     3 * x     3 * x     3       x
--- = ------- = ------- = --- * -------
 10    3 * 10    32 - 2    2     16 - 1

Or, v = 16 and e = -1. Substitute this into the power series expansion:

 x     3     x
--- = --- * --- * ( 1 + 1/16 + 1/256 + 1/4096 + ... )
 10    2     16

Which after some simplification gives the answer I had originally posted. Other
combinations of v = 2^i and e = 2^j (i and j are integers) reduce to either one
of these expansions. I suppose you could choose v = 7 and e = 3, however except
on base 7 computers this computation is more difficult.

Thus, we have skinned this poor cat 6 times.

Three more to go. Any more Ideas.


Scott

1996\05\31@104530 by Martin Nilsson

picon face
> From:    Scott Dattalo <spamBeGonesdattalo@spam@spamspam_OUTUNIX.SRI.COM>
<snip>
> A couple of comments:
>
> 1) r = x mod 5 ==>   0 <= r < 5
>
> 2) I think you want to add instead of subtract:
>
>    ((x + r) * 13107 ) mod 2^16

No, it should be subtracted.  Sorry if I was unclear. My unstated
assumption was x = 5 * q + r, where 0 <= r < 5. We want q. Then r = (x
mod 5) and ((x - r) * 13107) mod 2^16 = (((5 * q + r) - r) * 13107)
mod 2^16 = ((5 * q) * 13107) mod 2^16 = (65535 * q) mod 2^16 =
((2^16-1) * q) mod 2^16 = -q mod 2^16.

The point is no infinite series or rounding is involved.

> For 16 bit integers, m = 16. And 2^16/10 = 0x3333. Thus,
>
>   x
>  --- = 0x3333 * x >> 16
>   10

I'm afraid, not quite. 2^16/10 = 6553 + 3/5 <> 13107 = 0x3333. But you
are right insofar as -13107 is a multiplicative inverse of 5 modulo
2^16 (it is the modulo part that is important).

> Since this is the same cat, Martin, we're now down to 5 lives. But, I've got
yet

Strictly speaking, there *can't* be such a thing as a different cat,
since division by 10 is a well-defined operation. Any methods that
divides by ten are mathematically equivalent. Or how should we define
"different"...? :-)

-- Modulo Man
(a.k.a. Martin)

Martin Nilsson                           http://www.sics.se/~mn/
Swedish Institute of Computer Science    E-mail: TakeThisOuTmnspamspamsics.se
Box 1263, S-164 28 Kista                 Fax: +46-8-751-7230
Sweden                                   Tel: +46-8-752-1574


'Another comment on sending commands'
1996\06\06@103634 by T.Nelson
flavicon
picon face
Carl Kimball <PICLISTEraseMEspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:

> The document that was sent to me when I subscribed here is very
> wordy, but very unspecific about sending commands to the list
> server.
>
> It simply says "send a command..." and doesn't say whether the
> command should be on the Subject line, or in the body of the
> message. I guess if you do both, it will figure it out?!?!

As some else previously pointed out - only the body is read.  However,
one should strip out the signature (like mine below) before sending
commands.  Depending on your signature - you may get unwanted results.


--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--| Troy D.F. Nelson                     | EMAIL  RemoveMEnelsonEraseMEspamspam_OUTcerc.wes.army.mil
--| Coastal Engineering Research Center  | Voice  601-634-3568
--| USAE Waterways Experiment Station    | FAX    601-634-3151
--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Other lists'
1996\06\11@043903 by Andy David

flavicon
face
part 0 20 bytes
thanks,


- Andy.


'Another math problem!'
1996\06\12@201715 by Xaq

flavicon
face
I while back I posted a question about a simple math problem, that everyone
was very helpful in solving.  I hope you guys can help me with this one, it
is a little harder.

I need to solve this equation:

       sqrt(x^2+y^2)/(x*y)

    Both x, y, and the answer are all byte(0-255) values.

I have compiled a number routines for various math problems (the latest is
the sqrt, thanks guys), but not enough to solve this equation.

In the equation above, the problem is in the fact that you must add x^2 and
y^2, right there you might have a number larger than 16 bits (I am not sure
how to handle double word mult and sqrt). I even tried manipulating the
equation first to see if I could make it any easier.  This is what I came up
with:

       sqrt( (x/y)^2 )/y

This is equivalent to the first equation and it does not have the problem
with large numbers, instead x/y could be a very small fraction.  We don't
like floating point :^( .

I am not sure what to do. I tried the old lookup table approach, but it
would have to be real big (255 by 255) to get any real accuracy.  On top of
all that I need to keep the whole routine down to bellow 600 cycles.  Any
suggestions would be a great help.


Thanks

Zach

1996\06\13@001007 by Steve Hardy

flavicon
face
> From: Xaq <@spam@xaqRemoveMEspamEraseMEINDIRECT.COM>
>
> I while back I posted a question about a simple math problem, that everyone
> was very helpful in solving.  I hope you guys can help me with this one, it
> is a little harder.
>
> I need to solve this equation:
>
>         sqrt(x^2+y^2)/(x*y)
>
>      Both x, y, and the answer are all byte(0-255) values.
>
> [cut]

That's easy:

if x or y are zero, return 255 (nearest thing to infinity).
if x == 1 or y == 1, return 1 (nearest thing to sqrt(x^2+1)/x).
else return 0 (nearest thing to any other case).

But seriously! I presume you want to scale the result to a meaningful
precision?

Regards,
SJH

1996\06\13@003946 by Martin J. Maney

flavicon
face
On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Xaq wrote:

> I need to solve this equation:
>
>         sqrt(x^2+y^2)/(x*y)

In order to check that I've read this right, that's the ratio of the
length of the diagonal to the area of the rectangle where one side is x
and the other is y, yes?

> In the equation above, the problem is in the fact that you must add x^2 and
> y^2, right there you might have a number larger than 16 bits (I am not sure
> how to handle double word mult and sqrt). I even tried manipulating the

If you can make any guarantees about the values that can come up you
might not need a full double-word intermediate.  In any event,
multi-precision multiplication and division are more tedious - and slow!
- than we might wish.

> equation first to see if I could make it any easier.  This is what I came up
> with:
>
>         sqrt( (x/y)^2 )/y

This is why I want to make sure I understand the original.  The
rearrangement I get that's close to this is

       sqrt( (y/x)^2 + 1 )
      ---------------------
                y

Not that this gets us any further in finding an efficent solution, but it
does raise some doubt whether I've read the same problem you started out
with!

> I am not sure what to do. I tried the old lookup table approach, but it
> would have to be real big (255 by 255) to get any real accuracy.  On top of
> all that I need to keep the whole routine down to bellow 600 cycles.  Any
> suggestions would be a great help.

No floating point, then the trigonometric form won't be of any use, will
it?  What was the original problem, if it's not too shy of publicity?
Just possibly you've analyzed it into a form that disguises the key to a
solution.

1996\06\14@170246 by Scott Dattalo

face
flavicon
face
Xaq wrote:
>
> I need to solve this equation:
>
>         sqrt(x^2+y^2)/(x*y)
>


and ....

Donald F. Wright Jr. wrote:
>
> I need to find the result of adding two vectors together.
>
> Result= SQRT(X^2 + Y^2)
>

These are very similar problems, so killing two stones with one bird...

You guys might wish to consider the binomial expansion of the square root
function:

          1            u       u^2       u^3       u^4
(1 + u)^(---) =  1 +  ---  -  -----  +  ----- - 5*----- + ...
          2            2        8        16        128

In either case, u is the ratio of x and y squared. For example, Xaq's problem
may be rewritten (contrary to how Xaq rewrote it):

 sqrt(x^2 + y^2)        sqrt(1 + (y/x)^2)
----------------- =   ----------------------
       x*y                      y

And for Donald's problem:

 sqrt(x^2 + y^2) = x * sqrt(1 + (y/x)^2)

Using the binomial expansion on Donald's problem:
                               (y/x)^2   (y/x)^4
 x*sqrt(1 + (y/x)^2) = x*(1  + ------- - ------- + ...)
                                  2         8

I've assumed that y is greater than x. If it isn't, then you will want to form
the
ratio of x/y instead. The number of terms that you need evaluating depend upon
the
ratio of x and y and also on how much accuracy you desire.

There are a couple of exceptions worth noting. Obviously, if x or y is zero then
the sqrt computation is not necessary. (In Xaq's case, it's even detrimental).
Similarly, if x and y are equal then the square root reduces to simply a
sqrt(2),
i.e. a constant. If x and y are about the same size, then you need to make a
simple
modification to the series approximation.

If u = (y/x)^2 ~ 1 then let v = 1 - u and substitute this into the series:


          1                     1
(1 + u)^(---) =   (1 + 1 - v)^(---)
          2                     2
                            1
              =   (2 - v)^(---)
                            2

                                v     1
              =   sqrt(2)*(1 - ---)^(---)
                                2     2


                                v       v^2       v^3       v^4
              =  sqrt(2)*(1 -  ---  -  -----  -  ----- - 5*----- + ...
                                4       32        128       2048

The question still remains whether or not these series approximations are any
more
efficient then the square root of the sum of squares. Considering that we now
have
a fairly efficient way of computing square roots, it may not be.


Speaking of efficient square roots... I initially considered this series
approximation
to compute the square root of a 16 bit unsigned integer. The way it would work
is:

Given a 16 bit unsigned integer N:

1) Let M = 2^m where m is the most significant bit position of N. For example,
if
N = 0001 0001 1101 1111 then
M = 0001 0000 0000 0000  and  m = 12.

2) If m is odd, then
      a) M = M * 2
      b) m = m + 1
      c) N = N * 2
      d) let K = sqrt(2)
  else
      a) let K = 1

let P = N ^ M , this clears the most significant bit of N

At this point, N can be expressed as
 N = (M + P) / K^2

3) Introduce the binomial expansion of the square root function:

 sqrt(N) = sqrt(M + P)/K
         = sqrt(M) * sqrt(1 + P/M) / K

Note, that M is a perfect square. So,
 sqrt(M) = sqrt(2^m) = 2^(m/2)


                              P/M     (P/M)^2     (P/M)^3      (P/M)^4
 sqrt(N) = 2^(m/2)/K * ( 1 +  ---  -  -------  +  -------- - 5*------- + ...
                               2        8            16           128

 sqrt(N) = 2^(m/2)/K * ( 1 + P>>(m+1) - (P*P)>>(2*m+3) + (P*P*P)>>(3*m+4) -
...)

This will give you at least seven bits of resolution. This is because P/M is
less
than 1/2. The fourth term cubes P/M and divides it by 2^4. In effect, dividing P
by
2^7. The next term divides P by ~2^9. At any rate, the square root computation
has
been converted into a multiplication computation. It's not exactly efficient,
but
I thought it was interesting.


Scott

1996\06\18@050027 by fastfwd

face
flavicon
face
Xaq <EraseMEPICLISTspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:

> I need to solve this equation:
>
>         sqrt(x^2+y^2)/(x*y)
>
>      Both x, y, and the answer are all byte(0-255) values.
>
> ....
>
> In the equation above, the problem is in the fact that you must add
> x^2 and y^2, right there you might have a number larger than 16 bits
> (I am not sure how to handle double word mult and sqrt).

Zach:

Scott Dattalo and others have given you a lot of good information
already... Have you solved your problem?

If not, and if you want to do it by simply translating your equation
directly into code, you can get over the hurdle you mentioned (x^2 +
y^2 > 16 bits) by noting that sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a) * sqrt(b).

Therefore, you can simply divide the result of your "x^2 + y^2"
calculation by 4, perform the square-root operation on this new
number (now guaranteed to fit within 16 bits), then multiply the
result of the square-root operation by 2.

My apologies if anyone else has already pointed this out... I've been
away from the list for a while.

-Andy

Andrew Warren - @spam@fastfwdspam_OUTspam.....ix.netcom.com
Fast Forward Engineering, Vista, California
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499


'PIP02 and programming other devices ?'
1996\07\22@204456 by PAUL B
flavicon
picon face
HI i have just downloaded the pip-02 programmer details i like the look
and feel of the software but although the program claims to support
othere devices there is only drivers and diagrams for the pic 16c84.
What i want to know is what hardware or drivers do i need to program
other devices ?????

--
PAUL B

1996\07\23@082104 by Don McKenzie

flavicon
face
PAUL B wrote:
>
> HI i have just downloaded the pip-02 programmer details i like the look
> and feel of the software but although the program claims to support
> othere devices there is only drivers and diagrams for the pic 16c84.
> What i want to know is what hardware or drivers do i need to program
> other devices ?????
>
> --
> PAUL B

Paul, the site you have come across is operated by Antti Lukats of Silicon
Studios
in Estonia. He can't come to the phone right now coz he is in the US for about 2
weeks.

May I suggest you re-post your message at a later date. The site is overdue for
a
bit of major construction, but Antti is peddling as fast as he can. :)

Or direct it to Antti in private Email at spamBeGonesisEraseMEspamonline.ee
Don't use the address quoted on his home page. I doubt if he will get it.

Don...

Don McKenzie donmckspamBeGonespamlabyrinth.net.au
DonTronics Tullamarine, Australia
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~donmck

EASY PIC'n Beginners Guide to using PIC 16/17 MicroChip products.
Picosaurus(tm) 40 pin PICBasic with 8 channels of A-D, and real Uart.
PIC Basic Compiler. Programmers from 15 USD.  Pic-Axe(tm) A New Tool.


'Using the Picstart Plus to program other micro's?'
1996\09\12@110312 by Werner Terreblanche
flavicon
face
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From:          Self <FS7/WTERREB>
To:            PICLIST
Subject:       Using the Picstart Plus to program other micro's?
Date:          Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:07:40 GMT+2

I bought myself one of the new Picstart Plus programmers and is very
impressed with.   This is almost a universal programmer in the true
sense of the word.  Or is it?

What I specifically like about the programmer is that they put DG411
analog switches on almost all the pins, making it possible to cater
for almost any kind of pin configuration.  The control is done by a
PIC17C42 (I think) which is connected via the RS232 serial port to
your computer.

This brings me to an interesting thought...   It really looks as if
this hardware should make it possible to also program other devices
on this programmer if one just replace the existing controlling micro
with another specially programmed one.  I would particularly like it if I can
program
the Atmel 89C20xx and 89Cxx devices.

Has anyone else out there ever tried to do this?  Is the schematics
for the Microchip Picstart Plus available anyware?  It shouldn't be
too difficult to reverse engineer it, but I really don't want to do
that if someone else has already done this and I can just buy a
pre-programmed 17C42 to replace my existing one and wolla - My
picstart can now also program the Atmel devices!

It would be interesting to hear what the programmer experts like Jim
and Antti think of this....   <hint> <hint>   :)

Rgds

Werner

--
Werner Terreblanche   Tel +27 21 7102251   Fax +27 21 721278
RemoveMEwterreb@spam@spamspamBeGoneplessey.co.za (work) OR .....werner@spam@spamEraseMEaztec.co.za  (home)

1996\09\12@120546 by antti

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Hi Werner and all others

well I can say what I think (or did at least): it would be possible
(and I had plans to do so) to replace the firmware chips on bla-bla
programmers with one single warranty:

"This is the final firmware upgrade you ever need for this hardware"

it means that the firmware would be to have full access over all the
hardware futures existing - swithces, drivers so on, and the upper level
software (on the host) would know how to handle the hardware (via the
the firmware), being able to use all available resources of the programmer
in question.

Another tool would take a programmer pin-capabilities description
file to help to make a pin-remap adapter for all those devices
the programmer does not support by default.

If that above would be made, every programmer equipped with the
"final firmware(tm)" Would be able (at least teoretically) to program
all devices that require equal number or less programmable pins and voltages
as the programmer hardware actually has.

YES Picstart would program Atmel, and lotsa other devices it was not designed
to program.

I have been working on this concept and will continue, but as I dont
know who I could get any profit of that work this is pretty much in
background.

well whats done is a base level specification for PINAPI - PIN (driver)
Application Programming Interface.

There are few programs written on top of that specification and they
are pretty much succesful. At least several companies are distributing
commercial programmers with my free software, (not paying and even without
sending me a notice) I still dont mind. And still will keep that programming
software (and hopefully coming soon new release) free.
(I have made no profit whatsorwhatever)

I had plans to make a new level spefication for programmers with firmware
chips, but its really not so easy. If I should do that, ie replacement
firmware chips for various programmers, then only if I will very sure
that the upgrade will be last firmware upgrade needed. Until that I am
pretty much amused to see what others are doing and thinking.

SORRY for this long mail to the list, but I was thinking
"What Werner is doing?" just befor I did see

"I wander what Antti thinks?" in Werners mail to list.

This is not PICLIST now I did make a Atmel2051 burner as simple
as it can be, and wrote a software for that, but didnt release.

Anyone interested? (AT89C2051 DIY programmer hw costs <10USD )

Grreetings Antti

























------------------------------------------------------
-- Silicon Studio Ltd.                              --
-- .....infoRemoveMEspamsistudio.com http://www.sistudio.com --
------------------------------------------------------

1996\09\12@195447 by Robert Lunn

flavicon
face
>If that above would be made, every programmer equipped with the
>"final firmware(tm)" Would be able (at least teoretically) to program
>all devices that require equal number or less programmable pins and voltages
>as the programmer hardware actually has.

       Of course, a great many commercial programmers have been
       released over the years that use this concept.  Just have
       a lot of pins that you can set to a number of voltages,
       and then use a script file to drive the sequence in which
       particular pins are set to particular voltages.

       The reasons for obsolescence of these programmers tend to
       be package *types* rather than number of pins, the limit
       of the timing relationships between pins (can you set two
       pins to change state *simultaneously*, or with some max-
       imum delay), and the maximum rate at which a particular
       device can be programmed.

___Bob

1996\09\12@232729 by mike

flavicon
picon face
In message  <.....199609121554.SAA18278STOPspamspam@spam@pepe.online.ee> PICLISTEraseMEspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
writes:
[snipity snip]
>
> This is not PICLIST now I did make a Atmel2051 burner as simple
> as it can be, and wrote a software for that, but didnt release.
>
> Anyone interested? (AT89C2051 DIY programmer hw costs <10USD )

Yes, I am.


Mike

1996\09\13@031942 by Werner Terreblanche

flavicon
face
Date:    Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:53:42 +1000
From:    Robert Lunn <RemoveMErobertspamspamBeGoneHUEY.RDD.NECA.NEC.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Using the Picstart Plus to program other micro's?

{Quote hidden}

That what I thought was how the Picstart Plus programmer works as
well.  Because Mchip claimed that this programmer will even be able
to program future realeases of microcontrollers not even on the
drawing table yet.  So there must be some sort of script file that
gets driven in aspecific sequence.  And if one knows how that script
file works, you can probable write your own drivers for it.

Does anybody know how Mchip plans to allow for future
microcontrollers on their current Picstart Plus programmer?  What I
mean is... will it be by means of firmware (17C42) replacement, or
will it just be required to get a  software update of the driver
program?

Rgds

Werner
s
--
Werner Terreblanche   Tel +27 21 7102251   Fax +27 21 721278
spamBeGonewterrebKILLspamspam@spam@plessey.co.za (work) OR wernerspam_OUTspam@spam@aztec.co.za  (home)

1996\09\13@095008 by Jim Robertson

flavicon
face
At 05:12 PM 9/12/96 GMT+2, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Werner,

(I hope you meant me when you said "Jim the programmer expert." I'm not
being presumptuous am I?)  :-)

I have not seen a PS + so I can only make general comments. First, I would
be surprised if the firmware chip is a 17C42 as it would take a bit of effort
to fit all the code into just 2k. Going by previous PS 16 efforts I doubt
the Uchip employees would put this effort in. It is certainly possible to fit
the the required code in to a 17C42 but somehow I suspect the chip is a 17C43.

Again, I am guessing, but I think you might be exaggrating when you say there
are DG411 switches on "almost all the pins." Exactly how many are there and
how many are connected to *unique* pins. Given that you need two i/o lines
for each switch to mean anything, there would have to be plenty of additional
i/o support, a 40-pin PIC could not possibly handle it all. Exactly how much
additional i/o support is there?

I think if you look harder at how and where the DG411s are connected, you might
be disillusioned somewhat, Right?

Never-the-less, it is possible to change the firmware and get the PS+ to program
lots of different devices. However, as for doing it onboard, I have very
strong doubts. I just don't think that you will be able to program much more
than PIC
parts and maybe a few other small devices like  SEEPROMS, and KEELOC parts etc.

I realize the PS+ programs the 17C4x devices and these devices require 25
meaningful i/o lines. This would be just be enough to program some smaller
parallel eproms in theory. However, when you factor in the additional
multiplexing signals required, this is becoming very complicated indeed.
After all,
the 25 i/o lines aren't all in the right places are they?

Now, to Antti's comments.

I have had a discussion with Antti about his pin driver idea. He loves it, I
don't.
At the very best, a universal programmer based on a pin driver concept would
take at least 5 time longer to program than specifically targeted code.
Also, as
Robert Lunn correctly pointed out, there is still no guarantee that you can
cover every possibility. In practice, "final firmware" is a dangerous claim
indeed.

The microchip Promate allows new firmware to be downloaded. This is a far
better
way to guarantee future suitability.

Anyway, hope I have given you have enough food for thought on the matter.

Regards

Jim

1996\09\13@095356 by Jim Robertson

flavicon
face
At 09:30 AM 9/13/96 GMT+2, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

There may, or may not need to be firmware replacements, at this stage
not even microchip would know that for certain.

What we do know is that the algorithms AND PIC pinouts are becaming very
much standard. This is why microchip say it will program future pics, it is not
because they are using pin drivers.

Regards

Jim

1996\09\16@045116 by Werner Terreblanche

flavicon
face
Date:    Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:49:31 -0500
From:    Jim Robertson <RemoveMEnewfoundEraseMEspamKILLspamNE.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Using the Picstart Plus to program other micro's?

At 05:12 PM 9/12/96 GMT+2, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Werner,

>(I hope you meant me when you said "Jim the programmer expert." I'm
>not being presumptuous am I?)  :-)

Yes, I meant you.   :)


>I have not seen a PS + so I can only make general comments. First, I
>would be surprised if the firmware chip is a 17C42 as it would take a
>bit of effort to fit all the code into just 2k. Going by previous PS
>16 efforts I doubt the Uchip employees would put this effort in. It is
>certainly possible to fit the the required code in to a 17C42 but
>somehow I suspect the chip is a 17C43.

