# coutdown 555 timer values?

T

#### Tristar500

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm needing to put together a series of timers. Plan is to have6 timers
all triggered at the same time. The first should time out and complete
a circuit at 30 seconds, the second at 60 seconds, 60, 120, 150, 180

Can anybody give me a basic circuit and values of the required
resisters/capacitors here?

Thanks!

Lawrence

J

#### John Popelish

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tristar500 said:
I'm needing to put together a series of timers. Plan is to have6 timers
all triggered at the same time. The first should time out and complete
a circuit at 30 seconds, the second at 60 seconds, 60, 120, 150, 180

Can anybody give me a basic circuit and values of the required
resisters/capacitors here?

Thanks!

Lawrence
Since all events take place at multiples of 30 seconds, you might
consider using a single 30 second555 clock with a decoded counter like
a CD4017 or CD4022. These counters turn on a different output for
each clock.
http://www.ee.washington.edu/stores/DataSheets/cd4000/cd4017.pdf

J

#### John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm needing to put together a series of timers. Plan is to have6 timers
all triggered at the same time. The first should time out and complete
a circuit at 30 seconds, the second at 60 seconds, 60, 120, 150, 180

Can anybody give me a basic circuit and values of the required
resisters/capacitors here?

---
View using a non-proportional font like Courier.

+V>----+-----------+-----+----------+-------+
| | | | |
| | [RT1] +----+----+ |
[10K] [10K] | | Vcc _| |
| | +-----|TH R|--+
____ | | | |_ | |
TRIG>--+--[0.1µF]--+-+---|----O|T | |
| | |_ OUT|--|----->OUT1
| +----O|D GND | |
| | +----+----+ |
| [CT1] | |
| | | |
GND>--------------+--|---+----------+ |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | +----------+-------+
| | | | |
| | [RT2] +----+----+ |
| | | | Vcc _| |
| | +-----|TH R|--+
| | | |_ | |
| +---|----O|T | |
| | | |_ OUT|--|----->OUT2
| | +----O|D GND | |
| | | +----+----+ |
| | [CT2] | |
| | | | |
+--|---+----------+ |
| | |
| | |
| | +----------+-------+
| | | | |
| | [RT3] +----+----+ |
| | | | Vcc _| |
| | +-----|TH R|--+
| | | |_ | |
| +---|----O|T | |
| | | |_ OUT|--|----->OUT3
| | +----O|D GND | |
| | | +----+----+ |
| | [CT3] | |
| | | | |
+--|---+----------+ |
| | |
| | |
| | +----------+-------+
| | | | |
| | [RT4] +----+----+ |
| | | | Vcc _| |
| | +-----|TH R|--+
| | | |_ | |
| +---|----O|T | |
| | | |_ OUT|--|----->OUT4
| | +----O|D GND | |
| | | +----+----+ |
| | [CT4] | |
| | | | |
+--|---+----------+ |
| | |
| | |
| | +----------+-------+
| | | | |
| | [RT5] +----+----+ |
| | | | Vcc _| |
| | +-----|TH R|--+
| | | |_ | |
| +---|----O|T | |
| | | |_ OUT|--|----->OUT5
| | +----O|D GND | |
| | | +----+----+ |
| | [CT5] | |
| | | | |
+--|---+----------+ |
| | |
| | |
| | +----------+-------+
| | | | |
| | [RT6] +----+----+ |
| | | | Vcc _| |
| | +-----|TH R|--+
| | | |_ |
| +---|----O|T |
| | |_ OUT|-------->OUT6
| +----O|D GND |
| | +----+----+
| [CT6] |
| | |
+------+----------+

Tout = 1.1 Rt Ct

A

#### aman

Jan 1, 1970
0
You might want to consider a simple 8 bit microcontroller like PIC. All
micro-controllers have timer interrupts. If not using a CD4017 as a
counter and using 555 to generate a 30 sec pulse seems like a good idea.

J

#### John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
You might want to consider a simple 8 bit microcontroller like PIC. All
micro-controllers have timer interrupts. If not using a CD4017 as a
counter and using 555 to generate a 30 sec pulse seems like a good idea.

---
It may seem like it is, but in reality it isn't.

