Maker Pro
Maker Pro

How to count pulses per second ?

J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
I see you're on Google groups, so you can't access
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic, so I'll email you a schematic
when I'm done as well as post one there for anyone who's interested.
 
E

Eric R Snow

Jan 1, 1970
0
JF:

I dont need this to be too accurate... I'm collecting the number of
times an IR beam gets broken, and if it gets broken faster than 10
times a second, I need to trigger a transistor and keep it on for as
long as the beam is broken at a rate of 10Hz or above.. (this beam
gets broken with human intervention, so freq could be variable,
anywhere from 0Hz to 20Hz, and may not necessarily have an even duty-
cycle)

Thanks so much for your help !!
MC
Greetings Mike,
I think that if you follow this link:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/circ/mispulse.htm
you will find your solution. The circuit seems to do exactly what you
want.
ERS
 
A

Aly

Jan 1, 1970
0
No, it won't. He wants to detect pulses with varying widths and
varying spacing.

In the time you've all been talking about this, he could have done it by now
by buying a cheap PIC programmer, a couple of PICs, and visiting the piclist
a few dozen times.

God knows how many times I've sat in a meeting and said "Do this," and
3-months later they've spent thousands, a few people have left, and they're
all still arguing about it.

:)
 
A

Anthony Fremont

Jan 1, 1970
0
Aly said:
In the time you've all been talking about this, he could have done it
by now by buying a cheap PIC programmer, a couple of PICs, and
visiting the piclist a few dozen times.

LOL, but the funniest part is that it's true as long as he didn't have a run
in with Olin. ;-)
God knows how many times I've sat in a meeting and said "Do this," and
3-months later they've spent thousands, a few people have left, and
they're all still arguing about it.


.......6 months after that and tens of thousands more wasted, the project
manager is fired and the java crew are given their walking papers. You then
do the project with a PIC in about a week. But no reward or even a pat on
the back for you, uh uh. Even though you never mention it, they all know
what snide little thoughts you're thinking.......so they reward you by
hiring an H-1B to "help you out around the office". ;-)
 
C

Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi, I'm hoping someone could help me create a very basic circuit which
would:

Count the number of pulses it receives per second (from a 555 timer,
or a switch, for example) and if the number of pulses per second is
equal to, or greater than 10 it turns on a transistor.

So basically it should check every second if a clock frequency of 10Hz
is being met - if so, a transistor should turn an LED on and keep it
on for as long as 10Hz a second is hitting the circuit. As soon as the
clock stops, or the frequency goes below 10Hz, it should turn off the
LED.

Thanks so much for your help !

MC

Hi, Mike. If you're still there, you might want to consider using a
4518 (dual BCD counter) and a 556 (dual 555). If you've also got a
couple of spare inverter gates, it's easy (view in fixed font or M$
Notepad):


VCC
+ .---------------. .-----------------.
| | | | |
'--oEN | | |
| 1/2 4518 Q3o------oEN 1/2 4518 |
| | | |
o---oCLK | .--oCLK |
| RST | | | Q0 RST |
'-------o-------' === '--o-----o--------'
| GND | |
| | |
VCC | | |
+ '---------o-------)-----'VCC
| | | +
.-. | | |
| | O | .-. VCC
| | .---------. / \ | | | +
'-' | | (___) | | | |
| | | | | '-' .------------.
o-----o | | | | | |
| | 1/2 556 | | | |\ | | |
.-. | OUTo---' '--| >O-)--o 1/2 556 |
| | .--o | |/ | | OUTo
| | | | | | | |
'-' | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
o--o--o | --- | |
| | | --- | |
--- '---------' | '------------'
--- | |
| === ===
=== GND GND
GND
(created by AACircuit v1.28.6 beta 04/19/05 www.tech-chat.de)

The 4518 is set up to count the positive transitions of the input (if
you want to count NGTs, connect the input to EN and make CLK=0). If
the 10s bit goes high before the once a second reset pulse of the
first half of the 556, it triggers the second half of the 556. Make
the monostable output pulse as long as you want to turn on an LED or
something else.