Could be a 17C43 or a 42.  I didn't want to take label of the chip to
look what was written underneath  it, so I just assumed it was a 17C42.

>Again, I am guessing, but I think you might be exaggrating when you
>say there are DG411 switches on "almost all the pins." Exactly how
>many are there and how many are connected to *unique* pins. Given that
>you need two i/o lines for each switch to mean anything, there would
>have to be plenty of additional i/o support, a 40-pin PIC could not
>possibly handle it all. Exactly how much additional i/o support is
>there?

I see your point.  There are six DG411 chips on the board and each
DG411 contains four switches, so you were right in saying that not
all of the pins are covered, but it probably still means that enough
of them are.   Anyway, the I/O support is handled by some74HC164
shift register and I don't quite understand why you said that two i/o lines
are needed for each switch.

>I think if you look harder at how and where the DG411s are connected,
>you might be disillusioned somewhat, Right?

I'll have use a multimeter and ring out what switches are connected
to what pins before I can comment.

>Never-the-less, it is possible to change the firmware and get the PS+
>to program lots of different devices. However, as for doing it
>onboard, I have very strong doubts. I just don't think that you will
>be able to program much more than PIC parts and maybe a few other
>small devices like  SEEPROMS, and KEELOC parts etc.

Yeah, the one big problem is possible that the crystal ossiclator is
on different pins for some of these other microcontrollers.


>I realize the PS+ programs the 17C4x devices and these devices require
>25 meaningful i/o lines. This would be just be enough to program some
>smaller parallel eproms in theory. However, when you factor in the
>additional multiplexing signals required, this is becoming very
>complicated indeed. After all, the 25 i/o lines aren't all in the
>right places are they?

Probably not.

>I have had a discussion with Antti about his pin driver idea. He loves
>it, I don't. At the very best, a universal programmer based on a pin
>driver concept would take at least 5 time longer to program than
>specifically targeted code. Also, as Robert Lunn correctly pointed
>out, there is still no guarantee that you can cover every possibility.
>In practice, "final firmware" is a dangerous claim indeed.

Unless they also allow for the firmware to be downloaded, but I could
not see any eeproms or any other memory device that could hold the
firmware externally to the controller micro.

>The microchip Promate allows new firmware to be downloaded. This is a
>far better way to guarantee future suitability.
>
>Anyway, hope I have given you have enough food for thought on the
>matter.

Yeah, I presume its not really worth the effort for me alone to try
and fiddle with changing the firmware.  It would be far cheaper and
less of an effort to just buy or build another programmer for the
other devices that I also want to program.  I guess I was sort of
hoping to get an easy answer for this, but it seems its not as simple
as it looks.

Thank you for your comments, Jim.

Regards

Werner.
--
Werner Terreblanche   Tel +27 21 7102251   Fax +27 21 721278
spamBeGonewterrebspam_OUTspamRemoveMEplessey.co.za (work) OR .....wernerspamRemoveMEaztec.co.za  (home)

1996\09\17@091958 by Jim Robertson

flavicon
face
>I see your point.  There are six DG411 chips on the board and each
>DG411 contains four switches, so you were right in saying that not
>all of the pins are covered, but it probably still means that enough
>of them are.   Anyway, the I/O support is handled by some74HC164
>shift register and I don't quite understand why you said that two i/o lines
>are needed for each switch.

Well, not all of them use two I/O lines but some do, one to control the gate
and the other to act as the digital I/O they requires isolation depending on
the device pinout.

Lets do a count. There are four unique pinouts as far as the programmer is
concerned:

1 - 18-pin devices (all)
2 - 28/40-pin 16Cxx
3 - 28-pin 16C5x
4 - 8-pin
5 - 40-pin 17C4x devices

We need to switch GND, Vdd, and Vpp. To do this we have already we have used
15 of the 24 switches. The remaining will be used to switch the digital I/O
to the same 15-pins.

From this one can conclude the PS+ is designed for programming PICs and cannot
be configured as a universal programmer.

Anyway, to program standard eproms, a 6V Vdd is required. This is not available
on the PS+.
>
>>I think if you look harder at how and where the DG411s are connected,
>>you might be disillusioned somewhat, Right?
>
>I'll have use a multimeter and ring out what switches are connected
>to what pins before I can comment.

And I'll get by will educated guesses! :-)

{Quote hidden}

My pleasure Werner but sorry to be a kill-joy.


Regards

Jim

1996\09\18@021917 by Werner Terreblanche

flavicon
face
>Anyway, to program standard eproms, a 6V Vdd is required. This is not
>available on the PS+

>From this one can conclude the PS+ is designed for programming PICs
>and cannot be configured as a universal programmer.

Unfortunately I must admit that even if one can get by programming
a few other devices which just might *happen* to coincide with the
PS's pinout, it is probably not wort the effort.

>>Thank you for your comments, Jim.
>My pleasure Werner but sorry to be a kill-joy.

Not at all.  Rather hear this now than waste a couple of days trying
to do this and then discover that it can not be done.  There is much
better things to waste time on.... especially now that summer is
approaching here in the southern hemisphere!  :)

Regards

Werner
--
Werner Terreblanche   Tel +27 21 7102251   Fax +27 21 721278
wterrebspam@spam@plessey.co.za (work) OR EraseMEwernerRemoveMEspamSTOPspamaztec.co.za  (home)


'Edesign list and others'
1996\10\10@002438 by engmessi
flavicon
face
Luiz marques wrote:

>Some time ago I ask the guys of Piclist about Bi-directional PC Ports
>standards. Here is some pointers I've received by the owner of EDESIGN
>list Mr. Herman. I hope this be useful to anyone else.

Luiz, how about this EDESIGN list ? How active is it ?

By the way, who else uses other electronic design lists ? I would like to
PIC some others - so I'm not off-toPIC - :)


Pedro Drummond.


'Another PICSTART PLUS programmer'
1996\11\04@110430 by David J. Porter
flavicon
face
I also have a never opened, still shrink wrapped PicStart Plus
programmer available for sale.  I will ship COD from Philadelphia
ASAP.

Make me an offer, I am reasonable.

Sincerely,
David Porter
RemoveMEdporterKILLspamspamTakeThisOuTvoicenet.com
(215) 579 0597
"Next week, a doctor with a flashlight shows us where sales
projections come from."  Dogbert

'Yet another LED project'
1996\11\14@173902 by W. Lee Vick, Jr.

flavicon
face
PIC.gurus,

       I also have a little LED project and was looking for some help with
it. I'd like to build a box which determines the order of finish of a pine
box derby (small wooden cars about 7" by 3" which run down a slotted track)
race. Ideally there will be one micro controlling things, 6 sensors (one for
each lane in the race), and 6 7-segment LED's which will show the position
in which the cars finished, and a button for resetting the system for the
next race. Thanks to info on the 595 I've figured out how to use it for
displaying the race results (or whatever else I want to display). My
questions are about the micro,the sensors, and the LED's:

       1. Can anyone recommend a good IR TX/RX pair which is small, cheap,
and will work over distances of about 3". Also, how do I wire this thing up?
Do I just treat it as a normally open switch?

       2. Any recommendations for 7-segment LED's? Ideally they'd have
current limiting resistors built in (to save wiring - I'm just an engineer
so my wire-wrapping skills are very suspect), be cheap (a recurring theme -
hey, this is for the Cub Scouts and they're not rich), and be as big as
possible (and no, I don't want to pay $5-10US each for 3" high versions).

       3. I figure I need about 14 I/O pins, maybe an INT, and a timer or
two. Which PIC should I use?

       I thank you, and if I can get all this working then the little Cub
Scouts thank you.

                                       Cheers,

                                       Lee.

************************************************************************
* Lee Vick           *   I had a nightmare that I was in an elevator   *
* spamBeGoneleevickspam@spam@ti.com     *   with Kenny G and Michael Bolton, a gun, and   *
* +1 713-274-2241    *      just one bullet... So I shot myself.       *
************************************************************************
* Standard disclaimer: TI as an organization is much too smart to      *
*                      to agree with anything I have to say.           *
************************************************************************

1996\11\14@192940 by Steve Hardy

flavicon
face
> From: "W. Lee Vick, Jr." <RemoveMEwlvickspam_OUTspammicro.ti.com>
>
> PIC.gurus,
>
>         I also have a little LED project and was looking for some help with
> it. I'd like to build a box which determines the order of finish of a pine
> box derby (small wooden cars about 7" by 3" which run down a slotted track)
> race. Ideally there will be one micro controlling things, 6 sensors (one for
> each lane in the race), and 6 7-segment LED's which will show the position
> in which the cars finished, and a button for resetting the system for the
> next race. Thanks to info on the 595 I've figured out how to use it for
> displaying the race results (or whatever else I want to display). My
> questions are about the micro,the sensors, and the LED's:
>
>         1. Can anyone recommend a good IR TX/RX pair which is small, cheap,
> and will work over distances of about 3". Also, how do I wire this thing up?
> Do I just treat it as a normally open switch?

Since you work for TI (I assume Texas Instruments) they make optoelectronic
devices like this - you should take advantage of your employer's resources.
My employer makes tape drives.  These contain such sensors for determining
whether the tape is loaded.  Unfortunately, I have no idea who actually
makes the sensors.

>
>         2. Any recommendations for 7-segment LED's? Ideally they'd have
> current limiting resistors built in (to save wiring - I'm just an engineer
> so my wire-wrapping skills are very suspect), be cheap (a recurring theme -
> hey, this is for the Cub Scouts and they're not rich), and be as big as
> possible (and no, I don't want to pay $5-10US each for 3" high versions).

A bit optimistic price-wise unless you can find some surplus.  HP make
LED displays.  I got HDSP3400's which are reasonably cheap, a few cm
high and good efficiency.  Current limiting resistors not built-in so
you should use resistor packs if wiring is a problem.

Forget wire wrapping!  Making a PCB is so easy these days.  But first,
prototype the circuit on a breadboard.

>
>         3. I figure I need about 14 I/O pins, maybe an INT, and a timer or
> two. Which PIC should I use?

Well you don't need a timer if you are only interested in the _order_
of events, unless you need an overall timeout in case one of the cars
goes "off the rails".  You don't even need interrupts because the PIC
is fast enough to do everything by polling.  You just set up one humungous
program loop which updates and multiplexes the display, queries the
start button and reads the sensors as appropriate.  The number of I/O
pins is a bit of a killer otherwise you could use an 18-pin device.  You
will have to go for a 28-pinner such as 16C73.

Because of the simple application (not timing or interrupt critical) it
would be easy for you to completely test the software operation using
MPSIM.  This would almost guarantee that you would only have to burn the
EPROM once.

{Quote hidden}

I would have lined them up and plugged both of 'em at once.

Regards,
SJH
Canberra, Australia

1996\11\15@002319 by Tony Matthews

flavicon
face
I would like to suggest omitting the tr/rx modules as they are not
really necessary.A non modulated light source(led..)on one side and a
light detector on the other side (solar cell,photocell,phototransistor)
with a single op_amp 741 a diode two capacitors and two resistors you
get a clean positive or neagative pulse despite varying light conditions
and at very little cost X6 as to where to put the signal learning that
is why I am here.:).Tony M.

W. Lee Vick, Jr. wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1996\11\15@062248 by efoc

flavicon
face
Steve,
       here is my idea... you can use a pic16c84 for this

you will need a BCD to sevensegment decoder driver chip for each 7
segment display a 3 to 8 decoder like the 74138 a binary to decimal
decoder and a few diodes plus the opto switches

now you can set up the optos to conect to the decimal decoder one per
line and also take the output via a diode to the PB0 line take thoutput
from the decimal decoder to the PB1,2,3 lines. now by setting up the pic
so its generates an int when the PB0 line is toggled you can read the
output on the decimal decoder to tell which opto caused it. now for the
output you can connect the input of the bcd to 7 segment driver/decoders
to the PA0,1,2,3 pins and the input of the 3 to 8 decoder to PB4,5,6 the
O/P of the 3 to 8 is used to drive the output enable pins of the bcd to
7 seg decoders. now you can multiplex the outputs with the PB4,5,6 pins
and the number is a binary on the PA0,1,2,3 pins. the software should be
updating the displays in its normal loop from a table updated by the int
loop. finaly a Reset could be achived with the PB7 pin scaned in the
same loop as the multiplexing. There that aint so bad is it. If you need
a hand with the code for the 16C84 give me an Email and i'll try and
help as much as I can.

Cheers Peter.......

--
==================================
= New Ideas come from those who  =
= didn't know it wasn't possible =
==================================

'Board construction techniques (was: Yet another LE'
1996\11\15@074726 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
-
-> From: "W. Lee Vick, Jr." <spam_OUTwlvickspam_OUTspamspam_OUTmicro.ti.com>
->
-> PIC.gurus,
->
->         I also have a little LED project and was looking for some help with
-> it. I'd like to build a box which determines the order of finish of a pine
-> box derby (small wooden cars about 7" by 3" which run down a slotted track)
-> race. [Details edited for brevity. ]
->
-Forget wire wrapping!  Making a PCB is so easy these days.  But first,
-prototype the circuit on a breadboard.

Well this is a religious argument. Each has their advantages and disadvantages:

Breadbording: Quick to throw together. Easy to change. Entirely too easy to
change.

Wirewrapping: Quick to throw together presuming you have the equipment. Sockets
cost more than PCB sockets. Too much extension from the bottom of the board.
Fairly stable and generally easy to modify.

PCB: Please tell me how to make an inexpensive, consistent PCB. While it
may be easy to do, many of us have not set up the design tools and equipment
to put it together. I'll gladly take a lesson in easy PCB making.

Pre-etched PCBs: Been experimenting with these lately. Shows promise. I'm
talking about the Rat Shack boards that are etched to look like breadboards.
Simply solder in the sockets, components, and wire.

Each has advantages and disadvantages. Generally while I'm designing and
testing I wire wrap. Easy to put together a semi-permanent board that can
be changed if necessary. I'm willing to examine PCBs but all I read in the
sci.electronics newsgroups is how difficult it is to get good boards....

1996\11\15@081642 by Giles L. Honeycutt

flavicon
face
By the way, what PCB package do you use, and have you seen WinBoard and
WinDraft?  I talked with this company and you can get a 100 pad
vertion via the internet, and upgrade the pads by paying them (cheap).  O'h I
also understand that the founder of this company is also the
founder of Orcad, and he is no longer with Orcad.  Just thought I would mention
this seeing as a lot of people might want free software for
making small projects like LED-somethings... I will post the Inet address when I
get to work, got Jury service today! (drat)
    Giles L. Honeycutt


Byron A Jeff wrote:
> Well this is a religious argument. Each has their advantages and
disadvantages:
>
> Breadbording: Quick to throw together. Easy to change. Entirely too easy to
> change.
>
> Wirewrapping: Quick to throw together presuming you have the equipment.
Sockets
{Quote hidden}

1996\11\15@082843 by Joe West

flavicon
face
Sorry for the off topic post but maybe this tip will help someone.

When I need a prototype I combine the Radio Shack breadboard and the
Radioshack "pre etched" board together.

Take the pre etched board secure it to the top of the breadboard the pattern
matches perfectly. Now build your stuff. I use wire wrap sockets for the I.C.s
due to the long pins. When your circuit is finished, flip the works over
and seperate the board from the breadboard, now solder using the breadboard
as a guide.

Joseph D. West
Electronics Lab. Supervisor
College of Mechanical Eng.
Ohio State University

(614) 292-2845
Fax (614) 292-3163

1996\11\15@084819 by D. R. Chicotel

flavicon
face
At 07:46 AM 11/15/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>PCB: Please tell me how to make an inexpensive, consistent PCB. While it
>may be easy to do, many of us have not set up the design tools and equipment
>to put it together. I'll gladly take a lesson in easy PCB making.
>
>

This may not be the best way to make PCBs, but for a hobbyist doing low
volume, it works for me.

1.) Use Window's Paintbrush to design your artwork.  It is not difficult to
create a library
   of reusable patterns that are easily cut-and-pasted.  The hardest part
is making sure the
   the hole spacings are accurately spaced when printed.  A few printings
on paper make an easy
   test of this.

2.) When satisfied with your work, print the artwork on a Laser printer
using clear acetate as
   the paper.  This is the stuff we use at work for creating overhead
projector transparencies.

3.) Get pre-sensitized PCB material from Circuit Specialists and sandwich
the clear acetate (with
   printed artwork) between the PCB material and a piece of glass.  Be
careful not to put the artwork
   over the PCB material upside down or you will get a useless mirror image
of your work.  Been there,
   done that - oops.

4.) Expose the sandwich to a flourescent light for about 15-20 minutes.

5.) Develop and etch the board. (Developer and etchant are also available
from Circuit Specialists).

This makes very acceptable PCBs and you don't need any specialized software
or equipment (assuming you
have Windows or some other painting program, and running water).  Cost is
minimal - about $10 per
board or less depending on board size.  The true costs are in your time
spent developing the artwork.

Circuit Specialists can be found on-line, but I can't remember the address.

Hope this helps - DRC

'Yet another LED project'
1996\11\15@093622 by W. Lee Vick, Jr.

flavicon
face
Steve,

       A few comments on your comments (for you and others to comment on)...

>>         1. Can anyone recommend a good IR TX/RX pair which is small, cheap,
>> and will work over distances of about 3". Also, how do I wire this thing up?
>> Do I just treat it as a normally open switch?
>
>Since you work for TI (I assume Texas Instruments) they make optoelectronic
>devices like this - you should take advantage of your employer's resources.
>My employer makes tape drives.  These contain such sensors for determining
>whether the tape is loaded.  Unfortunately, I have no idea who actually
>makes the sensors.

       Well, TI is HUGE and I don't work anywhere near anyplace where they
make these sensors. It's not like we have a company store where we can go
and pick up sensors, chips, laptops, or missiles cheap (TI makes all those
things and more). One would hope it would be a little easier to get things
from inside but in companies as big as this that's not always possible.

{Quote hidden}

       OK, what I meant to say was that I can live with 1" high LED's but
if someone happened to know where I could get 2" for the same price, I'd be
happy to hear that. Define reasonably cheap for those HDSP3400's.

{Quote hidden}

       Right, I want the timer so I can set up a loop to shift the current
data I want to display out to the display circuitry and then latch it in -
this loop would be run every half second or so. Start up the system with
dashes displayed where the numbers go, start the timer routine, then all I
have to do is change some RAM locations and the display will take care of
itself. I COULD always do this in the main loop, but I'd rather loop on
polling the lane sensors to keep the resolution small.

>> ************************************************************************
>> * Lee Vick           *   I had a nightmare that I was in an elevator   *
>> * leevickspam_OUTspamti.com     *   with Kenny G and Michael Bolton, a gun, and   *
>> * +1 713-274-2241    *      just one bullet... So I shot myself.       *
>> ************************************************************************
>
>I would have lined them up and plugged both of 'em at once.

       Thought of that. But there is the possibility the bullet would
deflect and not handle the one in the back. This is one where ya gotta go
with the worst case scenario. ;-)

       Thanks!

                                       Cheers,

                                       Lee.

'Board construction techniques (was: Yet another LE'
1996\11\15@102156 by Gerhard Fiedler

flavicon
face
At 07:46 15/11/96 -0600, D. R. Chicotel wrote:
>1.) Use Window's Paintbrush to design your artwork.  It is not difficult to
>create a library of reusable patterns that are easily cut-and-pasted.

As others pointed out, there are a couple of freeware PCB design programs
around, might be an alternative... ;-)

1996\11\15@103835 by myke predko

flavicon
face
>By the way, what PCB package do you use, and have you seen WinBoard and
> WinDraft?  I talked with this company and you can get a 100 pad
>vertion via the internet, and upgrade the pads by paying them (cheap).  O'h I
> also understand that the founder of this company is also the
>founder of Orcad, and he is no longer with Orcad.  Just thought I would mention
> this seeing as a lot of people might want free software for
>making small projects like LED-somethings... I will post the Inet address
when I
> get to work, got Jury service today! (drat)
>     Giles L. Honeycutt

I tried out the IVEX (free) product and while they work very well on a small
test board I did, they upchucked something fierce on a 94 Pin board.  (Lot's
of GPFs with the product).

I'm running Windows/95 on a brand-new AST Computer.  I did call IVEX to ask
about it and they said they were aware of the problem under Windows/95.

I'm back on Easytrax (the free version you can get on the Net).

{Quote hidden}

I used to do it and finally gave up and got boards made.  The problems I had
included:  Getting top and bottom side layers to line up (or I would go with
one layer and lots of jumpers), Chemical storage and disposal (it's illegal
to put in the garbage here in Toronto AND you have to pay somebody to take
them), film manufacturing (although I got pretty good at it towards the end
with a laser printer that could do transparencies), board developing (Again
Chemicals and their disposal as well as making a lightbox to hold the film
against the card) and drilling (the drills cost a fortune and break so
easily).  I once (note the "once") made a board using tape, stencils, and a
PCB marking pen.

For the past two years, I've done a number of Hobby boards using AP Circuits
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  I've had excellent results each time with a
cost generally about $60 Canadian for two boards - the only problem I've had
is with a bad socket (not the raw card's fault).  The cost is dependant on
the size of the card and the number of holes (good incentive to keep the
boards small), you can do multiple up panels which will drop the cost per
board significantly (last year, I did 8 "Frosty the Snowman" Boards at a
final cost of $12.00 Canadian each).  The three day turnaround doesn't hurt
either.

>> Pre-etched PCBs: Been experimenting with these lately. Shows promise. I'm
>> talking about the Rat Shack boards that are etched to look like breadboards.
>> Simply solder in the sockets, components, and wire.

I think you're talking about "Vero"/"Vector" (I'm not sure of the right
term/manufacture) Boards (the boards with the long copper strips on the
backside), which is .  They come out about 2x as large as the final,
embedded version, but at $5.00 for a 6x6 board (which I usually cut up into
smaller boards), the price is hard to beat.