Note that the OP wanted six timeout periods all starting at once, but
as they timed out, each one lasting 30 seconds longer than the one
which timed out before it. Like this:

___
T1___| |__________________________________________

______
T2___| |_______________________________________

_________
T3___| |____________________________________

____________
T4___| |_________________________________

_______________
T5___| |______________________________

__________________
T6___| |___________________________

You can't do that with a 4017.

C

#### Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
---
It may seem like it is, but in reality it isn't.

Note that the OP wanted six timeout periods all starting at once, but
as they timed out, each one lasting 30 seconds longer than the one
which timed out before it. Like this:

___
T1___| |__________________________________________

______
T2___| |_______________________________________

_________
T3___| |____________________________________

____________
T4___| |_________________________________

_______________
T5___| |______________________________

__________________
T6___| |___________________________

You can't do that with a 4017.

So, the OP needs 6 ea. 100uF caps for CT1 - CT6, and the following 5%
resistors:

RT1 = 270K
RT2 = 560K
RT3 = 820K
RT4 = 1.1M
RT5 = 1.35M (1.2M + 150K)
RT6 = 1.6M

Chris

J

#### John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
So, the OP needs 6 ea. 100uF caps for CT1 - CT6, and the following 5%
resistors:

RT1 = 270K
RT2 = 560K
RT3 = 820K
RT4 = 1.1M
RT5 = 1.35M (1.2M + 150K)
RT6 = 1.6M

C

#### Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
diagram. The OP asked for component values, too. The six 555s is the
best answer to the OP's question, especially considering that he's
probably a newbie and may not need accuracy better than 20% or so. You
did provide the equation (t = 1.1 * R * C), but I thought the OP might
need some help with standard component values.

Thanks
Chris

J

#### John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
diagram. The OP asked for component values, too. The six 555s is the
best answer to the OP's question, especially considering that he's
probably a newbie and may not need accuracy better than 20% or so. You
did provide the equation (t = 1.1 * R * C), but I thought the OP might
need some help with standard component values.

B

#### Byron A Jeff

Jan 1, 1970
0
The six 555s is the best answer to the OP's question...

That's the Steve Ciarcia (of Byte and Circuit Cellar INK fame) model.
"My favorite programming language is a soldering iron."

But it's certainly debatable, even for a newbie. The 555 method is
going to require a minimum of 3 556s, and a handful of caps and
resistors (some out of spec) in order to accomplish.

The other proposal, using a microcontroller, does require the controller and
a programmer. However, a simple programmer such as my Trivial Low Voltage
Programmer (TLVP) for the PIC can be wired up with a single chip and a
resistor in about the same amount of time to wire up one 555.

The TLVP can be found on my PIC page: http://www.finitesite.com/d3jsys

Now on to programming languages. I'm an advocate for learning
assembly in the microcontroller world because of the prevelence of
usage. However for a quick project an HLL may be in order. Something
along the lines of JAL or SDCC for the PIC is open source, free to use,
and pretty simple to get started on.

The upshot is that wiring 6 555 circuits will complete this project and
give some insight into wiring 555 circuits. But precisely because of
their programmable nature, using a microcontroller can leverage the
setup cost over a bunch of projects. A part like the PIC 16F630 or
the 16F676 cost less than $2 and can be used for a variety of uses. I just don't think it's as cut and dried as you propose Chris. BAJ J #### John Popelish Jan 1, 1970 0 He would have to add some logic, like some SR flip flops and a bit more. I just get worried about the stability of more than a minute versions of 555s. Note that the OP wanted six timeout periods all starting at once, but as they timed out, each one lasting 30 seconds longer than the one which timed out before it. Like this: ___ T1___| |__________________________________________ ______ T2___| |_______________________________________ _________ T3___| |____________________________________ ____________ T4___| |_________________________________ _______________ T5___| |______________________________ __________________ T6___| |___________________________ You can't do that with a 4017. I'll bet you could come up with something neat based on the 4015 shift register. B #### Byron A Jeff Jan 1, 1970 0 John Fields wrote: I'll bet you could come up with something neat based on the 4015 shift register. That's probably a better single purpose idea. The basic idea would be to use a shift register with a master clear input. The start of the timing cycle would be a master clear starting all 6 outputs. Then each 30 seconds the opposite bit is clocked in. BAJ K #### Ken Moffett Jan 1, 1970 0 [email protected] (Byron A Jeff) wrote in That's the Steve Ciarcia (of Byte and Circuit Cellar INK fame) model. "My favorite programming language is a soldering iron." But it's certainly debatable, even for a newbie. The 555 method is going to require a minimum of 3 556s, and a handful of caps and resistors (some out of spec) in order to accomplish. The other proposal, using a microcontroller, does require the controller and a programmer. However, a simple programmer such as my Trivial Low Voltage Programmer (TLVP) for the PIC can be wired up with a single chip and a resistor in about the same amount of time to wire up one 555. The TLVP can be found on my PIC page: http://www.finitesite.com/d3jsys Now on to programming languages. I'm an advocate for learning assembly in the microcontroller world because of the prevelence of usage. However for a quick project an HLL may be in order. Something along the lines of JAL or SDCC for the PIC is open source, free to use, and pretty simple to get started on. The upshot is that wiring 6 555 circuits will complete this project and give some insight into wiring 555 circuits. But precisely because of their programmable nature, using a microcontroller can leverage the setup cost over a bunch of projects. A part like the PIC 16F630 or the 16F676 cost less than$2 and can be used for a variety of uses.

