|
I found some 50pos headers for $1.50 on digikey after some further poking around. I was under the impression they would be much cheaper than that, oh well...
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2009 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
clredwolf posted:I found some 50pos headers for $1.50 on digikey after some further poking around. I was under the impression they would be much cheaper than that, oh well... I assume they are just 2.54mm pitch pin headers? edit: That was probably not what you were looking for. It looks like 1.50 is not too bad. Mouser does have a 50 pin header for 1.31, but that's only like 12% savings http://www.mouser.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?qs=sGAEpiMZZMukXCIZ6E1E4HOzt1DWXh1DyXiLE%252bTxXnc%3d SnoPuppy fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Feb 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2009 19:14
|
|
|
if your town has an electronics surplus type store you can probably get them at something like $0.35. See if you can find one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2009 03:56
|
|
|
East coast is a bit sparse on surplus electronics stores (I am so jealous of you Californians discovering electronics!). May be something around though, I'll take a look...
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2009 05:53
|
|
|
Again with the flash trigger. I made a simple RC filter using different capacitor values I came across. According to this calculator I should be getting cut-off frequencies just above a few Hz, far below the 433MHz frequencies that are causing the interference. For example, I found some capacitors just marked "3,3" and that should mean 3.3uF right? And together with a 1KOhm resistor I should be getting a cut-off frequency of 48.3 Hz. This passes through the actual trigger signal (the odd fire attempt actually works if I keep the transmitter less than an inch from the receiver) but the interference is somehow still there. Perhaps I messed up the RC filter or something. When I disconnect the cord the receiver works just fine so I'm confident the interference is still coming through the cord somehow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2009 19:30
|
|
|
Honestly don't bother with the resistor, for what you are doing you don't need it. You can substitute a low resistance in your approximations for where the resistor is now (like 1 ohm or something). Also try a shorter cable if you're not going to wrap it around some sort of ferrite core. Heck, try wrapping it around some sort of iron rod or something, that may have an effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2009 21:43
|
|
|
All right, I'll drop the resistor. Also, am I right in thinking it won't make much difference if I put a capacitor inside the flash unit itself, or in the trigger? Inside the flash I'm thinking that it would be hindering the interference from even leaving the flash. I guess the capacitor should do the job even placed closer to the trigger. But as have gathered this might actually be the best way of doing it? I'll try to get a hold of an iron rod of some sort but I'm not expecting miracles. I tried wrapping the cord several times around a split ferrite bead (like this) but no perceivable effect. Perhaps the solution is to use a 100' cord wrapped around an iron boat anchor and placing the flash inside a Faraday cage. Or maybe I'm just going crazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2009 22:40
|
|
|
Lol, you're getting into 'crazy engineering ideas' territory now. Got a mosquito you just can't squash? Bring out the largest artillery gun you can possibly find, and strap a nuke to the shell... You can try the capacitor on the other side of the cable. Honestly I'd look at shortening cable length now, seems like it's not helping to have a cable that long even with ferrite beads and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2009 01:05
|
|
|
Debugging RF interference/emission problems is a convoluted black art with a bit of magic and hand-waving thrown in. It can be a very painful, time consuming process, even for people with experience. What type of cable are you using and where were you adding the ferrite chokes (both ends?). For what its worth, ferrites seem to help radiating noise more. An MS paint drawing of the setup might be helpful. Also, are you sure that it's interference causing the flash to not turn on? It seems like the only symptom is you have the RX connected to the flash, and when you tell it to "go", nothing happens. Is this right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2009 01:34
|
|
|
clredwolf posted:East coast is a bit sparse on surplus electronics stores (I am so jealous of you Californians discovering electronics!). May be something around though, I'll take a look... I'm down in austin so we get a huge pile of runoff from Texas instruments and freescale/motorola.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2009 22:58
|
|
|
I'm up in Raleigh. We have tons of companies within an hour or so of here (IBM, Analog, RFMD, RTP), but no surplus from what I can tell. Woo...