One hint, I just got a Vector "Pad Cutter Tool" from Digi-Key (Digi-Key P/N
V1056-ND, Price $16.38).  I know the price is a bit high, but it really make
working with the boards a joy, compared to cutting the traces with a drill
or an olfa knife and a soldering iron (like you do with a Surfboard).

Now, does anybody know of any layout tools for these boards?

>> Each has advantages and disadvantages. Generally while I'm designing and
>> testing I wire wrap. Easy to put together a semi-permanent board that can
>> be changed if necessary. I'm willing to examine PCBs but all I read in the
>> sci.electronics newsgroups is how difficult it is to get good boards....

Steve Ciarcia, when he was creating projects for Byte, used to create
semi-embedded cards for his projects.  He would put on Connectors and such
and wire Vcc and Gnd and then Wire-Wrap the rest.  Maybe if somebody's
energetic, they could do this for the PIC?

myke

Being a stealth pilot is one of the most labour intensive and time
constrained types of flying that I know.  We have very strict time
constraints: to be where you are supposed to be all the time, exactly on
time, and that has to be monitored by the pilot.  For example, during a bomb
competition in training in the U.S., I dropped a weapon that landed 0.02
seconds from the desired time, and finished third!

Lt. Col. Miles Pound, USAF

1996\11\15@104641 by rhowe

flavicon
face
D. R. Chicotel wrote:
>
>PCB: Please tell me how to make an inexpensive, consistent PCB. While it
>may be easy to do, many of us have not set up the design tools and equipment
>to put it together. I'll gladly take a lesson in easy PCB making.
>

You can get a good but free PCB layout program called easytrax by
Protel. It is the little brother of there autotrax program. It runs
under MSDOS and is more than adequate for most boards. You should be
able to get a copy from Alberta Circuits at http://www.apcircuits.com/

If you have a laser printer, you may want to consider the toner transfer
systems. One is from a company called DynaArt Designs. You can access
their web page at http://www.dynaart.com. With this system you print the
artwork 1:1 to a laser printer, and then transfer the toner on to the
PCB using heat and pressure. The toner acts as a resist, so the board
can be directly etched. The advantage is the quick turn around. The
disadvantage is inconsistent results. I think this can be remedied if
you buy one of their 'SuperFuser' devices. Has anyone used a
'SuperFuser' ? If so what results did you get.


--
Randy Howe
Axiak Electronic Design Ltd.
Vancouver, B.C.

1996\11\15@110324 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
> >> Well this is a religious argument. Each has their advantages and
> > disadvantages:
> >>
> >> Breadbording: Quick to throw together. Easy to change. Entirely too easy to
> >> change.
> >>
> >> Wirewrapping: Quick to throw together presuming you have the equipment.
> > Sockets
> >> cost more than PCB sockets. Too much extension from the bottom of the
board.
> >> Fairly stable and generally easy to modify.
> >>
> >> PCB: Please tell me how to make an inexpensive, consistent PCB. While it
> >> may be easy to do, many of us have not set up the design tools and
equipment
{Quote hidden}

This kind of testimony seems to debunk the original primise that making
PCB's are so easy that wire-wrapping is unnecssary.

{Quote hidden}

I'm still trying to find a good argument for using PCB's for development.
The statement that PCB's are trivally easy to do started this thread.

Breadboards are good if the project is extremely small. But their instability
and cost generally makes them unusable for anything other than fiddling.

PCB's are the way to go once the project is developed, tested, and working.
But for development? I don't think so.

So that leads me right back to wire wrap. Inexpensive (tool and wire for
less than $20), can be used in permanent situations, and simple modifications.
Gives nearly instant gratification like breadboards, but can be thrown in a
box and expect to work.

BTW I learned by hard experience that auto wire wrap tools like Slit-N-Wrap
and guns are generally bad news. Hand strip - Hand wrap is the way to go.
Every board I've ever had wrapped worked, can't say the same for the auto
tools.

BAJ

'Yet another LED project'
1996\11\15@113546 by fastfwd

face
flavicon
face
W. Lee Vick, Jr. <RemoveMEPICLISTKILLspamspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:

> I'd like to build a box which determines the order of finish of
> a pine box derby (small wooden cars about 7" by 3" which run down a
> slotted track) race. Ideally there will be one micro controlling
> things, 6 sensors (one for each lane in the race), and 6 7-segment
> LED's which will show the position in which the cars finished, and a
> button for resetting the system for the next race.

Lee:

It's been done.  If you're only interested in HAVING one of these
things, rather than in BUILDING it, call John Shreffler at New
Directions, Inc.  He sells something called "The Judge"... LCD timer;
2- to 8-lane capability; 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-place indicators, etc.

New Directions can be reached at 703 319 0840.

-Andy

Andrew Warren - fastfwdspamBeGonespam.....ix.netcom.com
Fast Forward Engineering, Vista, California
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

'Board construction techniques (was: Yet another LE'
1996\11\15@114005 by optoeng

flavicon
face
myke predko wrote:
>
> >By the way, what PCB package do you use, and have you seen WinBoard and
> > WinDraft?  I talked with this company and you can get a 100 pad
> >vertion via the internet, and upgrade the pads by paying them (cheap).


I've used WinBoard for 3 designs, mostly in the neighborhood of 180 pins
SMT.  I had some problems early on that were fixed with the installation
of a newer driver for my PCI display adapter.....obviously not Ivex's
fault.  I use the $29.95 version that gets you 220 pin limit.

The big issue with any board layout software is:  How much work do you
have to do to get the library in shape for your work?  WinBoard comes
with a fairly big library of modules, but most of them are for through
hole parts.  Many of the SMT modules use pad geometries that don't match
up with the design rules preferred by my clients.  So, I found myself
modifying or creating most needed modules in the early going.
Fortunately, their module creation stuff is easy to use.

Ivex documentation is pretty good.  It's helpful to print it out in
color (at this price, you print it out yourself).  My main complaint is
that you need to refer to 3 books to get the whole picture: Getting
Started, Tutorial, and Reference.

The WinDraft and WinBoard combination is amazing value.

--

Paul Mathews, consulting engineer
AEngineering Co.
KILLspamoptoengspam.....whidbey.com
non-contact sensing and optoelectronics specialists

1996\11\15@120917 by Bradley, Larry

flavicon
face
Been there. Done them all. Ruined all the T-shirts.

I use the breadboard thingies for development.

I use the Rat Shack boards for some things. Bit of a pain to work with,
but I found that if I use the chemical tin-plating solutions that you
can buy, and dip the board in that first, it solders better. You can get
rather obscene component density on these things, since you are using
insulated wire. You can more-or-less build multi-layer boards ... wires
can cross, etc.

I ONCE did wire wrap. Years ago, I had an evaluation kit for a Fairchild
F8 processor (meant to be used as an imbedded controller). I built 1K of
static RAM for it, with 256 bit RAM chips. It worked. But it was a long
job. Used manual wrap tool.

Just started building PCs the "easy" way. I've used the freeware
packages, and they work fine. I'm now using a package from Ultimate
Technologies in the Netherlands ... they have a 500 pin version for $79
US with schematic capture, autorouter, etc. Very nice.

If you use a package that lets you draw the schematic, then create the
board layout from that, you are guaranteed to have a board that works.
With the Rat Shack stuff, wiring it all by hand, you can (and will) make
mistakes on larger projects.

I use the Toner Transfer System (sold by digikey ... $15 for 5 81/2 x 11
sheets). I've only built a couple of boards so far, and they work fine.
You use a laser printer to put the pattern on the TTS paper (you can use
this for decals, etc as well). The you use the heat of an iron to
tramsfer the pattern to the board. Following their instructions,
everything has worked just fine for me.

Just don't make the traces or the pads too small, as this stuff is not
as precise as the photo methods.

You can make double sided boards ... I have not yet tried.

Drilling is a pain. Digikey sells special bits for this ... they have an
1/8 shank to make it easier to fit into a drill, and are tapered to the
proper bit size. They are designed for use on fibreglass (which will
destory normal bits rapidly, I gather). You only need a couple of sizes.
A bit that is just right for IC holes is also fine for most other
components. It may be a bit too big, but that isn't a problem. You can
use a normal electric drill ... a drill press accessory makes life
easier. I Dremel tool with it's accesory drill press stand is handy as
well. In fact, the Dremel tool (I just got one a month ago) has been
great for a lot of this stuff. It's "cut-off wheels" are great for
cutting up copper-clad boards into smaller pieces (I tend to make lttle
boards, not huge ones). Real handy tool.

Summary:

The Rat Shack boards with the copper patterns are cheap, easy to use,
and require no special tools, but are a pain to wire with lots of
components.

PC boards are not hard to make at home, with a modest investment. And
there is a certain amount of satisfaction at admiring your work. These I
put in frames and hang on my living room wall!. I can't say the same for
the Rat Shack boards. These I put in boxes and hide somewhere.

Have fun!

Larry

1996\11\15@132105 by Bob Blick

picon face
I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the use of plain perfboard,
"vectorbord"(their spelling, not mine). It comes in a few different grades
and hole patterns, I usually get the 0.1" spacing epoxy glass. It's just
board with holes in it, no copper, like you'd use for wire-wrapping.

Use regular sockets, dab a little hot glue on them before putting them on
the board. Hand wire it, using small solid wire. You can use wire-wrap wire
if you like, but the insulation doesn't like the heat of a soldering iron.
Did I say soldering was involved?

If you want a reliable, durable project, put all the components and
connecting wires on the top side and do all the soldering on the bottom
side. You can make a relatively compact project that will last for years.

If there's a part of your circuit that will require a lot of trial and
error, do that part of the circuit on a solderless breadboard, and after
you've gotten everything figured out, unhook the breadboard and finish
building your perfboard circuit.

This is not a method for mass-production, just an alternative to wire-wrapping.

Cheers, Bob

1996\11\15@132926 by Dave Mullenix

flavicon
face
>Pre-etched PCBs: Been experimenting with these lately. Shows promise. I'm
>talking about the Rat Shack boards that are etched to look like breadboards.
>Simply solder in the sockets, components, and wire.

In the PCB / Prototype board section of the Digi-Key catalog, there's a
family of devices which essentially clamp a pre-etched breadboard PCB to the
top of a real breadboard.  When you insert your parts and wires, they go
clear through the PCB and into the breadboard.  You get your circuit working
and debugged to your satisfaction, then a piece of foam rubber hinges down
on top of the parts and wires and holds them in place.  You can then remove
the breakboard to expose the foil side of the pre-etched PCB with the wires
and component leads sticking out, all ready to solder!

I haven't tried one yet, but I'm getting tempted.

1996\11\15@142631 by Chuck McManis

flavicon
face
> PCB: Please tell me how to make an inexpensive, consistent PCB. While it
> may be easy to do, many of us have not set up the design tools and equipment
> to put it together. I'll gladly take a lesson in easy PCB making.

This is correct, there is a high initial investment. You can use EZTrax for free
(you can get it from ftp://oak.oakland.edu) but I discovered that having a PCB
layout program, doesn' t necessarily make for good PCBs. If you don't know
how big a hole to drill for a component, or how big a pad to use, then you are
liable to build a board that isn't very satisfactory. The good news is that you
can send you GERBER files to places like APCircuits and for about $100 they
will send you back a couple of double sided boards.

> Pre-etched PCBs: Been experimenting with these lately. Shows promise. I'm
> talking about the Rat Shack boards that are etched to look like breadboards.
> Simply solder in the sockets, components, and wire.

These are nicer, but I've sworn of the radio shack ones. The ones to get have
plated through holes and copper on both sides. You can even make "psuedo"
pcbs with these by laying wire down along the hole lines. The one RS board I
like is the one with the same drill pattern as a solderless breadboard. These,
while inefficient space wise, allow you to transfer a circuit easily.

--Chuck

1996\11\15@152112 by timetech

flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the use of plain perfboard,
> "vectorbord"(their spelling, not mine). It comes in a few different grades
> and hole patterns, I usually get the 0.1" spacing epoxy glass. It's just
> board with holes in it, no copper, like you'd use for wire-wrapping.
>
> Use regular sockets, dab a little hot glue on them before putting them on
> the board. Hand wire it, using small solid wire. You can use wire-wrap wire
> if you like, but the insulation doesn't like the heat of a soldering iron.
<snip>

We have used this technique for years (more than 20) with one major
difference: we use machine pin soldertail sockets, and we drill the
board (I forget exactly what size, I think its #54; write if you want
details) so the socket will sit down into the hole tightly. Usually
there's no glue needed. We hand wire using wire-wrap wire, but get the
good Kynar insulated stuff; the heat wont bother it. We use 20 or 24 ga.
bus bar with Teflon tubing for insulation to distribute power; put the
power grid in first, with all the bypass caps, then wire the signals.
You can daisy-chain by using a standard wire-wrap stripper at the
desired intermediate point and stretching enough of a gap in the
insulation to get a wrap around the pin. Solder as you go.

You can be surprisingly close to the final pc layout, and you can work
over a ground plane for fairly high speed stuff. We've also used a
hybrid approach, with power and ground and critical signals on a simple
etched or mechanically prepared board with sockets and hand wiring for
the rest. Done a lot of 16 & 32 bit stuff this way; PIC stuff is a
breeze.

-- Tom Rogers  Time Tech Inc.

1996\11\15@163107 by Gerhard Fiedler

flavicon
face
At 10:33 15/11/96 EST, myke predko wrote:
>I think you're talking about "Vero"/"Vector" (I'm not sure of the right
>term/manufacture) Boards (the boards with the long copper strips on the
>backside), which is .  They come out about 2x as large as the final,
>embedded version, but at $5.00 for a 6x6 board (which I usually cut up into
>smaller boards), the price is hard to beat.
>[...]
>Now, does anybody know of any layout tools for these boards?

An autorouter for these boards, that would be a challenge! :-)


>Steve Ciarcia, when he was creating projects for Byte, used to create
>semi-embedded cards for his projects.  He would put on Connectors and such
>and wire Vcc and Gnd and then Wire-Wrap the rest.  Maybe if somebody's
>energetic, they could do this for the PIC?

Wouldn't that be a great idea: make boards for every PIC (or even every
popular micro), with the basic standard circuitry and connectors, and a
field for custom stuff like those boards mentioned above? Once designed,
that's a cheap thing, and many small (hobby) projects could use them. Or is
there something similar already for sale?

Gerhard

1996\11\15@164639 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
It seems to me that one problem is with current packaging technology.  Wire
wrap works nicely with DIPS and even PGAs, but as soon as you start dealing
with PLCC packages, WW sockets seem to get prohibitively expensive, and if
you're using SIOC, VSOP, or other explicitly surface mount technology, the
sockets are hard to find and use in ADDITION to being very expensive.  In
these cases, using a PCB becomes nearly a necessity (especially if you NEED
the small size features of soic/etc in the first place.)

I've heard that the computer-operated mechanical milling (routing?) machines
designed for making PCBs can be had for as little as $3-5K (used.)  It'd be
cool if someone would set one up for doing "hobbyist" PCBs, but it's hard to
imagine that you could make money doing so  (The advantages would include
small setup charges and teh ability to do small boards very easilly.)

BillW

1996\11\15@172656 by Clyde Smith-Stubbs

flavicon
face
Byron A Jeff <spam_OUTbyronspamKILLspamCC.GATECH.EDU> wrote:

> BTW I learned by hard experience that auto wire wrap tools like Slit-N-Wrap
> and guns are generally bad news. Hand strip - Hand wrap is the way to go.

Agreed, except do yourself a favour and buy some pre-stripped wire. It saves a
lot
of work. It comes in various lengths and colours.

Having said that, after many years of wire-wrapping one-off boards, I have
now gone to getting PCBs made - it costs a little more, but with the right
software it's less work. The right software in my case is Protel Advanced
Schematic/PCB/Route. The software cost some significant money, but the
Advanced Route 3 in particular is brilliant. It can fully route boards I
have trouble completing, and can do in 5 minutes what would take me 8
hours or more.


--
Clyde Smith-Stubbs       | HI-TECH Software,       | Voice: +61 7 3354 2411
RemoveMEclydeRemoveMEspamEraseMEhitech.com.au      | P.O. Box 103, Alderley, | Fax:   +61 7 3354 2422
http://www.hitech.com.au | QLD, 4051, AUSTRALIA.   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For info on the World's best C cross compilers for embedded systems, point
your WWW browser at http://www.hitech.com.au, or email KILLspaminfospamspamBeGonehitech.com.au

1996\11\15@173259 by Clyde Smith-Stubbs

flavicon
face
William Chops Westfield <billwspamspamCISCO.COM> wrote

> wrap works nicely with DIPS and even PGAs, but as soon as you start dealing
> with PLCC packages, WW sockets seem to get prohibitively expensive, and if

To get around this, make up a PGA socket from wire-wrap socket strips, then
plug a solder-tail PLCC socket into that. Works fine, just takes a few
minutes trimming the socket strips.


--
Clyde Smith-Stubbs       | HI-TECH Software,       | Voice: +61 7 3354 2411
RemoveMEclydespamBeGonespamRemoveMEhitech.com.au      | P.O. Box 103, Alderley, | Fax:   +61 7 3354 2422
http://www.hitech.com.au | QLD, 4051, AUSTRALIA.   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For info on the World's best C cross compilers for embedded systems, point
your WWW browser at http://www.hitech.com.au, or email KILLspaminfospamBeGonespamhitech.com.au

1996\11\15@175938 by Gonzalo Palarea

flavicon
Has anyone tried the "PICproto" boards from microEngineering Labs? They have
4 different models.  I thing a little expensive, but maybe not when bought
in quantity?

1996\11\15@181831 by Les Troyer

flavicon
face
According to Gerhard Fiedler:
>
> Wouldn't that be a great idea: make boards for every PIC (or even every
> popular micro), with the basic standard circuitry and connectors, and a
> field for custom stuff like those boards mentioned above? Once designed,
> that's a cheap thing, and many small (hobby) projects could use them. Or is
> there something similar already for sale?
>
> Gerhard
>

MicroEngineering Labs sells proto boards specifically for pics.  There
are 4 different flavors 18pin, 18/28pin, 28pin, and 40pin cost $10-17.
Jameco& JDR carry them.

--
Les Troyer
Sr. Analyst
Siemens Power Corp
2101 Horn Rapids Rd.
Richland, Wa. 99352-0130

Voice    (509) 375-8695
Fax      (509) 375-8940
Operator (509) 375-8100
email @spam@ljtSTOPspamspam@spam@nfuel.com

Ad Hoc, Ad Loc, Quid Pro Quo; So Little Time SO Much To Know.
  -Jeromy Hillery Dillery Boo, PHD, MS and Q

1996\11\15@182846 by Chuck McManis

flavicon
face
These boards are GREAT! Instant PIC circuits, the PICProto18 (for 18 pin pics)
uses any kind of PIC, brings all pins out to a line of connectors,  and has a
plated through breadboard area to boot. For one larger project I soldered a
wirewrap sip connector through the "PICbus" (the line of connectors) and then
simply inserted it through a larger perfboard to "mount" the PIC circuit to the
rest of the circuit.

--Chuck

----------
From:   Gonzalo Palarea[SMTP:chalospamBeGonespamspamBeGoneTIKAL.NET.GT]
Sent:   Friday, November 15, 1996 3:04 PM
To:     Multiple recipients of list PICLIST
Subject:        Re: Board construction techniques (was: Yet another LED project)

Has anyone tried the "PICproto" boards from microEngineering Labs? They have
4 different models.  I thing a little expensive, but maybe not when bought
in quantity?

1996\11\15@183116 by fastfwd

face
flavicon
face
Gerhard Fiedler <spamBeGonePICLISTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:

> Wouldn't that be a great idea: make boards for every PIC (or even
> every popular micro), with the basic standard circuitry and
> connectors, and a field for custom stuff like those boards mentioned
> above? Once designed, that's a cheap thing, and many small (hobby)
> projects could use them. Or is there something similar already for
> sale?

Gerhard:

MicroEngineering Labs already make exactly what you want... They have
versions for all the PICs (except maybe the 8-pin devices).  You can
reach them at 719 520-5323 (fax: 719 520-1867) or on the web at:

   http://www.melabs.com

-Andy

Andrew Warren - spam_OUTfastfwdSTOPspamspamix.netcom.com
Fast Forward Engineering, Vista, California
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

'Yet another LED project'
1996\11\16@081521 by Matthew Mucker

flavicon
face
At 04:30 PM 11/14/96 -0600, you wrote:
>PIC.gurus,
>

>        2. Any recommendations for 7-segment LED's? Ideally they'd have
>current limiting resistors built in (to save wiring - I'm just an engineer
>so my wire-wrapping skills are very suspect), be cheap (a recurring theme -
>hey, this is for the Cub Scouts and they're not rich), and be as big as
>possible (and no, I don't want to pay $5-10US each for 3" high versions).
>

Lee,

I would again recommend Maxim's 7219 chip.  No current limiting resistors
needed, will drive up to 8 seven segment displays, and only takes three
output pins.  I have code to dirve the 7219 and will share it with any
interested parties.  The datasheet is available online from Maxim.

Digi-Key sells these little puppies, but they're not cheap-- about $8.25
each.  However, for what they do, in my opinion they're worth every cent.
Sure makes designing hardware a whole lot easier, and uses three pins to
drive up to 64 individual LEDs.  And yes, though it's designed to drive
seven segment displays, you can configure the chip (quite easily) to drive
an 8x8 (or smaller) matrix of LEDs.

-Matt

'Board construction techniques (was: Yet another LE'
1996\11\16@084038 by Hank Gupton

flavicon
face
Bradley, Larry wrote:

>components. It may be a bit too big, but that isn't a problem. You can
>use a normal electric drill ... a drill press accessory makes life
>easier. I Dremel tool with it's accesory drill press stand is handy as
>well. In fact, the Dremel tool (I just got one a month ago) has been
>great for a lot of this stuff.

 Where did you get your Dremel drill press accessory?  And, how much did it
cost?

 -- Hank

1996\11\16@162629 by Gerhard Fiedler

flavicon
face
At 15:35 15/11/96 -0800, Andrew Warren wrote:
>MicroEngineering Labs already make exactly what you want... They have
>versions for all the PICs (except maybe the 8-pin devices).  You can
>reach them at 719 520-5323 (fax: 719 520-1867) or on the web at:
>
>    http://www.melabs.com

I _knew_ it -- it's too obvious. I wonder why in the previous discussions
nobody mentioned this solution (which might work for many cases where space
is not critical, and only one or two devices are needed). Thanks a lot!