I just don't think it's as cut and dried as you propose Chris.

BAJ

The OP might also try a PICAXE uP. These uP's are a little more expensive
than the bare-bones PIC, and alot less expensive than Basic Stamps. The
programming software is free and the programming is from the serial port
directly to the uP, through a three wire cable (OK, plus 2 resistors).
Pbasic is easy to use. The 4MHz clock is more than sufficant for his timing
and more accurate than 555's. The PicAxe-08M only has 5 outputs, so they
would need to go to a PicAxe-18. Lots of info, free program editor,

http://www.rev-ed.co.uk/picaxe/
http://www.picaxe.orcon.net.nz/

B

#### Bob Monsen

Jan 1, 1970
0
Byron said:
That's probably a better single purpose idea. The basic idea would be
to use a shift register with a master clear input. The start of the timing
cycle would be a master clear starting all 6 outputs. Then each 30 seconds
the opposite bit is clocked in.

BAJ

Yes, I like this. A '164 has 8 outputs, so his 6 output thingy could use
a single shift register. He may even be able to drive the LEDs using it,
through a resistor (if he doesnt' use a cmos part.) The 555 should use
1M, 1k, and 47uF as the timing elements, so it pulses every 30 seconds
or so.

The '164 master reset pin is the 'start' signal, and should also be tied
to the 555 reset pin. Bring them both up, and the thing starts counting.
Once finished, bring them down, all the outputs clear, and it stops
counting. If he wants it to cycle, tie these pins to the Q6 output
through an inverter, possibly a CE transistor amplifier.

--
Regards,
Bob Monsen

If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has
so much as to be out of danger?
Thomas Henry Huxley, 1877

T

#### Tristar500

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm still a bit unclear as to the values of the capacitors and
resisters.

one post offered

RT1 = 270K
RT2 = 560K
RT3 = 820K
RT4 = 1.1M
RT5 = 1.35M (1.2M + 150K)
RT6 = 1.6M

Is this correct?

B

#### Byron A Jeff

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tristar500 said:
[ still working on the 6 555 solution.]

I think there is a concensus to abandon this approach. Better is to use
a single 555 set for 30 seconds and a shift register.

Review the other posts in this thread. The 555 is unstable at such long
durations. It'll function much more accurately for 30 seconds than for
180 or 240 seconds.

BAJ

T

#### Tristar500

Jan 1, 1970
0
Not sure what a shift register is? Since the 3 minutes isn't critical,
plus or minus 20% would be OK. Is the schematic John sketched out near
the top of this post close enough granted the instability of the 555?

B

#### Byron A Jeff

Jan 1, 1970
0
Not sure what a shift register is?

Since the 3 minutes isn't critical, plus or minus 20% would be OK.

The 555 simply isn't specified to operate with such large resistor and/or
cap values. Caps are leaky.

Also you'll have a lot less to go wrong with the shift register because
there will only be two parts in the circuit instead of 6.
Is the schematic John sketched out near
the top of this post close enough granted the instability of the 555?

Probably. You can get more detail on the 555 here:

http://tinyurl.com/859tf

But the shift register will give you more repeatable results with less
effort.

BAJ

C

#### Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
Byron said:

The 555 simply isn't specified to operate with such large resistor and/or
cap values. Caps are leaky.

Also you'll have a lot less to go wrong with the shift register because
there will only be two parts in the circuit instead of 6.