Here are the datasheets:
http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM555.html
http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/MC14518B-D.PDF

Good luck with your homework.

Cheers
Chris
 
E

ehsjr

Jan 1, 1970
0
Aly said:
In the time you've all been talking about this, he could have done it by now
by buying a cheap PIC programmer, a couple of PICs, and visiting the piclist
a few dozen times.

No. He (the OP) said it would be a big learning curve.

PIC's are great, but how is it that the "PIC crowd"
always comes in with the same mantra "he could have done
it with a PIC in a few hours" or similar, yet we never
see a PIC solution offered by them?

Take a look at the huge number of helpful answers on
this newsgroup and others from John Fields. He posts
complete, solid solutions with schematics & identified
parts values. He doesn't just say, "you could do that
with an electronic circuit" and walk away.

If the "PIC crowd" wants to promote PIC solutions, show
them.

In the time *you've* been following the thread, John has
already designed and posted a hardware solution. You
haven't - no one from the PIC crowd has. If it's so
damn easy that a "PIC newbie" like the OP can do it with
a few hours work, then one has to wonder why experienced
PICers can't/don't/won't come up with something. Lord
knows there's plenty of opportunities. Fields has proven
that by posting solutions over and over and over again
countless times to a wide variety of questions. The
"PIC crowd" has made comments. As to providing solutions,
they are dead silent. You guys want to take what you
see as tantamount to "the moral high ground" with your
"use a PIC" chant, then arrogantly walk away, offering
nothing. When you start providing practical solutions
your words will take on weight. Otherwise, they are
smokescreen that may look good, but is without substance.

Ed
 
A

Anthony Fremont

Jan 1, 1970
0
ehsjr said:
No. He (the OP) said it would be a big learning curve.

PIC's are great, but how is it that the "PIC crowd"
always comes in with the same mantra "he could have done
it with a PIC in a few hours" or similar, yet we never
see a PIC solution offered by them?

Could it be that the OP never wants to see one? The circuit for this using
a PIC is a joke, the code is the real work effort. If the OP doesn't want
to use a PIC, why should someone write code?
Take a look at the huge number of helpful answers on
this newsgroup and others from John Fields. He posts
complete, solid solutions with schematics & identified
parts values. He doesn't just say, "you could do that
with an electronic circuit" and walk away.

If the "PIC crowd" wants to promote PIC solutions, show
them.

I'm sorry, I can't seem to find your solution here.
In the time *you've* been following the thread, John has
already designed and posted a hardware solution. You

Several in fact, most don't work or meet the OP requirements, but I guess
that doesn't matter because it didn't involve a PIC.
haven't - no one from the PIC crowd has. If it's so
damn easy that a "PIC newbie" like the OP can do it with
a few hours work, then one has to wonder why experienced
PICers can't/don't/won't come up with something. Lord
knows there's plenty of opportunities. Fields has proven
that by posting solutions over and over and over again
countless times to a wide variety of questions. The

Too bad that he's such an offensive person. If he wasn't in everyone's
killfile, more people might appreciate his efforts.
"PIC crowd" has made comments. As to providing solutions,
they are dead silent. You guys want to take what you
see as tantamount to "the moral high ground" with your
"use a PIC" chant, then arrogantly walk away, offering
nothing. When you start providing practical solutions
your words will take on weight. Otherwise, they are
smokescreen that may look good, but is without substance.

Ed

Yet another PIC hater speaks. Same old mantra: learning curve, PIC crowd,
no help, rah rah rah. And where is your schematic showing how to do it the
Rube Goldberg way? I've posted PIC code here before, have you? IOW, until
you offer up more than rhetoric, you're no better than "us". When have you
seen a poster ask for the code and a "PIC lover" just blew them off?
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
Could it be that the OP never wants to see one? The circuit for this using
a PIC is a joke, the code is the real work effort. If the OP doesn't want
to use a PIC, why should someone write code?

---
Exactly. And if the OP doesn't want to use a PIC why should he be
berated for that?
---
I'm sorry, I can't seem to find your solution here.