Gerhard

1996\11\16@171502 by Matthew Mucker

flavicon
face
>Just started building PCs the "easy" way. I've used the freeware
>packages, and they work fine. I'm now using a package from Ultimate
>Technologies in the Netherlands ... they have a 500 pin version for $79
>US with schematic capture, autorouter, etc. Very nice.

Larry,

How 'bout sharing a little more info about this gem with the rest of us?
I've downloaded WinDraft and WinBoard, but WinDraft locks my system, and
WinBoard is seemingly unstable-- if you click on a part in the module loader
that *would* bring your board over the (100) pin limit, *if* it were placed
on the board, but instead click on cancel, WinBoard thinks that there are
more than 100 pins and won't let you save your file.  Same thing if you go
over the limit then delete a module which brings you back under the limit--
won't let me save or print my board.  This has caused me to get into the
habit of saving my file after placing EACH module.

Anyway, I'd like to know more about this program that you're using.  Sounds
like a good deal.

-Matt

1996\11\17@051616 by Bert Koerts

flavicon
face
Matthew Mucker wrote:
>
> >Just started building PCs the "easy" way. I've used the freeware
> >packages, and they work fine. I'm now using a package from Ultimate
> >Technologies in the Netherlands ... they have a 500 pin version for $79
> >US with schematic capture, autorouter, etc. Very nice.
>
> Larry,
>
> How 'bout sharing a little more info about this gem with the rest of us?

I'm using this software too. Ulticap (schematic capture) has some nice
feature's that even orcad (386+) can't give you. It's very easy to make new
components, easy to make connections (it works like an autorouter) etc.
Since i am using this package for a very short time now i can't tell much
about the ultiboard part right now. But it looks allright to me.
In ultiboard it's also easy to make your own shape. For placement of the
shape's you get help from a force vector, traces, and a histograms which
shows the routing density. Pin and gate swapping is supported and so is
forward/back annotation.

I like it a lot...

The package includes an tutorial manual and a cd-rom.

mvg

Bert

1996\11\17@053859 by Bert Koerts

flavicon
face
Bert Koerts wrote:
>
> Matthew Mucker wrote:
> >
> > >Just started building PCs the "easy" way. I've used the freeware
> > >packages, and they work fine. I'm now using a package from Ultimate
> > >Technologies in the Netherlands ... they have a 500 pin version for $79
> > >US with schematic capture, autorouter, etc. Very nice.
> >
> > Larry,
> >
> > How 'bout sharing a little more info about this gem with the rest of us?


Sorry, I forgot to give the adress:

http://www.ultiboard.com/
tel: usa: 1-800-8308584
mvg
>
> Bert

1996\11\17@160445 by Larry G. Nelson Sr.

flavicon
face
At 01:44 PM 11/15/96 PST, William Chops Westfield wrote:

>I've heard that the computer-operated mechanical milling (routing?) machines
>designed for making PCBs can be had for as little as $3-5K (used.)  It'd be
>cool if someone would set one up for doing "hobbyist" PCBs, but it's hard to
>imagine that you could make money doing so  (The advantages would include
>small setup charges and teh ability to do small boards very easilly.)
>
>BillW
>
>
The problem with these is the tooling cost. The drills are OK but the
special mills that outlinre the traces are expensive. They do last quite a
while. The tools with a short life are if you want to do a board rubout of
unused copper or another "outline" with the end mill to make a wider
isolation path. The end mills in that size are expensive and wear out fast.

Larry G. Nelson Sr.
RemoveMEL.Nelsonspamspamieee.org
http://www.ultranet.com/~nr

1996\11\17@204357 by Steve Hardy

flavicon
face
I hesitate to stoke the off-topic boiler, but seeing as I started this
off with a contentious point please indulge me...

> From: Byron A Jeff <TakeThisOuTbyronspamspamRemoveMECC.GATECH.EDU>
>
> [SJH wrote:]
> -Forget wire wrapping!  Making a PCB is so easy these days.  But first,
> -prototype the circuit on a breadboard.
> Well this is a religious argument. Each has their advantages and
disadvantages:
>
> Breadbording: Quick to throw together. Easy to change. Entirely too easy to
> change.
>
> Wirewrapping: Quick to throw together presuming you have the equipment.
Sockets
> cost more than PCB sockets. Too much extension from the bottom of the board.
> Fairly stable and generally easy to modify.
>
> PCB: Please tell me how to make an inexpensive, consistent PCB. While it
> may be easy to do, many of us have not set up the design tools and equipment
> to put it together. I'll gladly take a lesson in easy PCB making.

Yes, consistency is a good point.  After much weeping and gnashing of teeth
I have found a routine which works for me.  I recommend anyone considering
making PCBs to spend a whole day working out a good routine then sticking
to it.

I use precoated positive photo board.  Saves worrying about the zillions
of variables which can affect the process of making your own (thickness,
baking temp, dust, hairs, dust, resist-eating moths, dust etc. etc.)

1.  Draw the board on white bond paper.  Use a laser printer or use
a 0.5mm drafting pen.  Print/draw mirror image so that the pattern will be
correct when the ink side is pressed against the board.  I use Protel
but have also used drafting techniques.  To draw nice pads, I drilled
a DIP pattern into my square so that running the pen around each of the
holes results in a nice round pad complete with drill guide hole.  (Relieve
the underside of the template to prevent ink smears).
2.  Sandwich board and pattern between 2 sheets of glass with ink side
against the board.  Expose to white fluorescent lights (4 x 20W tubes
about 200mm from board) for about 1 hour.  Yes, this is slow but it gives
time for the finer things in life such as preparing the developer and
etchant.
3.  Develop in commercial developer (or NaOH in a pinch).  Etch in hot
ammonium persulphate, preferred for its transparency and non-staining
which is always an advantage when sharing the kitchen with the boss of
the house.  Don't leave developer in glassware - I etched a good erlenmeyer
flask by not rinsing immediately.  Throw away developer after use.
4.  Drill then solder.  I find that removal of the resist is not
required before soldering and in fact forms a nice barrier against
my sweaty little fingers.  (Be nice if it was actually flux, wouldn't
it?)

Note on using laser printers: since the paper is not gripped by punched holes
etc. don't expect the laser to produce perfectly dimensioned artwork.  This
is especially a problem when doing long edge connectors or trying to
register two patterns for double-sided work.  75mm boards are about the
upper limit for my HP laserjet.  15mil traces and clearances are the limit
for a 300DPI printer and 10mil for a 600DPI.

If you know a little PostScript (TM) then post-processing of the artwork
can be quite easy.  A favourite of mine is to change the output from
Protel so that it  a) sets a black page,  b) outputs the pattern in white
with everything oversize by 30mils and  c) outputs the original pattern
in black.  This gives a pseudo ground plane for SS boards.  Optionally,
you can connect all the copper islands left by this process using the
drafting pen.

If cutting the board to size using an angle grinder, leave a 10mm zone
around the edge where no copper will be required.  The heat of grinding
ruins the resist for about 6mm either side of the cut.

Fluoro lights should be mounted to give a perfectly even illumination
over the board.  If the board is tilted slightly to the tube axis or
at one end of the tube, you will be surprised how unevenly the resist
will develop.  If in doubt, move the board to twice the original distance
and quadruple the exposure.

Heating the etchant is recommended unless you like watching paint dry.
I used to heat up ferric chloride in the microwave oven.  Since ammonium
persulphate is made up as required then discarded, just use boiling
water when making it.  Don't use at over 80 deg C otherwise the resist
can get damaged.

Hairline breaks in the traces are a severe annoyance.  They can be
minimised by ensuring that the printer toner is in good condition, and
examining the backlit pattern for breaks.  Such breaks are repaired
with the drafting pen.  Filled-in drill guide holes are another pest.
Cured by ensuring the resist is fully developed!

Many a good DS board has been damaged by using blunt drills.  When the
drill breaks through the other side it lifts the pad there.  Tungsten
carbide drill bits last more than 10 times as long as HSS but must be
used in a drill press.  They also cost ten times as much.  It's a pity,
but I've never seen nitride coated HSS in PCB sizes.

{Quote hidden}

Single sided with min. 20mil traces is easy.  Double sided and/or 12mil
is a pain.  However, by dint of much practise my boards are turning
out so well that I wouldn't consider wire wrapping or solder tags (remember
them in the days when components were big enough to see?).

Total investment: { PC; EasyTrax; Laser } or { Staedtler/Rotring drafting
pen };  2 glass sheets;  fluoro lights;  Plastic tray(s);  PCB drill.
Consumables: precoated board; developer or caustic soda; etchant; drill bits.

Regards,
SJH
Canberra, Australia

1996\11\18@025641 by Dave Mullenix

flavicon
face
>How 'bout sharing a little more info about this gem with the rest of us?
>I've downloaded WinDraft and WinBoard, but WinDraft locks my system,

If you're running Win 3.1, you have to download and install the 32 bit
Windows software support program and install it first.  It's on the same web
page as WinDraft.

1996\11\18@054334 by Geoff Wootton

flavicon
picon face
When I started making PCBs I found that using a normal electric drill in a
drill stand to be too cumbersome, resulting in many off-centre holes.
I personally find that the best tool to use is a modelmakers archimedian
screw drill. These can take up to a 1mm drill shank size, although it's so
precise I drill 0.6mm holes for most components. Cost about 6 UK pounds.


     Geoff


> >You can use a normal electric drill ... a drill press accessory makes life
> >easier. I Dremel tool with it's accesory drill press stand is handy as
> >well. In fact, the Dremel tool (I just got one a month ago) has been
> >great for a lot of this stuff.
>
>   Where did you get your Dremel drill press accessory?  And, how much did it
> cost?
>
>   -- Hank
>

1996\11\18@104428 by Martin McCormick

flavicon
face
       When I build an electronic device, I have two considerations:
If I don't want the circuit later, how much of the stuff can be recycled?
How easy is it to modify, (improve, fix, etc?)

       I have tried everything from "ugly construction" to printed circuit
boards and wire wrap.  As one who was born blind, I can't read or write
schematics, but IC's provide a convenient graph-like reference for circuit
design as in:
1 +input
2 -input
3 NC
4 v-
etc

       I tried making PC boards in the early seventies and found the
experience interesting, but frustrating.  I would use tape and decalls to lay
out a circuit on a piece of un-etched board and then dunk it in ferric
chloride.  I then discovered two awful truths.  First, I couldn't feel the
traces on the board after stripping off the tape and second, the liquid
has a nasty habit of flowing under any little bubble or break in the tape
and etching where it shouldn't.  Sometimes, dirt or other contamination
would act as random resist and leave a little copper fly speck where there
should have been nothing.  I found out about wire-wrapping and that technology
solved enough of my problems that I have been content with that for almost
20 years.

       What works for me is to do a usual wire-wrap on any square pins such
as IC sockets or any other devices that don't have round leads.  I wrap the
wire on the round leads and then solder it since it will slowly unwrap
if not secured.

       I am looking forward to using PIC's for the same reasons everybody
else likes them plus one more.  If I come up with a good application that
either might have a market value or is simply good and I would like another
one like it, documentation will be much easier since most of the circuit is
the program itself.  The source file shows what pins should be what in the
circuit.  After all, there are many different ways to connect digital logic
and linear devices that accomplish the same purpose so it is nice to be able
to keep track of what one did so that it can be revisited years later without
having to just start over again because the documentation is too poor to
follow.

       I am dreading the day when the only components will be surface mount
devices and we must all build our circuits under a microscope.

Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK 36.7N97.4W
OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group

1996\11\18@114802 by Bradley, Larry

flavicon
face
I didn't buy the press accessory, (I have an very old tiny drill press
designed just for PC boards that I picked up in a surplus place), but
they are a standard Dremel accessory and I've seen them at several
places where Dremel tools are sold (such as Canadian Tire up here in
Canada ... a large chain store). The cost is about $60 CDN ($1.29 US  :)
)

Larry

{Quote hidden}

1996\11\18@120209 by Bradley, Larry

flavicon
face
The package is called Challenger Lite, from Ultimate Technologies in the
Netherlands. They have a Web site at
http://www/ultiboard.com/offer.html.

It used to be $79 US, incl shipping but now is $94.

The package has a schematic capture module, a PCB layout module, with an
autorouter built in, plus a separate fancier autorouter. It is a DOS
package (the separate autorouter is Windows ... I've not even fired it
up), but comes with a reasonable set of video drivers. But the standard
SuperVGA ones work fine for me.

It's biggest flaw comes from the documentation. They send a tutorial
manual, and a getting started manual, but no user manual. And no on-line
help. But with some experimenting, you can figure out what a lot of the
things do.

For example, since I use the laser printer/iron-on method, I like traces
and pads that are a bit larger than normal. It was relatively easy to
figureout how to change the default trace and pad sizes.

It has an impressive library of components (no PICs, but building a
library component is quite easy). One caution ... being a European
package, it uses Eurpoean schematic symbols by default. HOWEVER, there
is an American symbol library set as well ... you just have to make sure
that you select from the proper library.

The schematic package is easy to use, and produces high-quality
drawings. Same with the PCB package. If you want to do anything other
than what is in the tutorial manual, be prepared to experiment.

The printing subsystem supports laser printers, plotter, and Gerber
photoplotter stuff. The printing can be customized (again, via
experimentation) to your needs. For example, I don't make two-sided
boards, but I use the ability of the PCB package to put traces on the
top side to place wire jumpers. I modified the printing of the top-side
silk screen (which I use a  component layout guide) to print the
top-side traces as well, then I just install jumpers where those traces
show up.

I'm very impressed. I too played around with Winboard, and this is much
better. It is a professional package with a 500 pin limit.

They said that when they ship version 5, the Windows 95 version,
purchasers of Challenger Lite will get an upgrade to that version free.
I'm anxiously awaiting it.


Larry



{Quote hidden}

1996\11\18@131049 by timetech

flavicon
face
Larry G. Nelson Sr. wrote:

> The problem with these is the tooling cost. The drills are OK but the
> special mills that outlinre the traces are expensive. They do last quite a
> while. The tools with a short life are if you want to do a board rubout of
> unused copper or another "outline" with the end mill to make a wider
> isolation path. The end mills in that size are expensive and wear out fast.

Actually, what you need to do is learn to sharpen the things. I used a
diamond hone and a "vision aid" to see the edge. Most of the machines
I've seen use a pointed bit, and the tip geometry is so simple that
sharpening is pretty easy.

-- Tom Rogers  Time Tech Inc.

1996\11\18@161836 by Larry G. Nelson Sr.

flavicon
face
At 11:21 AM 11/18/96 -0500, terogers wrote:
>Larry G. Nelson Sr. wrote:
>
>> The problem with these is the tooling cost. The drills are OK but the
>> special mills that outlinre the traces are expensive. They do last quite a
>> while. The tools with a short life are if you want to do a board rubout of
>> unused copper or another "outline" with the end mill to make a wider
>> isolation path. The end mills in that size are expensive and wear out fast.
>
>Actually, what you need to do is learn to sharpen the things. I used a
>diamond hone and a "vision aid" to see the edge. Most of the machines
>I've seen use a pointed bit, and the tip geometry is so simple that
>sharpening is pretty easy.
>
>-- Tom Rogers  Time Tech Inc.
>
>
This is true for the main mill from T-Tech for example but the end mills are
too tiny.
Larry G. Nelson Sr.
EraseMEL.NelsonSTOPspamspamRemoveMEieee.org
http://www.ultranet.com/~nr

'Yet another LED project'
1996\11\19@003448 by Barry Bine

picon face
>        I also have a little LED project and was looking for some help with
>it. I'd like to build a box which determines the order of finish of a pine
>box derby <snip> 6 7-segment LED's which will show the position
>in which the cars finished <snip>

       You can simplify things in one of two ways... dump the 7-seg LED's
and just use 36 discrete LED's as follows (example):

Car # >         1  2  3  4  5  6

Position   1st        X
          2nd  X
          3rd              X
          4th     X
          5th           X
          6th                 X

       Or... interface your PIC's serial port to a PC and use either a dumb
terminal program or some quick and dirty program to display results.  The
only problem with this will be performing RS-232 level conversion.

>        1. Can anyone recommend a good IR TX/RX pair which is small, cheap,
>and will work over distances of about 3". Also, how do I wire this thing up?
>Do I just treat it as a normally open switch?

       I have had good luck with IR pairs from Radio Shack... about $2 or
$3 a pair.  If you use an IR detector you'll have to drive the base of an
NPN switching transistor (15 for $3 at RS) in order to amplify the levels as
follows:

       +5   +5
       |     |
       /     /
       \     \_________ Active low
       /     /          input to PIC
       \   |/
       |___|
       |   |\
    IR V     |
       -     |
       |     |
      ---   ---
       -     -

       Even cheaper and easier is to use CDS photocells from Radio Shack
and just use the AD inputs of a PIC16C74.  Look for a sudden drop in light
levels (increase in voltage):

       +5
       |
       /
       \
       /
       \___________analog input to PIC
       |
       |
  photoresistor
       |
      ---
       -

       Pick your resistors experimentally.  Place the photoresistor so that
the car passes over it.

       Have fun...

                                       - Barry


'yet another LCD question'
1996\12\01@212322 by Henry Carl Ott
picon face
Hi folks,
Quick question (maybe).
I'm trying to drop in a surplus replacement LCD display (1x16 hd44780
controller) into an existing PIC project, and I'm having a problem.
The original display (a densitron lm2015) works fine, but the new display
(noname, but suposedly supertwist) only displays the first 8 characters.
They both have a hd44780 controller, but I notice that the densitron also
has an additional OKI row driver.
Will the hd44780 drive 16 character without an additional row driver? Or
did I some how wind up with some crippled 8 character displays (never heard
of it before). I'm guessing it might have something to do with the duty
cycle, but I don't want to touch the working source code and have burn new
chips.
I can't find any references to this problem in any of the numerous online
LCD FAQs.

Thanks in Advance.


PS&FWIW the new displays seem to have a six o'clock viewing angle :-)

carl

----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Carl Ott   N2RVQ   | talk/chat  carlott@204.74.7.186
spam_OUTcarlottRemoveMEspamEraseMEinterport.net    | http://www.interport.net/~carlott/
----------------------------------------------------------------
"A day job...in an office? My worst nightmare!"-Ticknophobia

1996\12\01@215030 by David Schmidt

flavicon
face
Yes, it will drive all 16 characters fine but the 16 characters are not
in sequential order when you write to the display.  The first 8 characters
are in sequence, the last 8 are offset by 40 characters.  The Densitron
16x1 line display is organized as 16x1 line in memory.  The surplus LCD display
you now have is organized as a 8x2 line display with a 16x1 line 'glass'.

 After you send your first 8 characters, send the display a C0h instruction
(not a character!), this will position the cursor at the 9th position for
writing.  After you display your next 8 characters, or anytime you want to
return to the first character, send the home command.

Surplus LCD displays are a great value, but this memory organization is
something to watch out for!  Also look out for extended temperature displays
- you cannot see the characters without driving the contrast pin negative.
Also, if the display is not supertwist, be careful of the viewing angle.

Dave


At 09:19 PM 12/1/96 -0500, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
( DSchmidt Technologies, Ventura CA         http://www.rain.org/~dschmidt )
( Freq selectors for FME/FMX/FM25, DTMF decoders. Email EraseMEdschmidtRemoveMEspamrain.org )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1996\12\01@225341 by Jacob Blichfeldt

flavicon
face
Hi

On 1*16 displays using only one HD44780 (no additional 44100), multiplexed
at 1:16, the DD RAM address for the last 8 characters begins at 40h. It is
because the HD44780 sets up the display as 2 lines (2*8), when using 1:16
multiplexing.

You were right. It had something to do with the dutycycle (strange the FAQs
don't mention it?).
I guess you have to change the source code, to fix the problem :-(    The
LCD-modules with only one controller are the far most common.  If you write
to both adresses (9h and 40h), both types of displays will work.

-Jacob Blichfeldt


> Hi folks,
> Quick question (maybe).
> I'm trying to drop in a surplus replacement LCD display (1x16 hd44780
>controller) into an existing PIC project, and I'm having a problem.
> The original display (a densitron lm2015) works fine, but the new display
>(noname, but suposedly supertwist) only displays the first 8 characters.
>They both have a hd44780 controller, but I notice that the densitron also
>has an additional OKI row driver.
> Will the hd44780 drive 16 character without an additional row driver? Or
>did I some how wind up with some crippled 8 character displays (never
heard
{Quote hidden}

Attachment converted: wonderlandfive:WINMAIL.DAT (????/----) (000075F3)

1996\12\02@120010 by Henry Carl Ott

picon face
To recap the problem,

I was trying to drop in a surplus replacement LCD display (1x16 hd44780
controller) into an existing PIC project, and it did'nt work.
The original display (a densitron lm2015) works fine, but the new display
(noname, but suposedly supertwist) only displays the first 8 characters.
They both have a hd44780 controller, but I notice that the densitron also
has an additional OKI row driver.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the answer is... that surplus 1x16 displays with just a single hd44780
are memory organized as 2x8 displays. There are various ways of dealing with
this in the code. This is no problem, it was just a question of bothering to
make the changes to the source code of the original debugged (ha!) project
or just saving the displays for a new design.

My thanks go to David, Jacob, and Mike (who actually sent the answer to my
pager via my web page interface) for the timely response.


carl

----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Carl Ott   N2RVQ   | talk/chat  carlott@204.74.7.186
carlottspam_OUTspam@spam@interport.net    | http://www.interport.net/~carlott/
----------------------------------------------------------------
"A day job...in an office? My worst nightmare!"-Ticknophobia

'Another look at AN521'
1996\12\06@174013 by )

flavicon
face
I took a look at AN521 just now to refresh my memory. I'm a little
puzzled about the comments of "connecting the AC line directly to the
PIC". The input to the PIC is current limited through a 5 Meg resistor.
I have seen this type of circuit (combined with the clipping diodes
which are internal on a PIC) used in commercial applications many times.
Even before PICs were common. Another variation is to use a voltage
divider ahead of the current limit resistor. I think that even on a PIC
running from a transformer isolated supply, that the AC line coupled via
a (say 5 meg resistor) to a PIC input would still give enough signal to
work. The AC "return" would be a capacitive/inductive  coupling through
the transformer back to AC neutral. This is somewhat along the same
lines as how some touch switches work.