Probably. You can get more detail on the 555 here:

http://tinyurl.com/859tf

But the shift register will give you more repeatable results with less
effort.

BAJ

Hi, Jeff. Looking at the LM555 data sheet,

http://cache.national.com/ds/LM/LM555.pdf

you can see that the leakage current from the threshold pin (0.1uA
typ., 0.25uA max) is the limiting factor. If you've got a 12VDC power
supply, and a 1.6 meg series resistor, you've got 7.5uA charging the
100uF cap. With a 5V supply, you've got about 3uA. I can see how the
0.4uA max. leakage current will cause inaccuracies, but it doesn't make
the chip inoperative, even at 5V.

Of course, the OP can use a CMOS 555, which has almost no leakage
current at the threshold pin, making this a non-issue.

Of more importance is the leakage current of the cap. Some
electrolytic caps are specified as having several uA of leakage current
maximum new out of the factory. That's more of a problem.

The OP should use an electrolytic which is specified as having low
leakage, such as one available from Mouser (140-LLRL16V100). These
caps ($0.34 ea.) are specified as having 0.4uA max leakage. Actually, one of the major problems here that nobody is talking about is the power supply. The 555 changes state on 1/3Vcc and 2/3Vcc. If the supply is unregulated or poorly regulated, the power supply sags are going to change things quite a bit, too. I believe the OP can get within 20% of his timing requirements with the originally specified parts, assuming he has a well-regulated supply. But, if it would make anyone happier, the OP can just multiply the cap value by 10 (1000uF 16V, Mouser p/n 140-LLRL16V1000,$0.77 ea.), and
divide the cap values by 10 (start with 27K for the 30 seconds, and go
up from there to 160K). That woould make it a bit easier on the
leakage current budget, since 10X as much current is charging up the
cap. All legal, and according to the data sheet, permissible.

Since we're drawing this out at length, there's also a bit of a glitch
with the 555 in the astable configuration (oscillator) that nobody's
mentioned here. Usually you figure pulse high (charge) time as about
0.7 * (Ra + Rb) * C. However, on turn-on, the cap isn't charging from
1/3Vcc, it's charging from 0V. That means the equation for the first
output logic high is closer to the monostable constant, 1.1 * (Ra + Rb)
* C. In other words, the first high pulse is going to be 57% too long,
and the logic high is more than half the total period, so the first
whole cycle of the 555 is going to be at least 23% too long, even with
a mm value for Rb. That's out of spec here.

In days of yore, when men were men and women were glad of it,
4000-series CMOS used to rule the earth (mid '70s). Time delay relays
were improved significantly by replacing the old clunky PUT-based
timing circuits with a 4060, which is a divide-by-2^14 counter with a
built-in oscillator circuit, which only requires two Rs and a C, kind
of like the 555. The idea was that, even if one timing cycle went bad
because of a power glitch or noise from the relay, well, you had over
8,000 of them to timeout (the 2^14th output went high to drive the
relay, so it had 2^13, or 8,192 counts. Who cares? It's still
accurate.

Anyway, even with a divide-by-2^14 counter following it, I believe the
oscillations would be too slow for the 4060 oscillator. So I would add
a 4020 or 4040 counter after the 4060 to allow us to get the 4060
oscillator up to speed, and go with that. You would then have Mr.
Popelish's 4015 shift register after, with the last output locking out

I would guess the OP has enough information to go on. With ST CMOS
555s in thru-hole going for $0.40 ea. at Mouser, and the 1000uF low leakage caps going for$0.77 ea., I would think the OP could just pull
the trigger and put something together for about \$7 in parts, and see
if it works. If not, he can get back with another post.

Good luck
Chris

T

#### Tristar500

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Chris, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I hadn't thought of
using cmos 555's . I understand they and other cmos ic's are popular
with very low current draw is needed. I was thinking of using a
computer power supply or a cell phone charger as a regulated power
supply. I know the computer supplies are well regulated, not so sure
about those little black cubes we all have at the end or our cell phone
chargers, answering machine power supplies etc. Here is a link to a
jpg of the schematic I put together from the earlier post from John
Fields along with some resister values added by other members.

http://www.rcgroups.com/gallery/zips/27524/biketimer.jpg

Anybody care to comment? I'm ready to etch a board if all looks good.

Thanks, Lawrence

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
546
Replies
48
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
3K