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2009 09:34
|
|
|
I've come into the possession of a very nice rotary phone recently, but I don't have home phone service, just a cell phone. My parents bought me one of those magicjack voip boxes you see on late night T.V. a while back so I'd have a home phone. I hooked the phone up to the magicjack and every works great... except the ringer. The magicjack only outputs about 5v down the line, even on ring. I'm pretty sure the phone requires 96v (94v?) to get the ringer working. Anyone got any idea on what the hell I can build to up the voltage but that will only trigger on ring? I can't seem to find any resources on-line about what actually triggers the ring cycle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2009 10:08
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me which would be more accurate at maintaining a constant temperature in an incubator environment (chicken/quail eggs) while dealing with ambient temperature swings? Trying to decide between using a proportional thermostat or putting together a controller using a PID, RTD sensor and a solid state relay to control the heat source. Also it should be known I know jack poo poo about electronics and I'm stumbling along trying to figure out this poo poo with Google and leaps of faith. I heat the house with a wood stove, so generally the house has hot and cold spots, and the temp really drops at night because I can't be bothered to get up at 2 AM and gently caress with burning logs and ashes. Hence, I need something that reacts well and quickly to temp swings. Need to maintain 99.5 degrees as accurately and stably as possible for up to 23 days. ChaoticSeven fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Feb 21, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2009 06:50
|
|
|
You could try to unhook the ringer from whatever is inside the phone, and then build or purchase a ring detector (with a simple relay output), and have that turn the ringer off and on. You will probably need two extra power supplies (one for the ringer itself, and one for the ring detector). Ring Detector Schematic: http://www.aaroncake.net/Circuits/pflash.asp More information on what voltage the phone will need: http://www.tkk.fi/Misc/Electronics/circuits/telephone_ringer.html Swap_File fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Feb 21, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2009 07:06
|
|
|
I'm starting to get into electronics as a hobby, and I want to get a soldering iron that won't give me too much grief even if I progress on to using SMD components and things like that. Can anybody recommend me one? I'm looking in the range of < $200. I looked around the thread a bit but I didn't see too many specific suggestions and, as we are all aware, I can't search the thread at the moment, so sorry if this is a repeat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 06:07
|
|
|
CureForOptimism posted:I'm starting to get into electronics as a hobby, and I want to get a soldering iron that won't give me too much grief even if I progress on to using SMD components and things like that. Can anybody recommend me one? I'm looking in the range of < $200. I looked around the thread a bit but I didn't see too many specific suggestions and, as we are all aware, I can't search the thread at the moment, so sorry if this is a repeat. weller and metcal are two really good brands, and for under $200 you can get some nice stuff. If you're just starting I wouldn't pay over $100. I do all my smd rework with a ~$50 station with crappy tips, and it's not such a big deal. The Iron itself will only get you so far. Instead of blowing money on a really nice Iron, I'd invest in accessories and tools like copper braid (absolute must for smd), nice tweezers (same), some flux, and solder. Whatever you get, just make sure it has replaceable tips available. There are a couple stations on sparkfun, and neither of them are those brands, but I trust sparkfun pretty well to sell good stuff. They have pretty much everything a hobbyist would need.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 18:57
|
|
|
Also, I've just been hired to do a feasibility report on a proposed project, and it's a pretty major one. Basically my boss wants to design devices that can be placed around my university's campus to form a wireless network, and will be integrated into the existing campus security network. Students will be given keyfobs that, when activated, transmit to the nearest node in the network. Each node has two purposes. The first is to sound its own siren, deterring any would-be offenders (we have occasional muggings). Also the network will propagate the alarm to the nearest campus emergency phone, where it will automatically call the dispatch center and, hopefully, transmit some information on where the alarm happened and who activated it. Now one of the first things I have to consider is how to interface with the emergency phones. I've already had a formal meeting with one of the tech guys at the dispatch center and got an idea of how their system works. It's actually brutally simple. The phones are Plain Old Telephone System, and when the emergency call button is pressed, the dispatch center is automatically dialed and the connection is made. Then the dispatcher can dial in certain commands and the emergency tower will send back information on its location. This is all done in DTMF tones. Thus the framework for automatically sending digital information is there, I just have to find a way to hack into it. So here's my question: what's the best way to hack into the phone line to listen for dial tones and inject them, while not destroying the line's normal functionality? On the circuit level I only have a rough idea of how phone lines work, but I imagine I'm looking at just splicing one of the signal lines and putting a transformer in series with it, then coupling signals in and out. I'm only looking to decode and send DTMF tones. Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 19:08
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:Also, I've just been hired to do a feasibility report on a proposed project, and it's a pretty major one. Basically my boss wants to design devices that can be placed around my university's campus to form a wireless network, and will be integrated into the existing campus security network. Students will be given keyfobs that, when activated, transmit to the nearest node in the network. Each node has two purposes. The first is to sound its own siren, deterring any would-be offenders (we have occasional muggings). Also the network will propagate the alarm to the nearest campus emergency phone, where it will automatically call the dispatch center and, hopefully, transmit some information on where the alarm happened and who activated it. Is interfacing with the POTS emergency phones really needed? If someone is on one of the POTS phones you don't want them interfered with if someone hits a fob. Also someone being on the phone would interfere with the fobs ability to call home. A better way would be build a network parallel to the POTS system. Have an extra POTS line that calls the emergency center and sends back the corresponding correct phone information depending on where the fob is pressed. Then you can log it and everything else you might want to do to prevent abuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 19:55