Frank Richterkessing
Experimental Methods Engineer
GE Appliances

.....FRANK.RICHTERKESSINGspamspam.....APPL.GE.COM

'Another Subtract Macro'
1996\12\09@175729 by Bob Fehrenbach

picon face
Scott Dattalo and Andy Warren have seen this but I thought it may
be not only of interest of the list but maybe someone has a better
way.  (Andy - note added parentheses)



  ;Subtract two byte literal.
  ;At exit, C = 0 if result is negative

sub_word_literal: macro aaa, lll

  movlw   low (~(lll) + 1)
  addwf   aaa+1, f
  movlw   high ((~(lll) + 1) & h'ffff')
  skpnc
  addlw   1
  skpnc
  skpz
  addwf   aaa, f
  endm

--
Bob Fehrenbach    Wauwatosa, WI     bfehrenbKILLspamspamEraseMEexecpc.com

1996\12\11@141115 by Ray Gardiner

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Hi Bob,

I haven't got a better version, but a typo has crept into the above code
the high and low bytes of the address are flipped. ie aaa should be aaa+1
and vice versa.

This macro raise two points
       1. make the assembler/compiler do some of the work
       2. make the piclist do the debugging. :-)






Ray Gardiner, Shepparton, Victoria, Australia, @spam@rayspamspamKILLspamnetspace.net.au

'Another Subtract Macro - correction'
1996\12\11@142115 by Ray Gardiner

flavicon
face
Whoops, just realized you probably meant the macro for bigendian
whereas I was looking at little endian...sorry.




Ray Gardiner, Shepparton, Victoria, Australia, spamBeGonerayRemoveMEspamEraseMEnetspace.net.au

1996\12\11@182357 by Bob Fehrenbach

picon face
Ray Gardiner <RemoveMErayKILLspamspamRemoveMENETSPACE.NET.AU> wrote:

>>sub_word_literal: macro aaa, lll
>>
>>   movlw   low (~(lll) + 1)
>>   addwf   aaa+1, f
>>   movlw   high ((~(lll) + 1) & h'ffff')
>>   skpnc
>>   addlw   1
>>   skpnc
>>   skpz
>>   addwf   aaa, f
>>   endm

>I haven't got a better version, but a typo has crept into the above code
>the high and low bytes of the address are flipped. ie aaa should be aaa+1
>and vice versa.

Well, it depends.  I usually store high byte - low byte in successive
registers, in which case the macro works.

For example:

  cblock
  tempH
  tempL
  endc

  sub_word_literal tempH, 1234

The first part of the macro subtracts (adds compliment) of the lsb and
the second part subtracts the msb.


>This macro raise two points
>        1. make the assembler/compiler do some of the work
>        2. make the piclist do the debugging. :-)

Amen to both.

--
Bob Fehrenbach    Wauwatosa, WI     TakeThisOuTbfehrenbspamexecpc.com

1996\12\11@210030 by Craig Knotts

flavicon
face
    Don't you know what they DO??? ... They break their EGGS by the LARGE
    END!!!  Horrible people....


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Another Subtract Macro - correction
Author:  spamBeGonerayKILLspamspamTakeThisOuTNETSPACE.NET.AU at internet
Date:    12/11/96 3:04 PM


Whoops, just realized you probably meant the macro for bigendian
whereas I was looking at little endian...sorry.




Ray Gardiner, Shepparton, Victoria, Australia, EraseMEray.....spamKILLspamnetspace.net.au

'Reed Relays - and others'
1996\12\19@153653 by Jon Bertrand

flavicon
face
    My thoughts on relays:

    Suppressing the flyback:

    Just do it, put a diode AT THE COIL.  Keep the leads/traces that run
    to the coil away from the rest of your system.  Run them as a pair.
    Twist them if you can.  (Cut the loop area !!!)  I've tried lots of
    other ways - this one works.



    Faraday shield:

    Good idea if you handle the extra capacitance from the contacts to
    your shield point.



    Reeds vs. Electromechanical:

    I've used Coto/Wabash (sp?) electromechanical relays in circuits that
    work with 100 nV, 50 nA, and 6 Gohm source resistances - it can be
    done.  I've used Omron G6E relays in circuits that sense 10nA signals.



    Latching vs. single side stable:

    Latching is better for reducing noise.



    Places to look for help:

    Keithley publishes a book called "Low Level Measurements" that most
    Keithley distributors will give you for free - it's a great place to
    start.  (Keithley makes electrometers and relay matrix boxes for
    making fA type measurements).  It's a good little book.

    Point your surfboard to http://www.emiguru.com/bibliog.htm and look up Henry
    Ott's book, read it over and over.


    Hope it helps.

    Jon Bertrand
    spamjonbspamcirris.com


'PIC Floating Point Library other than MicroChip'
1997\01\06@165755 by Stephen Somlyody
flavicon
face
Anyone know where I can find "working" IEEE-754 Floating point library
functions for the PIC 16Cxx  ?

I have tried the Microchip libraries. These gave incorrect results.

'Sorry to waste yet another post'
1997\01\12@183635 by David Schmidt

flavicon
face
 First apologies to all for reading yet another message from me.

After looking at code for other PIC chips, it appears what I've encountered
is not a bug but my lack of knowledge with these higher end PIC chips.
Previously I've only been using 5X parts and never needed to specify a
jump instruction at address 0000 to the main code.  The line
   reset  start
where start is a label at the main code section always worked for me in the
past.

I've learned a lot this weekend.  Should have thought it out to myself before
posting though.

Dave

1997\01\13@082851 by timetech

flavicon
face
David Schmidt wrote:
>
>   First apologies to all for reading yet another message from me.
>
> After looking at code for other PIC chips, it appears what I've encountered
> is not a bug but my lack of knowledge with these higher end PIC chips.

Dear David:

Please don't apologize. It may be occasionally embarassing to
contribute, but I assure you its appropriate and instructive and, as
such, belongs here.

Besides, this is how people learn to 'RTFM', even though its thick.
Nothing motivates you to learn like finding out the information is
really there.

Thanks -- Tom Rogers  VP-R&D  Time Tech Inc.

'Piclist and WWW - Don't worry not another newgroup'
1997\01\17@150053 by Conor O'Rourke

flavicon
face
Well that's interesting,

I've just found a mail archive of the piclist in html format.
I hope the author doesn't mind me giving the url:

http://cdr.stanford.edu/people/luehrb/up/pic

Quite good. Have a look. Not all at once now!


Conor.

1997\01\17@172050 by Todd Peterson

picon face
At 08:01 PM 1/17/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Well that's interesting,
>
>I've just found a mail archive of the piclist in html format.
>I hope the author doesn't mind me giving the url:
>
>http://cdr.stanford.edu/people/luehrb/up/pic
>
>Quite good. Have a look. Not all at once now!

Brian Luehrs deserves a fair amount of praise for this.  Are you on this
list, Brian?  Why didn't you tell us about your page?

Hopefully you have some sort of a 'bot updating the page and you don't have
to do it yourself.  Are you planning on keeping this site up in the future
so we can all dump our growing acrhive of the PICLIST from our hard drives?

       -Todd.



____________________________________

Todd Peterson (tpetersonSTOPspamspamnetins.net)
 E-LAB Digital Engineering, Inc.
        (712) 944-5344

Embedded Control &
 Integrated Circuit Solutions

ELECTRONICS RESOURCE DIRECTORY at:
http://www.netins.net/showcase/elab

'Another Programmer Question!'
1997\01\21@155517 by Jean-Francois Joly

flavicon
face
Hello everyone!

About the EPIC Plus Pocket program, I don't really like the idea of adding
a hex line to make it compatible with the MPASM compiler.. Im new to PIC
programming and Im tring to find a good and simple programmer that is 100%
compatible with MPASM! (No need to add a line or whatever)

Is there anyone that has the PIC-1 programmer from ITU? How is it? Any
inconvinients? Is this one compatible with MPASM?

Thanks a lot!
Jean-Francois
-----------
Jean-Francois & Alain Joly
jolyalSTOPspamspamKILLspamcapitalnet.com

1997\01\21@180529 by prestong

flavicon
face
On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Jean-Francois Joly wrote:

> Hello everyone!
>
> Is there anyone that has the PIC-1 programmer from ITU? How is it? Any
> inconvinients? Is this one compatible with MPASM?
>
> Thanks a lot!
> Jean-Francois

Jean-Francois,

I have been using the ITU PIC-1 programmer for about 1 1/2 years without
any trouble from the programmer.  I've used it primarily with the PIC16C84
since it's so easy to work with for little hobby projects.  I've used
MPASM and I am currently using MPLAB without troubles, provided I use
ITU's DOS program to dump the hex file to the programmer.

I bought the kit and assembled it myself in part of one evening.  I
recall that the assembly was quite easy and the assembly instructions were
clear and concise.

Despite the positive things I've said about the ITU PIC-1 programmer I
would NOT buy it again.  This is solely due to the lack of extended
support for the programmer.  I would highly recommend you read Andrew
Warren's remarks on this topic. See answers to questions #73!

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499/answers.html#PIC00073

At the time I purchased the kit, software upgrades incorporating various
improvements were promised.  ITU even advertises that upgrades are
totally free from their FTP site.  The only problem is there have been
absolutely no upgrades!  I believe there was every intention to support
the product with software improvements and new capabilities, but the
hot/fun project of yesterday is often not as exciting today.  (Check out
ITU's web site.  I think it's clear what is hot and fun right now!)

If I were to do it over right now, I would spend a few extra dollars and
get the added capabilities and assured long-term support from one of the
larger companies.  The Picstart Plus would be number one on my list.
(Actually, I hope to get one in the not to far distant future so I can
play with some of the high and low end Microchip micro-controllers.)

Hope this gives you some food for thought.

Best of luck,

Preston Gabel


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Preston S. Gabel                  Email: @spam@Preston.S.Gabel.....spamspamTek.Com
      Tektronix, Inc
      PO Box 500 (m/s 39-527)       Voice:  503 627-4035
      Beaverton, OR  97077            FAX:  503 627-1388
The views express herein are mine and not necessarily my employer's
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1997\01\21@182113 by rpragana

flavicon
face
Hi Jean,
 I use EPIC programmer and there is nothing to add at all, if you write
your source with the __CONFIG directive.  If you want, I can give you
more details, but its RTFM :)
regards, Rildo

<snip>
> About the EPIC Plus Pocket program, I don't really like the idea of adding
> a hex line to make it compatible with the MPASM compiler.. Im new to PIC
> programming and Im tring to find a good and simple programmer that is 100%
> compatible with MPASM! (No need to add a line or whatever)

1997\01\21@201143 by Jean-Francois Joly

flavicon
face
Hi Rildo!

>  I use EPIC programmer and there is nothing to add at all, if you write
>your source with the __CONFIG directive.

Well you see, I never programmed PIC's in my life..(yet) and I don't know
allot about them to! I readed data sheets and everything.. but there is
still some things that Im not sure about. So.. what do you meen by
the_CONFIG directive? What is it?

>If you want, I can give you more details, but its RTFM :)

What does RTFM meen? :) Please give me all the details you can!

Thanks for your understanding...!
Jean-Francois



-----------
Jean-Francois & Alain Joly
spamjolyal.....spam.....capitalnet.com

1997\01\21@203852 by hoss karoly

flavicon
face
Jean-Francois Joly wrote:
>
> Hi Rildo!

> >If you want, I can give you more details, but its RTFM :)
>
> What does RTFM meen? :) Please give me all the details you can!
>

Read The Fucking Manual :)

I guess you'll get all the info when you try to program you first pic

when I started I was so dumb that I couldn't even ask a question
now I'm a little bit smarter for example I know the meaning of many
tla's and etla's (Extended Three Letter Acronims)

bye
charley

1997\01\22@001459 by rpragana

flavicon
face
 First of all, RTFM means "Read The Fine Manual", what means in this case
the docs from Microchip.  You will find there how to use the __CONFIG
directive to setup your processor configuration bits.

From Microchip's "Mpasm user's guide":

__CONFIG --> specify configurations bits (configuration word)

You may find the configuration word in PIC's Data Sheet (for 16C84, page
37).

Example:
 __CONFIG  019h             ;means CP off, PWRTE on, WDTE off, XT osc

where CP=code protection bit, PWRTE=power-up timer enable, WDTE=watchdog
timer enable, and FOSC1,0=two bits selecting oscillator (RC,HS,XT or LP).


 Perhaps a simple program (LED blinker) from Microchip docs could help
you, look for them!  Don't start writing your code from scratch. Glue
pieces of code from other programs and you will master PIC assembly
language faster.

> Well you see, I never programmed PIC's in my life..(yet) and I don't know
> allot about them to! I readed data sheets and everything.. but there is
> still some things that Im not sure about. So.. what do you meen by
> the_CONFIG directive? What is it?
>
> What does RTFM meen? :) Please give me all the details you can!
>

best regards, from the Brazilian's Venice (Recife)

Rildo Pragana

1997\01\22@191932 by Jean-Francois Joly

flavicon
face
Hello Charley!

>Read The Fucking Manual :)

Ohhh.. ok... :)

>when I started I was so dumb that I couldn't even ask a question
>now I'm a little bit smarter for example I know the meaning of many
>tla's and etla's (Extended Three Letter Acronims)

Where did you learn to program these things? Did you read any books
are you just start experimenting by yourself?

See-ya!
Jean
-----------
Jean-Francois & Alain Joly
jolyal.....spamcapitalnet.com

'Joysticks and other connectors'
1997\01\24@140926 by Tim Kerby

picon face
People on the list are always asking for pinouts of connectors.  Try the
following page if you are interested

http://www.blackdown.org/~hwb/hwb.html


Tim


------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can read this, it is the end of the message!
My web pages are at http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/tim.kerby/
My PIC site is at web.ukonline.co.uk/members/tim.kerby/pic/
It needs your projects!
------------------------------------------------------------------

1997\01\24@140926 by Tim Kerby

picon face
People on the list are always asking for pinouts of connectors.  Try the
following page if you are interested

http://www.blackdown.org/~hwb/hwb.html


Tim


------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can read this, it is the end of the message!
My web pages are at http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/tim.kerby/
My PIC site is at web.ukonline.co.uk/members/tim.kerby/pic/
It needs your projects!
------------------------------------------------------------------


'Help (and another dumb question)'
1997\02\13@063935 by efoc
flavicon
face
Ok Folks it's another dumb question time again ......

I am using MPLAB to test my code on, my question is :-

       Is there any way I can save the way I have configured my "Asynchronous
Stimulus Dialog" setting with my project information or any damn way at
all .
       It is getting to be a REAL pain in the but to have to set up all the
buttons EVERY time I re-start the programme.


Thanks in advance Peter .........
==================================
= New Ideas come from those who  =
= didn't know it wasn't possible =
==================================

'Other lists'
1997\02\25@145548 by Dave Johnson

picon face
HI,

Although I use PICS I also have an interest in the '51 range of controllers.
Does anyone know if there is a specific list for this controller or any like
minded lists?

Sorry if this is too off topic but it seems to me to be a good place to ask.

Regards,

Dave Johnson          (KILLspamDJohn77284spam_OUTspamaol.com)

1997\02\25@152220 by Mike

flavicon
face
>Although I use PICS I also have an interest in the '51 range of controllers.
>Does anyone know if there is a specific list for this controller or any like
>minded lists?
>
>Sorry if this is too off topic but it seems to me to be a good place to ask.

Great question - I would also like to know - thanks.

In any case its conceivable for designs to utilise more than one microprocessor
and they need not be from the same manufacturer.

A recent feasability study for an alarm system pointed to a good benefit by
using a 68HC11 (as main controller) and an AT89C2051 (as protocol controller).

Rgds

Mike

Some say there is no magic but, all things begin with thought then it becomes
academic, then some poor slob works out a practical way to implement all that
theory, this is called Engineering - for most people another form of magic.
                                                                      Massen

1997\02\26@022049 by Bjarne Nebelong

picon face
Dave,
Try Philips Forum.

Mail to : spam_OUTphilips-forum-requestspamTakeThisOuTibsystems.com
subject : subscribe

regards /Bjarne

{Quote hidden}

1997\02\26@023327 by Marc Schmaeche

flavicon
face
>HI,
>
>Although I use PICS I also have an interest in the '51 range of controllers.
>Does anyone know if there is a specific list for this controller or any like
>minded lists?
>
>Sorry if this is too off topic but it seems to me to be a good place to ask.
>
>Regards,
>
>Dave Johnson          (spam_OUTDJohn77284TakeThisOuTspamEraseMEaol.com)


Dear Dave,

there is a list for 8051 moderated by Dave Heller (Philips Microcontroller
Discussion Forum) but with less traffic than in the PIC list.

To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the Microcontroller E-Mail Discussion Forum,
put either "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the Subject field of an e-mail
message and send it to: EraseMEforum-requestspamBeGonespamKILLspamPhilipsMCU.com. Once subscribed, you
can send messages to the forum at: RemoveMEforumspamBeGonespamspamPhilipsMCU.com

See also http://www.philipsmcu.com/webforum/

Regards,
Marc Schmaeche

ZAM-AZN
Am Weichselgarten 7
91058 Erlangen (Germany)
E-mail: @spam@msspamspamzam.nf.fh-nuernberg.de (Ger/Eng/Spa welcome)


'Other lists'
1997\03\02@072456 by Dorin Dogaroiu
flavicon
face
>HI,
>
>Although I use PICS I also have an interest in the '51 range of controllers.
>Does anyone know if there is a specific list for this controller or any like
>minded lists?

I am interrested too of '51 or related lists.

>
>Sorry if this is too off topic but it seems to me to be a good place to ask.

I am sorry too for this reply on list.

>
>Regards,
>
>Dave Johnson          (TakeThisOuTDJohn77284KILLspamspam@spam@aol.com)
>

All best

Dorin       (.....dogaroiudRemoveMEspampcnet.pcnet.ro)

1997\03\03@002714 by Vishram sarurkar

flavicon
face
On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Dorin Dogaroiu wrote:

> >HI,
> >
> >Although I use PICS I also have an interest in the '51 range of controllers.
> >Does anyone know if there is a specific list for this controller or any like
> >minded lists?
>
> I am interrested too of '51 or related lists.
>
hello,
       if you are referring to the famous 8051 series of uCs, there is
a list-server at KILLspamphilips-forumspamTakeThisOuTphilipsmcu.com.
you may subscribe to it by sending mail with the body 'subscribe'.
regards,
vishram.
               +------------------------------------------+
               |            Vishram A. Sarurkar           |
               |           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^          |
               |     another hobbyist turned researcher   |
               |   slogging @ Indian Institute of Science |
               |               -----------                |
               |    e-mail:TakeThisOuTvishspamspam_OUTisu.iisc.ernet.in.        |
               |    Phone:+91 (080) 3092487.              |
               +------------------------------------------+

'OTHER PIC NEWSGROUPS'
1997\03\11@024729 by rne Smith

flavicon
face
Is there any other neswgroups regarding the PIC's like this one?
Is there any other intelligent lifeforms out there ?

please let me know.
Thanks

1997\03\11@050932 by Mike

flavicon
face
At 09:36 AM 11/03/97 +0200, you wrote:
>Is there any other neswgroups regarding the PIC's like this one?
>Is there any other intelligent lifeforms out there ?

Wow - what presumption !

Mike

There is no a'priori reason that the ultimate truth will be interesting
or even useful, those moments of frustration during philosophical debate
would be replaced by the sheer terror which accompanies true knowledge.

1997\03\11@095447 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
At 09:36 AM 3/11/97 +0200, you wrote:
>Is there any other neswgroups regarding the PIC's like this one?
>Is there any other intelligent lifeforms out there ?
>

Parallax maintains a list.  Not quite as active as this one, but not bad.

The following is your instructions.

- To subscribe -or- unsubscribe send RemoveMEmajordomospamspamSTOPspamparallaxinc.com and
- put SUBSCRIBE pics -or- UNSUBSCRIBE pics in the body of the message


==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Montana Design - 409 S 6th St - Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
         Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
       "Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================

1997\03\11@122115 by Ronald D. Rissane

picon face
They is (sic) some and some be (sic) literate.

At 04:12 PM 3/11/97 +0800, you wrote:
>At 09:36 AM 11/03/97 +0200, you wrote:
>>Is there any other neswgroups regarding the PIC's like this one?
>>Is there any other intelligent lifeforms out there ?
>
>Wow - what presumption !
>
>Mike
>
>There is no a'priori reason that the ultimate truth will be interesting
>or even useful, those moments of frustration during philosophical debate
>would be replaced by the sheer terror which accompanies true knowledge.
>
>

1997\03\11@142611 by Don McKenzie

flavicon
face
Corne Smith wrote:
>
> Is there any other neswgroups regarding the PIC's like this one?
> Is there any other intelligent lifeforms out there ?
>
> please let me know.
> Thanks

A List Server Chat Group is now operating that offers user self help
support for SimmStick and any other related PIC products.

SimmStick supports 18 pin, 28 pin, (both varieties), and 40 pin PIC16Cxx
devices on a PCB 3.5" long by 1" or 2" high. The 30 pin edge connector
allows it to plug into a standard 30 pin Simm Socket. Other methods are
available. It also supports the Atmel AT89C2051.

You don't have to have a SimmStick to be involved, as any subject matter
that the product supports, can be discussed on the list.

This extends to MEL PicBasic, FED Basic, Parallax Basic, as well as
assembly and C.

PIP02 software updates, ARTI, BASCO, and BS/4, are just some of the
software products being developed by SiStudio, the SimmStick designers.

The list is new, the number of users isn't large, the messages may only
be from
zero to 5 a day. Newbies and Oldbies welcome.

The address?
------------
A new List Server has been set up for SimmStick products.
Send a message to: .....sisuser-requestEraseMEspamip.co.za with JOIN or LEAVE in the
body of your
message. spamBeGoneusersspamRemoveMEsistudio.com is the address to post mail.
------------

Don McKenzie  .....donEraseMEspamdontronics.com   http://www.dontronics.com

Send a blank message to spamhelpspam_OUTspam@spam@dontronics.com for more info.
SLI, the serial LCD that auto detects baud rates from 100 to 125K bps.
SimmStick(tm) A PIC proto PCB the size of a 30 pin Simm Memory Module.