---
So what, neither is yours. Fact is, Ed's posted a lot of schematics
with nice solutions to various problems, but I don't recall ever
seeing anything from you other than telling people to do it your
way.
---
Several in fact, most don't work or meet the OP requirements, but I guess
that doesn't matter because it didn't involve a PIC.

---
Two only, in this thread, but the second try should have cleared up
the problems I had with the first one, so what's wrong with that? I
often have errors with design first cuts, but I always fix them
before I put the thing to bed. I guess you write totally bug-free
code out of the box huh?
---
Too bad that he's such an offensive person. If he wasn't in everyone's
killfile, more people might appreciate his efforts.

---
I'm generally offensive only to those I find offensive, like you,
and I'm sure I'm not in _everyone's_ killfile, LOL. Those who've
plonked me I have no use for anyway. I'm also sure that my efforts
are appreciated from the thanks I get from the folks I help out.
---
Yet another PIC hater speaks. Same old mantra: learning curve, PIC crowd,
no help, rah rah rah. And where is your schematic showing how to do it the
Rube Goldberg way?

---
"Rube Goldberg"? See, now _you're_ being gratuitously offensive
because he made a point which struck a nerve and you're being
retaliatory. Besides, why should he have to post a design to
register his opinion? You certainly didn't and you're certainly
being critical as hell. And an asshole as well. How's that? Want
to kick it up a notch?
---
I've posted PIC code here before, have you? IOW, until
you offer up more than rhetoric, you're no better than "us".

---
You're being ridiculous. If he has a good non-PIC way of doing
something, then why should he post code. As I noted before, he's
contributed lots of _complete_ solutions in the past, but I can't
recall ever seeing _anything_ from you. What did you post, some
stubs? No doubt.

I you want to convince everyone how great a PIC would be for this
application why don't you build the thing (It's only a PIC, a
resistor, and an LED after all) then sit down and work out the code
(It should only take an hour, you said) program the PIC, test it,
then go through the several cycles of debug I'm sure you'll have to
go through, and then post the code so we can all enjoy it.

Should be duck soup now that you've seen how to do it in hardware
and the hardware's been debugged.
---
When have you seen a poster ask for the code and a "PIC lover"
just blew them off?

---
When have you seen a poster ask for the code? IME they don't and
they don't want any part of it since they're usually looking for a
simple one-off and don't want to get involved with PICs.

Their choice, and people like you, who try to ram PICs down people's
throats aren't making it any easier for your camp.
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
In the time you've all been talking about this, he could have done it by now
by buying a cheap PIC programmer, a couple of PICs, and visiting the piclist
a few dozen times.
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi, Mike. If you're still there, you might want to consider using a
4518 (dual BCD counter) and a 556 (dual 555). If you've also got a
couple of spare inverter gates, it's easy (view in fixed font or M$
Notepad):


VCC
+ .---------------. .-----------------.
| | | | |
'--oEN | | |
| 1/2 4518 Q3o------oEN 1/2 4518 |
| | | |
o---oCLK | .--oCLK |
| RST | | | Q0 RST |
'-------o-------' === '--o-----o--------'
| GND | |
| | |
VCC | | |
+ '---------o-------)-----'VCC
| | | +
.-. | | |
| | O | .-. VCC
| | .---------. / \ | | | +
'-' | | (___) | | | |
| | | | | '-' .------------.
o-----o | | | | | |
| | 1/2 556 | | | |\ | | |
.-. | OUTo---' '--| >O-)--o 1/2 556 |
| | .--o | |/ | | OUTo
| | | | | | | |
'-' | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
o--o--o | --- | |
| | | --- | |
--- '---------' | '------------'
--- | |
| === ===
=== GND GND
GND
(created by AACircuit v1.28.6 beta 04/19/05 www.tech-chat.de)
 
A

Anthony Fremont

Jan 1, 1970
0
Show me a post where I berated someone asking for help.

---
So what, neither is yours. Fact is, Ed's posted a lot of schematics
with nice solutions to various problems, but I don't recall ever
seeing anything from you other than telling people to do it your
way.
---

Show me a post where I "tell people to do it my way". Your absolutely
juvenile and a liar.

