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.
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.
Greetings Mike,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
On 13 Feb 2007 15:03:48 -0800, "Mike C" <[email protected]> wrote:
No, it won't. He wants to detect pulses with varying widths and
varying spacing.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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?
I'm sorry, I can't seem to find your solution here.
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.
Too bad that he's such an offensive person. If he wasn't in everyone's
killfile, more people might appreciate his efforts.
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?
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.
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)
---
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.
---
---
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?
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.
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?
---
---
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.
John said:On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:38:45 -0000, "Aly"
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.
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.
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
Show me a post where I berated someone asking for help.
Show me a post where I "tell people to do it my way". Your absolutely
juvenile and a liar.
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?
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.
Look who's being retaliatory.
My code will be posted later, now that someone actully wants to see some.
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.
Convince everyone? Get real. The PIC haters are the PIC haters period,
there is no "convincing".
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.
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,
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.
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.