1997\03\11@170617 by Karoly Hoss

flavicon
face
Corne Smith wrote:
>
> Is there any other neswgroups regarding the PIC's like this one?
> Is there any other intelligent lifeforms out there ?
>

is there life out there ?
someone mentioned In Real Life (IRL) but I personally think the life
outside the screen is so unbelievable that I'd rather belive in
murphy or buddha .

bye
charley

'Another Magic Sine Wave question'
1997\03\17@011513 by James and Iliana

flavicon
face
Hello All.
       Is there anyone that has used Magic Sine Waves in an application ?? I've
looked at all the data from Don's web site and it sounds like, as he would
call it, " Pseudo Science ". ( maybe because I don't know enough to tell
what is smoke or not ).
       Before I make a fool out of myself ( and spend money that I don't have )
could someone just confirm that they are not smoke and mirrors ??
       Thanks a bunch for your time.

----------------------
James and Iliana
Austin Texas
Automotive Technician
Electronics Hobbyist
Software Engineer
----------------------

1997\03\17@053444 by Mike

flavicon
face
At 12:00 AM 17/03/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Hello All.
>        Is there anyone that has used Magic Sine Waves in an application ??

I think that was Don's intention - to raise the capital to produce fully
functioning units as part of a business plan - perhaps with the eventual  aim
of floating the company.


I've
>looked at all the data from Don's web site and it sounds like, as he would
>call it, " Pseudo Science ". ( maybe because I don't know enough to tell
>what is smoke or not ).

It seems very reasonable and real. I see that minor variations in a regular PWM
approach can give improved results:- the 'magic sinewaves' is just a logical
extension of this - well logical in the sense that it is more focused on
producing the bit stream  directly from some formula instead of via some
iterative method - which is likely to be very time consuming indeed !

>        Before I make a fool out of myself ( and spend money that I don't
have )
>could someone just confirm that they are not smoke and mirrors ??

I think is worth while pursuing - but then you would be a fool if you spent
money
you don't have, then that would be a debt you'd be lumbered with ;)

Anyway I think its a worthwhile gamble at least for basic research purposes.

>        Thanks a bunch for your time.

And you get the electrons free :)

Rgds

Mike

Some say there is no magic but, all things begin with thought then it becomes
academic, then some poor slob works out a practical way to implement all that
theory, this is called Engineering - for most people another form of magic.
                                                                      Massen

1997\03\17@112509 by sdattalo

face
flavicon
face
James and Iliana wrote:
>
>         Before I make a fool out of myself ( and spend money that I don't have
)
> could someone just confirm that they are not smoke and mirrors ??

 The "they" being Magic Sinewaves...

The only way you'll make a fool out of yourself is by claiming that
this stuff is Magic. It's not.

I've studied various pulse streams: 12,15,24,36 and was able to
demonstrate the harmonic suppression claimed by Lancaster. I was
unable to come up with a generic formula. However, I have made
several observations and have written a program in MATLAB to
calculate the harmonic content of a given pulse stream. I can
re-post the observations and send a copy of the MATLAB program
to those interested.

Scott

'Other MicroControllers'
1997\03\19@020813 by Troy Powledge

flavicon
face

1997\03\19@034707 by John Payson

picon face
> My question pertains to the use of other microcontrollers.
> Why is the MicroChip PIC controller so much better than other =
> controllers like ATMEL or ZILOG? Is there an application that would be =
> better suited to one of the other manufacturers? I am kind of new to the =
> microcontroller world and I see that there are quite a few =
> manufacturers. On what grounds do these companies compete? I really just =
> want verification that I have gotten lucky and chosen the best =
> controller out there.
> Thanks in advance,

The Microchip PIC series of controllers is excellent because the people at
General Instrument a few years ago were trying to produce a dirt-cheap micro
as simply as possible and as it happened the simplicity of their micro's
design resulted in a micro which (in modern forms) is both very fast and
generally straightforward to program.

The PIC is essentially the only micro in its price range which can easily run
5,000,000 "normal" instructions per second; even slightly-higher-end micros
such as the Dallas Semiconductor 80C520 IMHO don't quite (though with the
80C520 it depends what you define as a "normal" instruction).  For applica-
tions where execution speed is critical, the PIC is a winner.

The PIC also has a tendency to be available.  Surprisingly, while Microchip is
nowhere near as large as Motorola Semiconductor and all of Microchip's CPU's
are single-sourced, it seems that Microchip parts almost never go on alloca-
tion and they are easy to get.  Digi-key is sometimes out of certain PICs, but
it doesn't take long for them to get more.  By contrast, HC05's can sometimes
be on allocation for months.

The PIC's primary limitations currently fall in two areas as I see it:

[1] Addressing modes: while the IRP/RP0/RP1 arrangement of the 16Cxx is about
   as good as a 14-bit instruction format could allow, it does divide the RAM
   of the PIC into rather discrete pieces.  Also, the existence of only a
   single index register makes operations such as memory-to-memory copying
   difficult.

[2] Development systems: while PIC compilers are definitely improving, as yet
   none has achieved anything near the quality and stability of some compil-
   ers for the 8x51 which /just plain work/.  Hopefully this situation will
   improve.

1997\03\19@092028 by mike

flavicon
picon face
In message  <spam01BC3401.94068C40@spam@spamSTOPspamdialup40.eramp.net> spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGonespam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
writes:
> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC3401.94746940
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Hi all,
> My question pertains to the use of other microcontrollers.
> Why is the MicroChip PIC controller so much better than other =
> controllers like ATMEL or ZILOG? Is there an application that would be =
> better suited to one of the other manufacturers? I am kind of new to the =
> microcontroller world and I see that there are quite a few =
> manufacturers. On what grounds do these companies compete? I really just =
> want verification that I have gotten lucky and chosen the best =
> controller out there.

Troy,

There is always the new Atmel AVR microcontroller. The AT90S1200 is
supposed to be available now, but I have yet to get hold of one.

Being EEPROM based, it seems to be aimed directly in competition
with the 16C84. It has several features that make it more attractive
than an 16C84 and other PICs in general.

 o a richer instruction set, 87 instructions including an add
   with carry.

 o 32 w registers. The end of the w reg bottle neck. And you can
   access 2 registers in one instruction. eg add r1, r2.

 o Single clock cycle instruction execution for most instructions.
   The PIC divides its clock by for for each instruction. On
   this basis, for a given clock frequency, the AVR is roughly 4
   times faster than a PIC.

 o 24MHz max clock speed. Compared to 10MHz for a C84. This is
   nearly two and a half times quicker and when combined with
   the single cycle instruction execution and the richer instruction
   set makes for something in excess of 10 times the speed.

 o Analogue comparator.

 o 20 pins - 2 extra i/o per package.

 o Direct reads of the port pins rather than a register aimed at
   overcoming the read-before-write problem on PICs.

 o Different interrupt vectors for different interrupts.

Future 20 pin AVRs will have more counters, PWM and UART. 40 Pin
versions are on the cards.

Things I've found from the data sheets which aren't as good as the
PIC are:

 o The watchdog can be switched off by your application. This seems
   crazy to me.

 o There is no way to differentiate between a POR reset and a watchdog
   reset.

 o The I/O pins can only sink reasonable currents.

 o There is no RC oscillator option.


I understand that Atmel isn't the only company bringing out chips
like this, and wonder if Microchip have something up their sleeves
which would wipe the floor with an AVR.

I checked the prices, about  1.50 UKP for 100 off. Less than I pay
for 16C84, more than the 15C56.

Any comments from the Microchip guys on this list?


Regards,


Mike Watson

1997\03\19@111341 by Robert Zeff

flavicon
face
part 0 684 bytes

                     \\\|///
                   \\  ~ ~  //
                    (  @ @  )
    --------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------------
    |                                         |
    |               Robert Zeff               |
    |            Nikola Engineering           |
    |            209-577-4268  x101           |
    |            RemoveMErzeffRemoveMEspamRemoveMEnikola.com             |
    |   Free Spice for Windows NT / Win95:    |
    |        WWW:  http://Nikola.com          |
    |                                         |
    ----------------------Oooo.---------------
                .oooO     (   )
                (   )      ) /
                 \ (      (_/






1997\03\19@151018 by Antti Lukats

flavicon
face
At 08:02 AM 19/3/97 -0800, you wrote:
>I've heard that Motorola has something called PIC killers,
>or something similar.  Anyone have info on this?

they have MC68HC805K3 like K1 but EEPROM (~1K)
I would not call that a killer. dont know if they are available
or not at this time. Had bad luck with K1 so have decided to avoid
Motorola if possible

HC12 kills many things, but not cheap PIC's

antti

-- Silicon Studio Ltd.
-- http://www.sistudio.com

1997\03\19@151232 by mike

flavicon
picon face
In message <332FFB4D.5B2DKILLspamspamspamcyberstop.net> Peter Baines writes:
> Mayes uk wrote:
[snips]
> >
> > Any comments from the Microchip guys on this list?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mike Watson
>
>
> Mike,
>       Can you point us a web resorce where we can look at these little
> beasties in mor detail PLS..
> --
>
Peter,

Try:

http://www.atmel.com


Regards,


Mike

1997\03\19@160444 by Leon Heller

flavicon
picon face
In message <spam_OUT01BC3401.94068C40@spam@spamdialup40.eramp.net>, Troy Powledge
<TakeThisOuTtpowspam_OUTspamERAMP.NET> writes
>Hi all,
>My question pertains to the use of other microcontrollers.
>Why is the MicroChip PIC controller so much better than other controllers like
>ATMEL or ZILOG? Is there an application that would be better suited to one of
>the other manufacturers? I am kind of new to the microcontroller world and I
see
>that there are quite a few manufacturers. On what grounds do these companies
>compete? I really just want verification that I have gotten lucky and chosen
the
>best controller out there.
>Thanks in advance,

I don't think that PICs are so much better. They have a grotty
architecture compared to the Z8, which is *much* nicer. On the other
hand, PICs are much easier to get hold of in small quantities,
development software and hardware are available for next to nothing, and
the documentation can be obtained very cheaply, or free.

Leon
--
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Email: KILLspamleon.....spamTakeThisOuTlfheller.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.lfheller.demon.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 118 947 1424 (home) +44 (0) 1344 385556 (work)

1997\03\19@161707 by Mike

flavicon
face
>I don't think that PICs are so much better. They have a grotty
>architecture compared to the Z8, which is *much* nicer. On the other
>hand, PICs are much easier to get hold of in small quantities,
>development software and hardware are available for next to nothing, and
>the documentation can be obtained very cheaply, or free.

The thing that bothers me about PICs (and I think its the most important for
use in control systems) is the inability to read internal ROM to perform a
checksum or equivalent integrity check. So for low end stuff that has any type
of real world control - I just don't use them.

For low end stuff I use the 89C2051 by Atmel or 68HC705C8 by Motorola.

The high end PIC stuff is about on par with HC11 type devices.

Rgds

Mike

Some say there is no magic but, all things begin with thought then it becomes
academic, then some poor slob works out a practical way to implement all that
theory, this is called Engineering - for most people another form of magic.
                                                                      Massen

1997\03\19@200000 by Robert Lunn

flavicon
face
> Why is the MicroChip PIC controller so much better than other
> controllers like ATMEL or ZILOG? Is there an application that would be
> better suited to one of the other manufacturers?

       An intrinsic short-coming of most of the PIC range derives from
       their Harvard architecture.

       There is no way for a running program to read the code space of
       the device, so a program can't do a run-time checksum on itself.

       This makes the PIC unsuitable for some so-called 'high reliability'
       applications.

               (The top-end PIC's, the 17Cxx series, _can_ read their
                program memory and thus do this checksumming.  Indeed,
                these PIC's can write to, and thus program, their
                program memory.)

___Bob

1997\03\19@200211 by Robert Lunn

flavicon
face
>The PIC's primary limitations currently fall in two areas as I see it:
>
>[1] Addressing modes: while the IRP/RP0/RP1 arrangement of the 16Cxx is about
>    as good as a 14-bit instruction format could allow, it does divide the
RAM
>    of the PIC into rather discrete pieces.  Also, the existence of only a
>    single index register makes operations such as memory-to-memory copying
>    difficult.

       Actually, I think this demonstrates one of the advantages of choosing
       the PIC range.  There's a very healthy spread of performance/features
       from which to select, ranging from the 12C508 to the 17C756.  And this
       is without the mind-numbing plethora of chips that Phillips, for example
,
       have in their 8051 range.

       The 14-bit core is middle of the range and has only one index register.
       But the 16-bit core (17Cxx) has two index registers (but doesn't come
       in anything smaller than a 40-pin dip).

       If the 0.5k pages of the 12-bit 16C56 are a problem, then use the
       2k pages of the 14-bit 16C556.  If page swapping is _still_ a nuisance
       then use the 8k pages of the 17C42.

       Select almost any PIC and its possible to easily step-up to another
       PIC that has: more memory; or more I/O; or some A/D; or a UART; or
       a h/w multiply; etc.

       What's more, these steps are usually associated with a price increment
       of about a quarter of a dollar.  Go from 0.5k eprom to 1k eprom: add
       25c.  Go from no data eeprom to 64 bytes of data eeprom: add 25c...

       This means that device selection is low risk.  If you find you're
       running out of grunt you don't have to do a complete re-design.
       Conversely, at the beginning of the project you can simply select
       the 'largest' device in the package size you're using and later on,
       with the code finished, change down to the nearest fitting chip.

___Bob

1997\03\19@233520 by tjaart

flavicon
face
Antti Lukats wrote:
>
> At 08:02 AM 19/3/97 -0800, you wrote:
> >I've heard that Motorola has something called PIC killers,
> >or something similar.  Anyone have info on this?
>

Yep. Mabe they offer the support on MPLABC. <VBG>

>
> antti
>
> -- Silicon Studio Ltd.
> -- http://www.sistudio.com

--
Friendly Regards

Tjaart van der Walt
TakeThisOuTtjaartEraseMEspamRemoveMEwasp.co.za
_____________________________________________________________
| Another sun-deprived R&D Engineer slaving away in a dungeon |
|             WASP International  http://wasp.co.za           |
|             GSM and GPS value-added applications            |
|  Voice : +27-(0)11-622-8686   |   Fax : +27-(0)11-622-8686  |
|_____________________________________________________________|

1997\03\20@010644 by engmessi

flavicon
face
At 08:02 19/03/97 -0800, you wrote:
>I've heard that Motorola has something called PIC killers,
>or something similar.  Anyone have info on this?

I've heard this expression for the Atmel controllers.

1997\03\20@022041 by Werner Terreblanche

flavicon
face
Troy Powledge <spam_OUTtpowRemoveMEspam.....ERAMP.NET> wrote:

> My question pertains to the use of other microcontrollers.
> Why is the MicroChip PIC controller so much better than other =
> controllers like ATMEL or ZILOG? Is there an application that would be
> better suited to one of the other manufacturers? I am kind of new to
> the microcontroller world and I see that there are quite a few =
> manufacturers. On what grounds do these companies compete? I really
> just want verification that I have gotten lucky and chosen the best
> controller out there. Thanks in advance, Troy Powledge

Troy

I do not neccessary think that the PIC microcontroller is
neccesarily the best microcontroller in general, but I like them
because you get such a wide variety all with different flavours
which makes them ideal for a large number of uses.  Also, as far as
cost is concerned they are fast, reliable, cheap, easy to use and
programming tools and compilers are readily available.   I use them
whenever the job is a reasonably small and easy to implement, or
whenever I really need the speed that a PIC can offer.

But for more complicated jobs I still prefer the 8051 or Atmel
microcontrollers.  The main reason is that I like to program in high
level languages likes C and the compilers you get for the 8051 type
of microcontrollers are miles ahead of the ones you get for the PIC.
To put this to a test, try finding a PIC C compilers that can do
floating point arithmetic.

Anyway, PIC micronontrollers are a good point to start, and depending
on you application it might just yet turn out the best choice for
you! : )


Rgds
Werner

1997\03\20@092551 by Martin McCormick

flavicon
face
       I have used the 68HC11.  Good points:
The assemblers for it and several of the HC11's relatives are free and run
on any MSDOS machine.  GCC can compile code for it if you set it up right.
The addressing space is linear with 64 K possible.  It reminds me a lot
of the 6502 without nearly as much trouble addressing things.

Bad points:

       Trying to find them can be a real pain at times.  The HC11 comes
in a 52-pin PLCC package that makes prototyping somewhat more of a headache
if one wants to wire-wrap.  The performance is good for a 8-bit micro, but
many of the PIC's appear to do certain things much faster due to their
architecture and availability in higher clock speeds.

       If one wants a 68HC11 without the A/D converters, I think the
68HC705 in a 40-pin package is available.

       As with many things, it all depends upon what you need to do and
how much you can afford to do with available resources.

Martin McCormick

1997\03\20@124739 by Walter Banks

picon face
Werner Terreblanche wrote:
>
> To put this to a test, try finding a PIC C compilers that can do
> floating point arithmetic.

This is an unusual test for a C compiler. I have seen very few
applications that would use a Microchip PIC class of processor
where floating point support is a requirement.

There is a tech tip on floating point for the current MPC compiler
and future releases of the MPC compiler supports a float data type.

Walter Banks
http://www.bytecraft.com

'Re[2]: Other MicroControllers (with C support)'
1997\03\20@125405 by Kurt Kuhlmann

picon face
    The new Avocet compiler has floating point math for the PIC.  Free
    beta copy at:
    http://www.hitech.com.au


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Other MicroControllers
Author:  Werner Terreblanche <spamwterrebKILLspamspamKILLspamPLESSEY.CO.ZA> at Internet_Exchange
Date:    3/20/97 9:11 AM


Troy Powledge <spamtpowspam_OUTspamERAMP.NET> wrote:

> My question pertains to the use of other microcontrollers.
> Why is the MicroChip PIC controller so much better than other =
> controllers like ATMEL or ZILOG? Is there an application that would be
> better suited to one of the other manufacturers? I am kind of new to
> the microcontroller world and I see that there are quite a few =
> manufacturers. On what grounds do these companies compete? I really
> just want verification that I have gotten lucky and chosen the best
> controller out there. Thanks in advance, Troy Powledge

Troy

I do not neccessary think that the PIC microcontroller is
neccesarily the best microcontroller in general, but I like them
because you get such a wide variety all with different flavours
which makes them ideal for a large number of uses.  Also, as far as
cost is concerned they are fast, reliable, cheap, easy to use and
programming tools and compilers are readily available.   I use them
whenever the job is a reasonably small and easy to implement, or
whenever I really need the speed that a PIC can offer.

But for more complicated jobs I still prefer the 8051 or Atmel
microcontrollers.  The main reason is that I like to program in high
level languages likes C and the compilers you get for the 8051 type
of microcontrollers are miles ahead of the ones you get for the PIC.
To put this to a test, try finding a PIC C compilers that can do
floating point arithmetic.

Anyway, PIC micronontrollers are a good point to start, and depending
on you application it might just yet turn out the best choice for
you! : )


Rgds
Werner

1997\03\20@132920 by Joe Dowlen

flavicon
face
    Walter

    Floating point arithmetic is a necessity when using the PIC14000
    processor. The A/D converter calibration is difficult at best if you
    do not use floating point math (to correct for the calibration
    constants).

    Joe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Other MicroControllers
Author:  pic microcontroller discussion list <STOPspamPICLISTspam_OUTspamspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU> at SMTP
Date:    3/20/97 11:51 AM


Werner Terreblanche wrote:
>
> To put this to a test, try finding a PIC C compilers that can do
> floating point arithmetic.

This is an unusual test for a C compiler. I have seen very few
applications that would use a Microchip PIC class of processor
where floating point support is a requirement.

There is a tech tip on floating point for the current MPC compiler
and future releases of the MPC compiler supports a float data type.

Walter Banks
http://www.bytecraft.com

1997\03\20@141517 by Walter Banks

picon face
Joe Dowlen wrote:

>      Floating point arithmetic is a necessity when using the PIC14000
>      processor. The A/D converter calibration is difficult at best if you
>      do not use floating point math (to correct for the calibration
>      constants).


Good point.

Walter Banks

'float - is it necessary? (was Re: Other MicroContr'
1997\03\20@191100 by Steve Hardy

flavicon
face
> From: Walter Banks <spam_OUTwalterspamspamBeGoneBYTECRAFT.COM>
> Werner Terreblanche wrote:
> >
> > To put this to a test, try finding a PIC C compilers that can do
> > floating point arithmetic.
>
> This is an unusual test for a C compiler. I have seen very few
> applications that would use a Microchip PIC class of processor
> where floating point support is a requirement.

I have to agree with Walter.  What would be much, much more useful
for a PIC compiler would be the ability to specify various fixed
point formats and the compiler then takes care of optimum scaling
of intermediate results.  If using C, then perhaps the following
syntax...

typedef fixed 8:3 unsigned int foo;
typedef fixed 15:15 signed int bar;

foo A;
bar B;

foo X;
bar Y;

X = A * B;      /* Throwing away sign of B */
Y = A + B;      /* Result truncation */
Y = B * B;      /* OK */



'fixed n:m' is a type qualifier (somewhat similar to 'long' or the
abominable 8086 pointer qualifiers) where n is the number of significant
bits, and m is the number of those bits after the implied binary point.
Thus a foo type represents a number between 0 and 7 7/8 and bar
represents -1 to +32767/32768, if using 2's complement.  Now if
a foo is multiplied by a bar, then the compiler will realise that
the result will have 8 significant bits (the smaller of the operands)
and 3 of those bits will be fractional.  However the result is unsigned type
so the compiler will warn about loss of sign.  If the code assigns the
result to a value with a smaller number of significant bits, or
a badly positioned binary point, then a warning will be issued in
which the compiler tells the user that significance loss or truncation
is occuring, and suggests a more appropriate type.

This leaves most of the thinking about the problem to the user,
with the compiler implementing the arithmetic in the most efficient
way and warning the user if something doesn't make sense.

Naturally, up to 32-bit precision should be supported.  (Then I
could implement my julian day calendar!)