---
Two only, in this thread, but the second try should have cleared up
the problems I had with the first one, so what's wrong with that? I
often have errors with design first cuts, but I always fix them
before I put the thing to bed. I guess you write totally bug-free
code out of the box huh?

I certainly have, plenty of times. Don't you believe me?


That's only because you jumped before you looked, as usual. Or don't you
remember that, "current/power hog"? You struck the first, second, .... and
tenth blows before you even bothered to do a Google search. You had to come
back with your tail between your legs and fess up. Why do you do this to
yourself John?
and I'm sure I'm not in _everyone's_ killfile, LOL. Those who've
plonked me I have no use for anyway. I'm also sure that my efforts
are appreciated from the thanks I get from the folks I help out.

You get killfiled more in one week than I have in a lifetime. I think you
should look at it like this, "the ones that plonked you, have no use for
YOU". I've gotten plenty too, should we compete on that too?

Continually adding parts just to make the point that a PIC isn't necessary
is a silly exercise. Two pots? Come on, a micro has far more accuracy
using the internal osc (1%) without adjustment. Times change, even if you
don't want to.
because he made a point which struck a nerve and you're being
retaliatory. Besides, why should he have to post a design to

Look who's being retaliatory.
register his opinion? You certainly didn't and you're certainly
being critical as hell. And an asshole as well. How's that? Want
to kick it up a notch?
---

My code will be posted later, now that someone actully wants to see some.
---
You're being ridiculous. If he has a good non-PIC way of doing
something, then why should he post code. As I noted before, he's
contributed lots of _complete_ solutions in the past, but I can't
recall ever seeing _anything_ from you. What did you post, some
stubs? No doubt.

I've given away plenty of code, you just don't know where to look for it.
I'd be willing to wager money that you couldn't duplicate the functionality
with discretes either. Now go ahead and shoot your mouth off some more
without knowing what will be actually required of you.
I you want to convince everyone how great a PIC would be for this
application why don't you build the thing (It's only a PIC, a
resistor, and an LED after all) then sit down and work out the code

Convince everyone? Get real. The PIC haters are the PIC haters period,
there is no "convincing".
(It should only take an hour, you said) program the PIC, test it,
then go through the several cycles of debug I'm sure you'll have to
go through, and then post the code so we can all enjoy it.

That's the difference between you and I. I think before I write, therefore
it likely won't take "several" cycles to debug. This is one of those things
that will likely work the first time out.
Should be duck soup now that you've seen how to do it in hardware
and the hardware's been debugged.

You're the one that couldn't even interpret the OP's requirements without
asking more questions, even though they were fairly clearly stated. Once
you knew what they actually were, you couldn't wait to shout down someone
elses reintroduction to your idea of a missing pulse detector. It's all
about being first isn't it John, never about getting it right the first
time?

How is your hardware design going to help me? Outside of the LED and
resistor, there will be no common parts. You don't even think things thru,
you just keep ratcheting your jaws.

Changing the subject doesn't constitute a rebuttal of my statement. Show us
an example of what you claimed or please shut up.
 
A

Anthony Fremont

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:38:45 -0000, "Aly"

And I thought he said this about using a PIC. "Thanks for your help. I
actually considered that option, but I was under the impression that a
simpler circuit could do this job." Of course you then proceeded to show
him that a "simpler circuit" would not do the job.
 
A

Anthony Fremont

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
Their choice, and people like you, who try to ram PICs down people's
throats aren't making it any easier for your camp.

Who, exactly, is doing the ramming here Fields? You PIC haters are all
alike, just the mention of the word and you guys are frothing at the mouth
like rabid dogs. Making baseless accusations about ramming, shoving,
walking-away and the like, it's downright pitiful. Of course cost, circuit
simplicity, consistency of results, flexibility, and power consumption are
topics that aren't allowed in this discussion of merits, because the micro
has an "unfair" advantage in these areas. It's not like "my camp" needs to
recruit people, it's not the one in danger of becoming extinct.
 
E

Eric R Snow

Jan 1, 1970
0
OK John, I'll take your word for it. You certainly know tons more than
me about electronics. I'll go back and read his original post and see
if I can figure out why what I thought was a solution is not.
Thanks,
Eric
 
A

Anthony Fremont

Jan 1, 1970
0
OK John, I'll take your word for it. You certainly know tons more than
me about electronics. I'll go back and read his original post and see
if I can figure out why what I thought was a solution is not.

Please don't feed the trolls. :)

To explain it in a less belligerent way, the OP doesn't guarantee duty cycle
or overall pulse width. This was further reitterated by the OP when JF
didn't get it either and had to ask. Why he now thinks it proper to slap
you around for making the same error, but I digress. The OP only cares
about 10 pulses per second, and simply counting the pulses received in one
second will satisfy his requirements. The one second latency to the output
is of no concern either.
 
A

Anthony Fremont

Jan 1, 1970
0
Anthony said:
Please don't feed the trolls. :)

To explain it in a less belligerent way, the OP doesn't guarantee
duty cycle or overall pulse width. This was further reitterated by
the OP when JF didn't get it either and had to ask. Why he now
thinks it proper to slap you around for making the same error, but I

Obviously I left out the "is beyond me" part.
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
Show me a post where I berated someone asking for help.

---
The berating isn't direct, it's in your attitude and in your disdain
for anything other than a PIC to be used as a solution to a problem.
---
Show me a post where I "tell people to do it my way". Your absolutely
juvenile and a liar.

---
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you say, "A PIC is
the right way to do it." that that's your way and that's what you're
telling them to use.
---
I certainly have, plenty of times. Don't you believe me?

---
So have I, but so what? That's not the point. The point is that we
all make mistakes and you're insultingly criticizing me for making
one as if you were a lily-white infallible judge.
---
That's only because you jumped before you looked, as usual. Or don't you
remember that, "current/power hog"? You struck the first, second, .... and
tenth blows before you even bothered to do a Google search. You had to come
back with your tail between your legs and fess up. Why do you do this to
yourself John?

---
I don't recall anything like that. Refresh my memory.
---
You get killfiled more in one week than I have in a lifetime.

---
Even for you, that's a ridiculous statement.
---
I think you
should look at it like this, "the ones that plonked you, have no use for
YOU".

---
Which goes to prove what I said about you wanting people to do
things your way.
---
I've gotten plenty too, should we compete on that too?

---
I don't consider you to be competition, I consider you to be more
like a gadfly, just buzzing around making a lot of noise and being
generally annoying. As far as the plonking thing goes, if you've
been plonked "plenty" of times, (and I certainly believe _that_ !)
then I'm sure you win that one.
---
Continually adding parts just to make the point that a PIC isn't necessary
is a silly exercise.

---
Hardly. Using two pots because the OP doesn't _want_ to use a PIC is
perfectly acceptable. Depending on his accuracy requirements, the
pots might be replaced with fixed resistors, but he hasn't replied
with that information, so the thing is a work in progress and the
pots are there because they'll cover any eventuality.
---
Two pots? Come on, a micro has far more accuracy
using the internal osc (1%) without adjustment. Times change, even if you
don't want to.

---
I see. You're a PIC programmer so that puts you at the forefront of
technology, while I'm just an old has-been twiddling pots, huh? LOL,
Fremont, you're a piece of work all right. You need to do a little
more legwork before you start making assumptions.
---

Look who's being retaliatory.

---
You are.
---
My code will be posted later, now that someone actully wants to see some.

---
If you think that's me, don't bother.
---
I've given away plenty of code, you just don't know where to look for it.

---
Nor do I care.
---
I'd be willing to wager money that you couldn't duplicate the functionality
with discretes either. Now go ahead and shoot your mouth off some more
without knowing what will be actually required of you.

---
"Discretes" like in transistors, resistors, and capacitors?
---
Convince everyone? Get real. The PIC haters are the PIC haters period,
there is no "convincing".

---
Sure there is. The proof is in the pudding and we all like to see
something that works, so if it's as easy as you say it is why don't
you just go ahead and build it, post some information as to how you
tested it, and the code, and maybe some pictures, and then for the
fillip, send it to the OP? After all, it's only a cheap chip, a
resistor, and an LED, no?
---
That's the difference between you and I. I think before I write, therefore
it likely won't take "several" cycles to debug. This is one of those things
that will likely work the first time out.