This shouldn't be too hard for the compiler gurus to implement,
should it?

Regards,
SJH
Canberra, Australia

'Other MicroControllers'
1997\03\20@204131 by John Payson

picon face
> Joe Dowlen wrote:
>
> >      Floating point arithmetic is a necessity when using the PIC14000
> >      processor. The A/D converter calibration is difficult at best if you
> >      do not use floating point math (to correct for the calibration
> >      constants).
>
> Good point.

Is there any reason why the floating point maths should be done in the PIC
rather than in the PC that programs them?  One of the great things about PICs
after all is their ISP'ability and the ease of writing C to interface with
their programming logic.  I would think a program to read out the calibration
constants, scale them into whatever format the PIC software "really" needs,
and then write them back [elsewhere] would be the most sensible way of handl-
ing PIC14000 calibration.

1997\03\21@104450 by luca.brentel

flavicon
face
Mike wrote:
>
> >I don't think that PICs are so much better. They have a grotty
> >architecture compared to the Z8, which is *much* nicer. On the other
> >hand, PICs are much easier to get hold of in small quantities,
> >development software and hardware are available for next to nothing, and
> >the documentation can be obtained very cheaply, or free.
>
> The thing that bothers me about PICs (and I think its the most important for
> use in control systems) is the inability to read internal ROM to perform a
> checksum or equivalent integrity check. So for low end stuff that has any type
> of real world control - I just don't use them.
>
> For low end stuff I use the 89C2051 by Atmel or 68HC705C8 by Motorola.
>
> The high end PIC stuff is about on par with HC11 type devices.
>
> Rgds
>
> Mike

Here in Italy is very easy to find and cheap and easy to program (like
pic),the SGS Thompson ST62xx family.
If you need more inf. you can see the SGS THOMPSON site and if you need
a cheap to bild programmer I can send you the scheme and software.


                               Luca

1997\03\22@074911 by gvc

flavicon
picon face
Hello,

I am Vinay. I am working as freelance designer for micro controllers. I
have worked on Z86E30 and MC68HC705P9P. Recently I have staretd working
on ST62T10 also.

Please send me the details of programmer mentioned in your mail.

Please also let me know which is the least expensive and easily
available ST micro.

Do you know of any mailing list that talks about ST6 micros.

Thanks and regards,


Vinay Chaddha



luca.brentel wrote:

>
> Here in Italy is very easy to find and cheap and easy to program (like
> pic),the SGS Thompson ST62xx family.
> If you need more inf. you can see the SGS THOMPSON site and if you need
> a cheap to bild programmer I can send you the scheme and software.
>
>                                 Luca

1997\03\24@162913 by Dieter Macke

flavicon
face
Hi luca.brentel,

lb> pic),the SGS Thompson ST62xx family.
lb> If you need more inf. you can see the SGS THOMPSON site and if you
lb> need a cheap to bild programmer I can send you the scheme and
lb> software.

i have tried the 6265. Fine chip but had some trouble to get more chips :-)

what type of programmer and soft do you use?

cu Dieter
... Mama, 's Joggingbrot is' weggelaufen!


'another LCD question'
1997\04\18@104617 by deicide
flavicon
face
how do i send this 40 hex......
the function that sends LCD commands....do i send a 40???
i played around with that command and sending 170 seemed to place me on
the second line....but erased what was on the first line.....
i tried sending 40...and that didn't seem to work...

1997\04\18@110114 by myke predko

flavicon
face
>how do i send this 40 hex......
>the function that sends LCD commands....do i send a 40???
>i played around with that command and sending 170 seemed to place me on
>the second line....but erased what was on the first line.....
>i tried sending 40...and that didn't seem to work...

The "Cursor" Move Instruction has bit 7 set to identify it.  (ie to move to
0x040, you would send the Instruction 0x0C0.)

Note that this is an *Instruction* - Not Data.  The difference is, you have
to reset the R/S Bit before you send (To send Data, the R/S Bit is Set).

I realize that you probably know this (because you have been able to
initialize the LCD), but it never hurts to emphasize it.

Good Luck,

myke
>
>

"Some people say that foreign cars handle best, while others say domestic.
For my money, nothing handles as well as a rental car." - P.J. O'Rourke

1997\04\18@153950 by Andrew Warren

face
flavicon
face
deicide@ATHEIST.COM <EraseMEPICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:

> how do i send this 40 hex......
> the function that sends LCD commands....do i send a 40???
> i played around with that command and sending 170 seemed to place me
> on the second line....but erased what was on the first line..... i
> tried sending 40...and that didn't seem to work...

   Send a 192.

   -Andy

=== Andrew Warren - EraseMEfastfwdRemoveMEspamix.netcom.com
=== Fast Forward Engineering, Vista, California
=== http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499


'Another leftover TDE bug'
1997\05\05@142611 by Andy Kunz
flavicon
face
TDE Version 3.0, like PDE before it, has a bug in the Watch window.

Watch an absolute address, ie, for the Add Watch you enter "!xx" where xx
is the hex address in RAM you want to watch.  This displays ok.

Exit TDE, then start it back up.

When you view the Watch window again, it forgets for these absolute
addresses what you are watching - it says "not known."

While you're at it - could you please add a cross-reference listing to the
CVASM .LST files?

Andy

======================================================================
Andy Kunz - Montana Design - 409 S 6th St - Phillipsburg, NJ 08865 USA
             Electronics for Industry & R/C Hobbyists
        "Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
======================================================================

'In-circuit prog. and other matters.'
1997\05\09@194258 by Don McKenzie

flavicon
face
Tony Matthews wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I used what I call a bulldozer approach. This requires a 4PDT switch and
target board that is suitably designed to accept a programming cable.
I/We also are programming SimmSticks with 84's in circuit. Again the
target SimmStick
is isolated from other hardware with the 4PDT switch, and a suitably
designed programmer.

If you can design your target board to suit, this principle works a
treat.
There are many piclisters using this method. Isn't that right guys?

Take a look at:
http://www.dontronics.com/84.html
for the circuit used. This may help.

BTW SimmSticks can be seen at:
http://www.dontronics.com/sstudio.html
and many new boards are being announced.
http://dontronics.com/new.html

PS BTW More info on Picstart and Newfound programmer firmware upgrades
can be
seen at:
http://dontronics.com/phoenix.html


Don McKenzie  .....donspamspam_OUTdontronics.com   http://www.dontronics.com

PICSTART and Newfound PIC Programmers Firmware Upgrades.
SLI, the serial LCD that auto detects baud rates from 100 to 125K bps.
SimmStick(tm) A PIC proto PCB the size of a 30 pin Simm Memory Module.
Send a blank message to @spam@helpEraseMEspamspamdontronics.com for more info.

1997\05\10@135007 by Tim Kerby

picon face
Hi
Try looking in almost any issue of Everyday Practical Electronics.  They
use ISP in all their pic projects (18c84 but it should be pretty standard).
The software is available from their ftp site at
ftp://ftp.epemag.wimborne.co.uk/pub/pics/


I can look out the circuit details if you want.  Hope it helps.


Tim


------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Web Pages: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/tim.kerby/
PIC Site: web.ukonline.co.uk/members/tim.kerby/pic/
The PIC Pages are under construction and I am looking for projects
------------------------------------------------------------------

1997\05\11@022614 by Mike Ghormley

flavicon
face
The URL for the FTP site for Everyday Practical Electronics as posted
by Tim has an error.  The server is case-sensitive.  The correct URL is:

       ftp://ftp.epemag.wimborne.co.uk/pub/PICS/

Michael

When the way of the Tao is forgotten, kindness and ethics must be taught.
Men must learn to pretend to be wise and good.  --  Lao Tzu

'remove.. DONT BOTHER!'
1997\05\22@122316 by robin.bussell

picon face
Hey guys,

 Ignore that spam "get rich quick" post, by replying to the message
which came to you *via the piclist* you are just replying to the list..

so we *all* get your remove requests, you need to mail the actual sender
of the message and my suspicions are that by doing so you'll just be
confirming that your email address is live and thus ensuring even more
unsolicited rubbish.

Robin.


'Public key -> private key -> big brother -> go dir'
1997\06\09@131826 by Mik O Kim
flavicon
face
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the common practice in internet is to
use the public key for initial private key exchange. And then, rest of the
communication takes place with the DES (data encryption standard) or other
non-PKC (public key cryptography) method.

Since the PKC would ensure secure key transmission, and DES would ensure
fast computation, this scheme would work quite well. I'm not sure if anyone
tried it, but there is a freeware called "PGP Phone" (pretty good privacy
phone) that sent encrypted real time (sort of) voice through the internet.
This was before all the hoopla about internet phone and such.

Predecessor to PGP phone was PGP, which was only for e-mail. It was pretty
nice software since it could embed binary files. I used to use it for
sending "secret" love e-mails to my girlfriend and plans to take over the
world to my comrades in mars (hahaha!!!)

Following fable was told to me a long time ago, supposedly being used by
RSA (click on netscape's help -> about netscape)...
1. Send public key (home PC to DigiKey)
2. Encrypt the DES key using the public key (DigiKey to home PC)
3. Send the credit card number using the DES key (home PC to DigiKey)
4. Send two weeks of paycheck to the credit card company through snail
mail.

If you want to do cryptography, be careful. Do a search on Phil Zimmerman
and see all the crock the government put him through. By the way, DES is
very easily cracked by the (USA) government. In fact, they have the golden
key that would allow them to see any DES encryption. I heard Phil Zimmerman
got into such trouble, because they (the government) couldn't crack his
code which was based on RSA.

Of course, I often had dreams of cracking the RSA using hundreds of
thousands of PICs in parallel. So, anyone else want to try?



At 08:02 PM 6/8/97 +0000, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

<CLIP>
{Quote hidden}

Could you send me some more information about this, I'm doing some internet
programming related to this and could help.

1997\06\09@150527 by Louis A. Mamakos

flavicon
face
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the common practice in internet is to
> use the public key for initial private key exchange. And then, rest of the
> communication takes place with the DES (data encryption standard) or other
> non-PKC (public key cryptography) method.

This is usually the case, because public-key encryption is computationally
expensive.  That's why you encrypt a (cryptographically-"strong") randomly
chosen session key with RSA, and send that along.  On the other hand, if
the message is only a few bytes long, then there's no point in using
symmetric encryption algorithm, like DES, because the message is approximately
the same length as the key.


> If you want to do cryptography, be careful. Do a search on Phil Zimmerman
> and see all the crock the government put him through. By the way, DES is
> very easily cracked by the (USA) government. In fact, they have the golden
> key that would allow them to see any DES encryption. I heard Phil Zimmerman
> got into such trouble, because they (the government) couldn't crack his
> code which was based on RSA.

This is bogus drivel.

First, Zimmerman's difficulties were due to the belief of the government that
he had exported crytography implementations without approval.  This is
entirely different than just wanting to use cryptography.

Second, if you have evidence that anyone has broken DES using some "key",
please give us a reference to it, rather than unsubstantiated rumor.  DES
is "weak" enough that a determined attacker can amount a brute-force
attack on it.  This is completely different than using some hidden weakness
in the algorithm.

Third, ZImmerman's "problems" were export-regulation based, and not due
to the fact that RSA public key cryptography and IDEA (a symmetric
cipher) are believed to be cryptographically strong.

None of this is any big secret; there are numerous web pages that
chronicle these developments which make it unnecessary to speculate or
just plain make things up.

> Of course, I often had dreams of cracking the RSA using hundreds of
> thousands of PICs in parallel. So, anyone else want to try?

I dunno, given the lack of hardware multiply and divide, I don't think
they'd be very suited at all, given the types of computations required.

Louis Mamakos

1997\06\10@064724 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>If you want to do cryptography, be careful. Do a search on Phil Zimmerman
>and see all the crock the government put him through. By the way, DES is
>very easily cracked by the (USA) government. In fact, they have the golden
>key that would allow them to see any DES encryption. I heard Phil Zimmerman
>got into such trouble, because they (the government) couldn't crack his
>code which was based on RSA.
>
>Of course, I often had dreams of cracking the RSA using hundreds of
>thousands of PICs in parallel. So, anyone else want to try?

Lehigh University did this last year.  All the PC's on campus (during
summer) figured it out in a few days.  But you probably won't read about it
in your local newspaper.

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Montana Design - 409 S 6th St - Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
         Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
       "Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================

1997\06\10@220417 by John Payson

picon face
> >If you want to do cryptography, be careful. Do a search on Phil Zimmerman
> >and see all the crock the government put him through. By the way, DES is
> >very easily cracked by the (USA) government. In fact, they have the golden
> >key that would allow them to see any DES encryption. I heard Phil Zimmerman
> >got into such trouble, because they (the government) couldn't crack his
> >code which was based on RSA.
> >
> >Of course, I often had dreams of cracking the RSA using hundreds of
> >thousands of PICs in parallel. So, anyone else want to try?
>
> Lehigh University did this last year.  All the PC's on campus (during
> summer) figured it out in a few days.  But you probably won't read about it
> in your local newspaper.

"THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE" if I recall, was encoded as a
really big number (taking digits pairs for letters, hence

200805001301070903002215180419...
T H E   M A G I C   W O R D S

and this number was then encrypted using a fairly short key (something like
400 bits).  It took quite awhile, but that particular key was broken.  On
the other hand, the difficulty of breaking an RSA key increases exponentially
with the key's length.  Keys under 512 keys are considered "toys", but even
if every electron in the known universe could be harnessed to perform a
billion computations per second, it would still take millions of years to
break 2048-bit keys (btw, producing a new 2048 key takes about 256 times as
long as producing a new 512 bit key; public-key operations on the longer key
will take about 16 times as long as with a 512-bit key, and private-key oper-
ations will take about 64 times as long.  Note that while the longer keys are
a computational pain to use they are hardly impossible, especially on faster
machines.)

'C (and other) compilers for PIC'
1997\06\12@115118 by Toby D. Stensland

flavicon
face
What about compilers for other high level languages (such as picBasic >from microengineering labs)?  How do these compare to the C compilers being discussed?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Toby Stensland                    tobysTakeThisOuTspamKILLspamairsci.com
Air Sciences Inc.                  V: (303) 988-2960
Lakewood, CO                     F: (303) 988-2968
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'Basic Question and other matters.'
1997\06\25@190237 by Don McKenzie

flavicon
face
Tom Coonan wrote:

snip----

> >> >Terry Ewing
> >I was wondering if I could use an EPROM in this way.  Put the input into the
> > address lines and feed the 14 segment display off the output lines.  Would
> this
> > be possible?  I know EPROMS are slower than other ICs, but am I going to be
> > able to use this to multiplex displays?

snip---

{Quote hidden}

Years ago, I designed a device that would grab a 32 bit wide bus and
split it up into a logical string of 7 segment LEDs for HEX display and
a row of 3mm LEDs below them for a binary display. I used an EPROM for
decoding and LED drivers.

At the time, I designed it to accept both 24 and 28 pin devices, and
found that the then current 2716 and 2764 EPROMs didn't give enough
drive. The simple answer was to solder one EPROM straight on top of the
other.

Mind you, If I was designing the same thing today, it would be with a
micro, a ULNxxxx driver chip and the displays.

But then I wouldn't design with LEDs unless I had a need because of
ambient lighting, or required a large character display.

The quickest and cheapest way with a large number of digits is with a
micro and LCD.
Took me a while to accept this, but with the prices of micros and LCDs,
why play about with the other methods unless the specs force you into
it.

The code can be a lot simpler than EPROM look up tables too!
I know, I hand coded character generator roms for lower case characters
in the late seventies.

///
>RemoveMEclydeTakeThisOuTspamhtsoft.com     |P.O. Box 103, Alderley,|Fax:   +61 7 3354 2422
>http://www.htsoft.com|QLD, 4051, AUSTRALIA.  |PGP: finger @spam@clydeSTOPspamspamhtsoft.com
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ANSI C for the PIC! Shipping 26 June! See http://www.htsoft.com for more info.

Hey Clyde, 26-Jun, that's today in this part of the world. :-)
Good luck.
///

////
>TakeThisOuTclydeTakeThisOuTspamRemoveMEhtsoft.com     |P.O. Box 103, Alderley,|Fax:   +61 7 3354 2422
>http://www.htsoft.com|QLD, 4051, AUSTRALIA.  |PGP: finger spam_OUTclydespamspam.....htsoft.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>ANSI C for the PIC! Shipping 26 June! See http://www.htsoft.com for more info.

The problem that people are having is that mail programs interpret the
url
in your sig as http://www.htsoft.com|QLD which is incorrect. Just stick
a
space in. Martin Darwin

also if Clyde was to put:
clyde.....spam@spam@htsoft.com
then this would set the recipents mailer pointer to Clyde's email
address.
And if you set your mailer header 'Organization Field' to a URL, the
mailer picks this up as a clickable pointer as well.

Not that I use these tricks. :-)

Don McKenzie  spamBeGonedonspamspam_OUTdontronics.com   http://www.dontronics.com

PICSTART and Newfound PIC Programmers Firmware Upgrades.
SLI, the serial LCD that auto detects baud rates from 100 to 125K bps.
SimmStick(tm) A PIC proto PCB the size of a 30 pin Simm Memory Module.
Send a blank message to EraseMEinfo.....spamdontronics.com for more details.

1997\06\26@040309 by Tim Forcer

flavicon
face
At 00:00 26/06/97 -0400, Terry Ewing <spamterryKILLspamspam@spam@MIDTOWN.NET> wrote:
>This is not only off topic, but probably a question WAY below the level of
> expertise of the majority of the group.  I haven't found a difinitive answer
> anywhere, so I'm turning here.

No need to apologise.  Even if the question is basic, it's surprising how
simple questions can turn up very interesting answers - although I doubt my
answer qualifies!

>My question is about EPROMS.  In a project I'm making I need to interface
a set
> of digital lines to a 14 segment display.  The only problem is this... The
> lines are not your normal hex.  They have a funky logic.  I could use a
bunch
> of gates and make the output I want, or I could use a PGA.  Neither of which
> are very good solutions for the small size of this application.
>
>I was wondering if I could use an EPROM in this way.  Put the input into the
> address lines and feed the 14 segment display off the output lines.
Would this
> be possible?  I know EPROMS are slower than other ICs, but am I going to be
> able to use this to multiplex displays?

It's very unlikely that programmable logic other than EPROM can give you a
"neater" design, unless there's some sequencing involved.  For example,
I've seen fast bipolar ROMs programmed with a look-up table used as fast
4x4 multiply chips.

>Also, can I drive the display directly from the outputs of the eprom, or do I
> need to use transistors?

You should check out low-current LEDs and LED displays.  You don't state
exactly what display you intend using, although it sounds like a starburst
alpha-numeric - or is it a dual-digit 7 seg?  I've been using low-current
LEDs for years.  They are a bit more expensive, but running at 1mA rather
than 10 makes life much easier.  Unfortunately, many display types and
configurations aren't available in low-current - for instance, I can't find
a source of the 16 pin 4-bar types in green low current.

Another alternative is to use the multi-character dot-matrix type of
display.  Some of these have character RAM included for a user-defined
display set.  You'd need something like a PIC to initialise that RAM on
power-up, and to decode/encode your parallel data lines into display
address/data/control signals.  Again, I'm assuming you are displaying
special characters, if not, things are easier and cheaper.

As for speed, what's the problem?  The slowest EPROM ever made can decode
your signals at display rates thousands of times faster than a human can
hope to read them!

If you go for an EPROM, you'll need a programmer and an eraser.  If you are
using PICs you probably have an eraser, but unless your PIC progger is a
"Universal" type, it probably won't program EPROMs.  A benefit of having a
proper EPROM programmer is that it will allow you to edit the EPROM
contents.  That may be laborious, but it saves having to write a little
program to generate the data file.

On the subject of LED displays, I often use the multi-LED HEX displays
(like 7 segment but with the corners separately controlled so that B and 8
are distinct).  The TIL911 has been around for more than a decade, and is
still horrendously expensive.  Also, the version with a CMOS decode/drive
went out of production several years back and we're stuck with the
power-hungry TTL version.  The newer types with similar function aren't
much cheaper, and are less convenient in their mechanical arrangement.
Anybody got suggestions for a cheap, low-consumption alternative?  (For a
32 bit bus display, I've got a paper design using the multi-digit
dot-matrix types plus a CPLD, but that's inelegant).  This is probably more
off-topic than Terry's original query, and I'd better take it away to the
Chip Directory mailing list (if you don't know ChipDir, you should, check
out http://www.xs4all.nl/~ganswijk/chipdir/chipdir.html )

Good luck.


Tim Forcer               tmfspamspamTakeThisOuTecs.soton.ac.uk
Department of Electronics & Computer Science
The University of Southampton, UK

The University is not responsible for my opinions

1997\06\27@065118 by paulb

flavicon
face
Tim Forcer wrote (amongst other things):

> Another alternative is to use the multi-character dot-matrix type of
> display.

 .. and Don McKenzie:

> I know, I hand coded character generator roms for lower case
> characters in the late seventies.

 And I've done similar, perhaps a few years later, at Uni.  But it
wasn't that difficult by any means, in fact great fun!  Particularly
for line-in-byte code, you merely draw the characters line-by-line
using asterisks and dots for "on" and "off" pixels respectively.

 When it looks right, you use the macro editor to change asterisks for
1s and dots for 0s, prefix each data line with the entry
" FCB %" (Motorola; or "DB 0b" Intel ... I think), assemble it as a
"program" and burn the EPROM.  Actually, in my application (FLEX09 for
The TRS-80 Co-Co) it actually WAS look-up tables within the program
itself, and in RAM rather than EPROM.

 Further, instead of actually editing it into the "FCB" form, a macro
can be used such as: " ROW 01110", with others such as " BLANK",
" BLANK2" and so on for fillers.  The assembly listing can be used to
detect blunders (getting out of synch).

 What I am saying is .. you really WOULDN'T manually convert it to HEX,
would you?

 Cheers,
       Paul B.
P.S. A macro editor is equally good at reducing a HEX dump to a binary
graphic image, though I wrote special utilities for this anyway.  I
presently still use the MSDOS programmer's editor, EDWIN.