---
Prove it, then.
---
You're the one that couldn't even interpret the OP's requirements without
asking more questions, even though they were fairly clearly stated.

---
So you think that "fairly clearly stated" is enough to base a design
on?

I can see it now... You get a "fairly clear" set of specs for some
embedded thingy so you work up a design, write the code, order the
parts, build it, test it and it works perfectly! You then proudly
take it to your customer only to find out that you should have been
a little more diligent up front and gotten the specs _very clear_
because the way it works is not the way he wants it to work.

I preferred to iron out all the big wrinkles up front, and if you
think that wasn't necessary then you didn't understand the
subtleties of the problem. Still might not for that matter, had it
not been cleared up.
---
Once you knew what they actually were,

---
Which I wouldn't have known, had I not asked the questions I did,
would I?
---

you couldn't wait to shout down someone
elses reintroduction to your idea of a missing pulse detector.

---
Well, "shouting down" is a little harsh, I think, but in any case
telling someone that it's not a missing pulse detector when it isn't
should be permitted, don't you think?
---
It's all about being first isn't it John, never about getting it right the first
time?

---
You're the one making all the noise about competition, Anthony, so
you tell me.
---
How is your hardware design going to help me? Outside of the LED and
resistor, there will be no common parts. You don't even think things thru,
you just keep ratcheting your jaws.

---
If you can read a schematic you can understand the design philosophy
and then replicate it, via software, in a microcontroller. A
microcontroller is all hardware inside, you know, and all you're
doing with software is hooking it up so it'll do what the original
hardware design did.
---
Changing the subject doesn't constitute a rebuttal of my statement. Show us
an example of what you claimed or please shut up.

---
Not changing the subject at all. The fact is that I've never seen
anyone ask a "PIC lover" for code, and my opinion as to the reason
behind that was as I stated, "they don't want any part of it since
they're usually looking for a simple one-off and don't want to get
involved with PICs." YMMV, but I think it's more likely that you
were sharing code with other PIC lovers or PIC lover newbies than
with real people.
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
And I thought he said this about using a PIC. "Thanks for your help. I
actually considered that option, but I was under the impression that a
simpler circuit could do this job." Of course you then proceeded to show
him that a "simpler circuit" would not do the job.

---
Now, now, Anthony, be a nice boy, won't you?

He has in his possession, and I've posted to abse, the corrected
version which _does_ work.

Moreover, I've come up with a simpler two-chip solution which uses a
555 made retriggerable which I'll post later on as soon as I
simulate it. I don't think the OP's in a big rush and it's not like
I'm doing it for the money, Eh?

BTW, are you going to do anything by way of showing that your way is
the way he should go? You know, build something and test it since
he certainly isn't going to do the programming himself, I suspect.

If you do I think it would be nice if you kept a log of how long it
took you to write the code, how long it took you to debug it, and
the bugs you found. Oh, and then post it here. The whole think
shouldn't take more than about a day, should it?
 
M

Mike C

Jan 1, 1970
0
Guys thanks for all your posts, and I certainly didn't mean to start a
PIC vs Traditional-Circuits argument. :)

JH: I got your email, but your attachment didn't seem to go through..
could you please re-send? I ordered the parts, should be here in a
few and hopefully I could bring this circuit to a conclusion.

Chris: Thanks for your post. I can see John's point regarding 555 not
being re-triggerable... John, could the re-set be used instead to
achieve something of the sort ? (just a thought, but you probably know
better)

As a side-note: I have nothing against PIC controllers, in fact, I
think it would be great to learn how to use them... I would just
prefer to do the learning as more of a side-hobby than a means to an
end in this particular case. In fact, I would love to attempt this
solution with a PIC also, so I'm totally open to suggestions as to
where and what I should get as a starter kit, and any code would make
this work (thats if its not too much work for anyone of course..)
... and again, I truly appreciate everyone's responses to my post.

Best regards,
MC
 
Top