'Another bone-head newbie question'
1997\07\12@201707 by chao
flavicon
face
My dream is to build a hexapod robot but with 3 degrees of freedom on each
leg, 18 servos is a little out of my budget.  Is there any way to control
18 bipolar steppers from a Basic Stamp 2.  I would like to conserve I/O
pins too so a serial device would be perfect.
Thanx
Chiu Fang
RemoveMEchaoRemoveMEspamintergate.bc.ca

1997\07\12@205018 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
At 05:01 PM 7/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>My dream is to build a hexapod robot but with 3 degrees of freedom on each
>leg, 18 servos is a little out of my budget.  Is there any way to control
>18 bipolar steppers from a Basic Stamp 2.  I would like to conserve I/O
>pins too so a serial device would be perfect.

Cheap but good servos are available from http://www.fmadirect.com

Tell them I sent you.

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Montana Design - 409 S 6th St - Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
         Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
       "Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================

1997\07\13@202156 by Bob Blick

flavicon
face
Stepper motors use a lot of power and don't deliver much power. You'll have
to gear them down, what a lot of work. Servos are really much nicer, and a
Scott Edwards serial servo controller(or three) would make interfacing easy.

Do you have some algorithms in mind for dealing with 6 legs, 3 axes? It
seems a phenomenal task, but I'm not an inspired programmer.
-Bob

At 05:01 PM 7/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>My dream is to build a hexapod robot but with 3 degrees of freedom on each
>leg, 18 servos is a little out of my budget.  Is there any way to control
>18 bipolar steppers from a Basic Stamp 2.  I would like to conserve I/O
>pins too so a serial device would be perfect.
>Thanx
>Chiu Fang
>TakeThisOuTchao@spam@spam@spam@intergate.bc.ca
>
>

http://www.bobblick.com/

'Are there other such lists?'
1997\07\13@233437 by Frank B. Scalzo

flavicon
face
I am new to the pic list but enjoy learning from it, are there other
such lists (dealing with electronics) that I might want to subscribe to?

   Thanx
   Louis Marquette
   Starr Technologies

'Another bone-head newbie question'
1997\07\14@091134 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
At 05:18 PM 7/13/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Stepper motors use a lot of power and don't deliver much power. You'll have
>to gear them down, what a lot of work. Servos are really much nicer, and a
>Scott Edwards serial servo controller(or three) would make interfacing easy.

Try using a PIC with PWM module(s).  You can use a PLD or demux to drive
all the servos off one device.  This is how I do it in my generic robotic
controller.

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Montana Design - 409 S 6th St - Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
         Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
       "Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================

'Off topic -- another request for pricing.'
1997\07\16@044525 by blunn

flavicon
face
Bob Lunn
07/16/97 06:47 PM


The success of my previous request for pricing leads me into temptation.

Is anybody on the list able to give me price data for an embedded Intel386
processor type EXTB (25 MHz, 3.0 V) and type EXTC (25 MHz, 5.0V)
in quantities of 50k/yr.

Thanking all.

___Bob


'another test message'
1997\08\01@044651 by Eric Smith
flavicon
face
jory bell <TakeThisOuTjoryspamspamMIT.EDU> wrote:
> to see if the bounce from microchip is fixed.

If anyone from Microchip is listening, how about talking your MIS department
into configuring your mail gateway software so that bounce messages actually
convey *useful* information, like precisely what email address caused the
bounce?

Most of the email systems in the world seem to be capable of doing this.

This would save Jory a fair bit of time and hassle, and avoid annoying your
customers when they post to the list.

Cheers,
Eric

'Another Power Supply Issue - reliability thinking'
1997\08\11@031846 by Mike

flavicon
face
At 01:48 PM 8/11/97 +0930, you wrote:

>>No way - I know how they make these switch mode supplies and how the
>>transistors are treated prior to and during assembly - I wouldn't risk
>>the fire hazard. I've seen one go up and that was enough. I'd rather
>
>The power supply in mine has been running for about 3 years, more or less
>continuously.  Monitor is green, so it powers down and eliminates bulk of
>the kWh.  IMO, if it was going to fail, would have happened in first few
>months; a la bathtub curve.  All thats likely to happen now is a mains
>fault, and I've got some heavy iron taking care of that...  One good idea is
>to revers the fan and filter it, but make sure you clean the damn thing
>monthly or less.

No. What you seem to be operasting from is a sort of faith - best held in
terms of a dogma. I do not have such misplaced hope in the reliabilty of
electronics - we are realists aren't we ?

And you don't know when the other end of the bathtub curve will hit and
the bathtub curve is not 'L A W' it is only of statistical relevance and
bears little relationship to those random faults that can be traced back to
the way devices were treated during manufacture. Hewlett Packard did some
major report on this - anyone know where this is on the web ?

Would you want your house at risk because you hope your PC won't start
a fire because you have faith that it worked for 3 years 'therefore' it
won't fail catastrophically !?! Thats the sort of thinking that caused
the Shuttle debacle in which 7 people were killed - I might add it was a
heck of a bad management decision by nonengineering people.

Rgds (And yes I always wear seatbelts)

mike
perth, Western Australia

1997\08\11@042322 by Mike Smith

flavicon
face
---Original Message-----
From: Mike <KILLspamerazmusKILLspamspamspamBeGoneWANTREE.COM.AU>
To: spamBeGonePICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU <PICLIST@spam@spamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Monday, 11 August 1997 16:49
Subject: Another Power Supply Issue - reliability thinking



{Quote hidden}

is
>>to revers the fan and filter it, but make sure you clean the damn thing
>>monthly or less.
>
>No. What you seem to be operasting from is a sort of faith - best held in
>terms of a dogma. I do not have such misplaced hope in the reliabilty of
>electronics - we are realists aren't we ?
>
>And you don't know when the other end of the bathtub curve will hit and
>the bathtub curve is not 'L A W' it is only of statistical relevance and

So there's a 1 in 10 million chance it will cause a fire.  I take greater
risks than this crossing the road.  Thats just a figure I plucked from the
air - who knows what it really is?  A MTBF (catastrophic mode) would still
only be statistical.

>bears little relationship to those random faults that can be traced back to
>the way devices were treated during manufacture. Hewlett Packard did some
>major report on this - anyone know where this is on the web ?
>
>Would you want your house at risk because you hope your PC won't start
>a fire because you have faith that it worked for 3 years 'therefore' it
>won't fail catastrophically !?! Thats the sort of thinking that caused

If I believed it wouldn't happen I wouldn't insure.  But I do - against the
1 in 10 million chance.  I also have earth leakage circuit breakers
installed for the same reasons.  And a smoke detector - becoming mandatory
here.

>the Shuttle debacle in which 7 people were killed - I might add it was a
>heck of a bad management decision by nonengineering people.

That's a high profile example - similar incidents which kill far more people
are happening every day.  Aircraft disasters, ferry overloading, bad design
of alpine resorts (local to oz - recent), not to mention the 100's of car
accidents that are caused by mechanical failure.

>
>Rgds (And yes I always wear seatbelts)
>

But do you turn off the following when leaving your house - VCR, clock
radio, TV, microwave, hifi, fridge, freezer(ouch)?  These all operate whilst
in 'non-attended' mode.  Some would be a PITA to turn off every time you
left for a short duration - some not really possible (deep freeze)  They all
pose a risk though.

MikeS
<EraseMEmikesmith_ozRemoveMEspam@spam@relaymail.net>


'[OT] - Another one bites the dust!'
1997\09\03@044357 by mikesmith_oz
flavicon
face
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:          Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:15:57 -0500
To:            RemoveMEmikesmith_ozspamspamEraseMErelaymail.net
From:          Abuse <STOPspamabuse.....spamtripod.com>
Subject:       Re: Spam from your user?

{Quote hidden}

<snipt>

>> Received: from spamBeGonelarryjnRemoveMEspamRemoveMEjuno.com by  (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id

<snipt>

>> Hope you had a wonderful Labor Day Holiday!  Realizing you have to

<snipt>
{Quote hidden}

Thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention. The
page that was listed in the message is no longer being served by
Tripod.

I wanted to clarify that the creator of that page was in no way
directly associated with Tripod, Inc. Tripod does not exercise any
editorial control over what our members place on their pages, nor
their other Internet related activities such mailings or newsgroup
postings.

Tripod does, to the best of our ability, delete pages that blatantly
violate common "Netiquette" as we are made aware of them.

I apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced. If you have
any further questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact
me.

Sincerely,

Jason Macauley
Membership Dept.


=========================

Well, it zapped one of the pages - cyber-action.com looks like a spam
domain to me, so I complained to their upstream provider.
MikeS
<@spam@mikesmith_ozspamBeGonespamrelaymail.net>

'PICstart plus for other things ?'
1997\09\08@050356 by Michael Coop (pjm)

flavicon
face
Has anyone considered the applicability of a Picstart plus for programming
other chips - EPROMS etc ?

I just figure that most (if not all ?) of the pins are programmable, (I
haven't pulled mine apart yet)... there should be some path where it could
be used to stuff bits into other chip families as well.

Just a thought...

Thanks
MC

'Other question'
1997\09\16@145813 by WF AUTOMA‚̀O

flavicon
face
May configure a portb IN and OUT at same time? (PIC16F84)!

       Miguel.

1997\09\17@025745 by mikesmith_oz.nosp*m

flavicon
face
On 16 Sep 97 at 15:55, WF AUTOMA‚AO wrote:

> May configure a portb IN and OUT at same time? (PIC16F84)!

One can read a port configured as an output, to find out what it
really is - don't do it to soom after a write, or it will show a
transitional value.
MikeS
<mikesmith_oz@nosp*m.relaymail.net>
(remove the you know what before replying)

1997\09\17@162523 by Steve Smith

picon face
<message snipped>
YES but not aT tHE sAME tIME
you can do it one after the other or on different pins but an output cant be
an input at the same time cause they are not open drain outpus RA4 is....

cHEERS sTEVE.....

pS sPECIAL sYNTAX tO sUIT yOUR  mAIL pROGRAM

1997\09\24@212843 by WF AUTOMA‚̀O

flavicon
face
Steve Smith wrote:
>
> <message snipped>
> YES but not aT tHE sAME tIME
> you can do it one after the other or on different pins but an output cant be
> an input at the same time cause they are not open drain outpus RA4 is....
>
> cHEERS sTEVE.....
>
> pS sPECIAL sYNTAX tO sUIT yOUR  mAIL pROGRAM

ThAnK's FrIeNd!

MiGuEl


'another q from the stupid newbie'
1997\10\08@182740 by Jonathan M. Newport
flavicon
face
Thank you all for your responses to my seemingly endless list of
questions, but I do have a few more... when I do get a programmer, (which
I think I may end up getteing that PIC-1a kit from ITU) should I get that
begining book, easy pic'n (or something like that) and I do believe that
it only teaches to program in assembly (correct me if I'm wrong on that).
Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what?  I know assembly
is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't
know any other language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language (which
I'm told is like c).  I am more than willing to learn any language though.
So, what do you recommend?

sincerely

Jonathan

1997\10\08@184435 by Rick Dickinson

flavicon
face
At 05:25 PM 10/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Thank you all for your responses to my seemingly endless list of
>questions, but I do have a few more... when I do get a programmer, (which
>I think I may end up getteing that PIC-1a kit from ITU) should I get that
>begining book, easy pic'n (or something like that) and I do believe that
>it only teaches to program in assembly (correct me if I'm wrong on that).
>Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what?  I know assembly
>is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't
>know any other language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language (which
>I'm told is like c).  I am more than willing to learn any language though.
>So, what do you recommend?
>
>sincerely
>
>Jonathan
>
PIC assembly is not very complicated, and can really give you a feel for what
can and can't be done with the devices.  C or another higher-level language
hides some of the complexity, but at a cost in performance and code size.

I would say try using assembly, at least for your first couple projects.  You
may like it, and you will definitely get a better feel for the hardware
limitations and capabilities than you would by using another language.

Also, assembly is free, while compilers for higher-level languages generally
cost money.

- Rick "Bit-Banger" Dickinson

+---------------------------------+---------------------------+
| Enterprise ArchiTechs Company   |                           |
|     Lotus Certified Notes       |  Never underestimate the  |
|  Appl. Design & Administration  |  bandwidth of a station-  |
|(818)563-1061  spam_OUTrtdspamspamnotesguy.com  | wagon full of tape reels. |
|   http://www.eArchiTechs.com    |                           |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------+

1997\10\08@190422 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
At 05:25 PM 10/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Thank you all for your responses to my seemingly endless list of
>questions, but I do have a few more... when I do get a programmer, (which
>I think I may end up getteing that PIC-1a kit from ITU) should I get that
>begining book, easy pic'n (or something like that) and I do believe that
>it only teaches to program in assembly (correct me if I'm wrong on that).
>Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what?  I know assembly
>is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't
>know any other language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language (which
>I'm told is like c).  I am more than willing to learn any language though.
>So, what do you recommend?
>
>sincerely
>
>Jonathan
>

Even if you finally decide to use C or some other higher level language as
your mainstay, I would highly recommend learning assembly. Your physics
teacher, I'm afraid, has a big misconception. Assembly, especially a
RISC-like assembly such as pic assembly, is quite easy to learn, especially
for someone with a bit of prior programming experience. The 16C/F84 has
only around 30 instructions, so there is very little to memorize, unlike C
or BASIC where there are usually 100s of possible keywords and functions.

I really don't feel that you would take longer than a few days to get a
working knowledge of assembly for the PICs. Most of the other PICs follow
almost the same instruction set, the only real differences being which
memory locations do what.

About getting a book, it could really help you if you feel confused about
assembly or have little idea of what it is about. I started off in pics by
just getting the microchip databooks. They are quite well put together.
However, I had prior 8088 assembly experience, which meant that I was
already familiar with bits,bytes,and logical operations (AND,OR,XOR,etc.)
as well as splitting up algorithms into individual simple instructions. My
advice: get the microchip databooks first (they are free in the US. Some of
the members of the list who are not from the USA have said that they had to
pay for them, if I remember correctly)
You can also download the datasheets for the individual pics from
http://www.microchip.com

If you can wade through the datasheets and make some sense out of them,
then you probably don't need any other book, although it still might help.

The first program to try on any microcontroller system (pic or otherwise)
is always a blinking LED. On a 16C/F84, this would be implemented very simply:

1.) a crystal and two capacitors would be connected to the oscillator pins
(or you could use a resistor and capacitor) as shown in the datadsheets.

2.) You would attach a resistor of about 220 ohms from a pic I/O pin to the
anode of an LED and then attach the cathode to ground.

3.) You would attach the Vdd pic pin to +5 volts

4.) You would attach the Vss pic pin to ground.

5.) You would attach the MCLR pin to +5 volts.

6.) You would write code that did the following:

       a.) set the IO pin you are using to an output using
           a CLRF instruction or a MOVWF instruction to
           modify the correct bit in one of the TRIS   registers.

       b.) turn on the IO pin (set its bit in its          PORTx register)

       c.) wait about 1 second by having a large nested                loop abo
ut 1000000
instruction cycles long             for a 4MHz clock.

       d.) turn off the IO pin (clear its bit)

       e.) wait the delay period again

       f.) loop around to step b

This is very rough and I don't expect you to follow it until you have had a
look at the pic datasheet for the 16C/F84 (unless you have been following
this list for a while). However, if you do basically this, your circuit
should blink an LED on/off with a period of 2 seconds continuously.

Be very happy if you get this to work (it usually doesn't work the first
time :)
When you finally get this to work, it is a small step from here to any
other great and wonderful PIC application!

Sean

BTW I agree with Lawrence Lile that there is no such thing as a stupid
newbie. Even if there were, you certainly would not be one, because, from
what I have seen you have worked on some pretty interesting stuff.





Sean Breheny,KA3YXM
Electrical Engineering Student

1997\10\08@190837 by Andrew Warren

face
flavicon
face
Jonathan M. Newport <spamPICLISTspamspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:

> when I do get a programmer, (which I think I may end up getteing
> that PIC-1a kit from ITU) should I get that begining book, easy
> pic'n (or something like that) ....

   Yes.

> .... and I do believe that it only teaches to program in assembly

   Yes.

> Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what?
> I know assembly is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics
> teacher)....

   Plenty of people think Physics is hard to learn, too... But that
   didn't stop your teacher.

> .... and I really don't know any other language besides Pbasic and
> my calculator's language (which I'm told is like c).  I am more
> than willing to learn any language though. So, what do you
> recommend?

   If you write in a high-level language, you will NEVER use the
   PIC's resources to their utmost potential.

   Use assembly; it's a lot easier than you've been led to believe.

   If you DO decide to use C in the future, prior knowledge of the
   PIC assembly language will help you write C code that executes
   efficiently... And it'll also allow you to find the bugs that
   your C compiler generates.

   -Andy

=== Andrew Warren - spamBeGonefastfwdKILLspamspamKILLspamix.netcom.com
=== Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California
=== http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

1997\10\08@191508 by Rob Zitka

flavicon
face
I got Easy Pic'n and it's not bad, but it could be better.  It's probably
the only resource outside of Microchip/Parallax.  ALthough, I think someone
just published a book based on the PIC just recently and someone gave it
the thumbs up.

As for learning Assembly or C or whatever.  Assembly will let you see how
all the little operations work on your PIC.  The downside is that it is
time consuming to learn and implement.  At you age though, it may not ba a
bad idea.  C is a language that you can use throughut life, and on more
powerful machines.  It's the long term way to go.  I do Pbasic because I
need to get things done quickly since my PIC stuff is done after work when
I don't have much tome.

So there you have it.  I have thoroughly confused you :)

Rob
At 05:25 PM 10/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1997\10\08@195047 by )

flavicon
face
Jonathan Newport wrote:

> should I get that
> begining book, easy pic'n (or something like that) and I do believe
> that
> it only teaches to program in assembly (correct me if I'm wrong on
> that).
> Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what?  I know
> assembly
> is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) and I really
> don't
> know any other language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language
> (which
> I'm told is like c).  I am more than willing to learn any language
> though.
> So, what do you recommend?
>
I get the feeling I may be in the minority on this, but I believe that
you should start with assembly/machine language. You become intimately
familiar (in a hurry) with the processor architecture, inner workings,
and features. I believe this to be rather important in working with
microcontrollers/embedded systems. I too, started out with something
similar to PBASIC (microEngineering's Pic BASIC) using Micromint's
PICStic. (The difference between a PICStic and a Stamp is that a Stamp
interprets BASIC tokens from external memory, while PBASIC on a PICStic
is compiled to PIC machine code and downloaded to the processor
directly. Also allows assembler to be mixed in.) My first project
started out in Pic BASIC, but with only about 1/4 of the code done and
less than 200 bytes of code space left, I had to change to assembly.

Apparently I have some sort of learning disability, because trying to
learn C gives me fits! For some reason, the language syntax just doesn't
make sense to me, but I'm obviously the odd one on this. And it's the
only programming language that does. (Admittedly, I don't have the time
to tinker that I used to.) Over the past 15 years. I've programmed
extensively in about a half dozen programming languages with at least a
half dozen dialects of each not to mention numerous machine languages.
Even if you do work in a high level language on a PIC, you'll still need
to know some machine language for debugging.

I believe the most important thing about programming to remember is that
programming is not about language syntax (except for the C impaired like
me), but about a logical, organized, coherent, and structured approach
to problem solving. A really good programmer (I'm not claiming I'm one
of them!) should be able to work in any programming language (after
learning a language's syntax and structure). Conversely, a good
programmer will also choose the right tool for the right job. For
example, I wouldn't program a Windows application in ladder logic
(ladder logic is used in programmable controllers for factory automation
and machine control) and I wouldn't expect to use Pascal for Windows
with Objects to program a 16C84!

As for PIC assembler, it took me about three weeks to become reasonably
comfortable with it. PIC architecture is different from anything I'd
worked with before. Start small and build from there. Microchip's MPLAB
is priced right. You have at least two advantages over many of us -
you're a lot younger and learn quicker and you don't have a deadline for
your project to worry about.

-Frank


Frank Richterkessing

TakeThisOuTFRANK.RICHTERKESSINGspamspamAPPL.GE.COM

1997\10\08@202819 by Rob Whitney

flavicon
face
At 05:25 PM 10/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Thank you all for your responses to my seemingly endless list of
>questions, but I do have a few more... when I do get a programmer, (which
>I think I may end up getteing that PIC-1a kit from ITU) should I get that
>begining book, easy pic'n (or something like that) and I do believe that
>it only teaches to program in assembly (correct me if I'm wrong on that).
>Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what?  I know assembly
>is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't
>know any other language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language (which
>I'm told is like c).  I am more than willing to learn any language though.
>So, what do you recommend?
>
>sincerely
>
>Jonathan
>
Jonathan,

Don't be afraid of ASM ... from what I've seen of your notes so far, you'll have
no problem. And for someone who's into electronics, IMHO, nothing's more
satisfying than assembly programming. All the fun is in the bits ! The worst
part is the handycap most of us suffer from ... 10 fingers. If we had 16
fingers, HEX would be a lot easier. But with your HP in HEX mode, you'll
have no problems.

As to "Easy Pic'n", we bought a copy for one of the fellows in the office,
who wanted to learn about the PIC. It was a pretty decent text for someone
just getting started. It wouldn't be a bad idea for you to get a copy.
You'll outgrow it fast, but it will get you up to speed faster, and with
less pain, than working out of the data books. But the tip you received
about getting the PDFs of the datasheets was a good one ... in many design
projects, it's tough to do a good job without studying the data sheets.

Go forth and kick ass !
Rob

1997\10\08@203451 by Bob Lunn

flavicon
face
Bob Lunn
10/09/97 10:39 AM


> I know assembly is VERY hard to learn (according
> to my physics teacher)

    Eh?  Ask them for a relativistic explanation
    of the anomolous precession of Mercury!

    Anyhoo...  learn assembler.

    Why?

    It will lead you to an appreciation of the
    difference between the expression of an
    algorithm, and the implementation of an
    algorithm.

    An algorithm (a description of a computation)
    can be expressed in many ways.  PIC assembler
    is one way.

    An algorithm can be implemented in many ways.
    The sequence of states represented by PIC
    assembler is one way.

    The one-to-one correspondence between the
    syntactic expression of the algorithm, and
    the machine states implementing the algor-
    ithm is (I believe) enlightening.

___Bob

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1997 , 1998 only
- Today
- New search...