|
|
|
You could look at sending a high frequency signal, above POTS in a different channel (kinda like DSL, but low bandwidth). You can do that pretty easily with digital filtering, but you may have to install low pass filters to keep your signal from interfering with the normal network (you may even be able to use the ones that work with DSL lines, those would be easy to get ahold of). It's not sending DTMF tones per se, but it keeps your system from interfering with the normal operation of those phones (important, since they are emergency phones), and you can even build another POTS system straight on top of it (provided the lines will handle it), although that may be overkill. If you wanted to do it in a way that's not 'hackish', you could use SMS messaging over landline (some networks can do this, I don't think it ties up the line but I don't know for sure), or even just over GSM and skip possibly tying up/screwing up the landline altogether.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 21:28
|
|
|
ValhallaSmith posted:Is interfacing with the POTS emergency phones really needed? If someone is on one of the POTS phones you don't want them interfered with if someone hits a fob. Also someone being on the phone would interfere with the fobs ability to call home. quote:A better way would be build a network parallel to the POTS system. Have an extra POTS line that calls the emergency center and sends back the corresponding correct phone information depending on where the fob is pressed. Then you can log it and everything else you might want to do to prevent abuse. clredwolf posted:You could look at sending a high frequency signal, above POTS in a different channel (kinda like DSL, but low bandwidth). You can do that pretty easily with digital filtering, but you may have to install low pass filters to keep your signal from interfering with the normal network (you may even be able to use the ones that work with DSL lines, those would be easy to get ahold of). It's not sending DTMF tones per se, but it keeps your system from interfering with the normal operation of those phones (important, since they are emergency phones), and you can even build another POTS system straight on top of it (provided the lines will handle it), although that may be overkill. And none of this really addresses my original question, which is how I could interface a device to an existing phone line on the hardware level. I'm open to other means of transmitting data, but a few acronyms don't help me. I need to know more specifically how the interface might work. ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Feb 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 23:18
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:Whatever you get, just make sure it has replaceable tips available. There are a couple stations on sparkfun, and neither of them are those brands, but I trust sparkfun pretty well to sell good stuff. They have pretty much everything a hobbyist would need. I (after my posted about soldering woes) nabbed the 906 hot air rework station and soldering iron, it's been good to me so far(as I have kept the tip well tinned and cleaned as advised.) I haven't got a chance to test the hot air yet but the iron seems solid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 23:54
|
|
|
ChaoticSeven posted:Can anyone tell me which would be more accurate at maintaining a constant temperature in an incubator environment (chicken/quail eggs) while dealing with ambient temperature swings? Trying to decide between using a proportional thermostat or putting together a controller using a PID, RTD sensor and a solid state relay to control the heat source. Also it should be known I know jack poo poo about electronics and I'm stumbling along trying to figure out this poo poo with Google and leaps of faith. http://auberins.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=3 That might be a nice little device - the only thing is I'm concerned about the potential for loss if you make a homebuilt PID controller. The cool thing about this one is that it also has alarm functionality in case the temperature starts to get dangerously low. Wire a thermocouple into it - it'll use this to measure the temperature. Then you can buy a little SSR and use that to control a heat source.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2009 02:22
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:And none of this really addresses my original question, which is how I could interface a device to an existing phone line on the hardware level. I'm open to other means of transmitting data, but a few acronyms don't help me. I need to know more specifically how the interface might work. I would seriously try to find some type of off the shelf system. Realize that you will have to not only design, but manufacture (in quantity!), support, distribute etc. all of these devices. The EE stuff is only a small portion of the design. Also, unless these devices are small and portable, no one is going to want to carry one. That aside, I would try to keep the design simple. Transformer couple the phone line and use an op-amp buffer to connect it to a micro controller. I'm not sure on the exact voltages, but I believe that a POTS system runs at up to around 50v, so a step down would almost certainly be necessary. A decent micro should be able to generate and decode DTMF tones. It would also allow for easier upgrading and bug fixes, as well as interface to an RF module.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2009 05:43
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:And none of this really addresses my original question, which is how I could interface a device to an existing phone line on the hardware level. I'm open to other means of transmitting data, but a few acronyms don't help me. I need to know more specifically how the interface might work. I might be misunderstanding what you are asking for here, so excuse me if this is beside the point. If all you want to do is be able to listen and send in parallel with the original phone line I think you can just patch onto the same line as the phone (that is literally just wire your cable and ground to the same wires as the original.) You will have to find out about the levels and such involved, but more than one reciever/transmitter can be tied into one phone line. I just remember being a kid, and we had 2 phones and one line, so if you picked up both phones they would both be connected to both eachother and the outside caller.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2009 06:42
|
|
|
I'm trying to figure out how to do this very simple thing and I was hoping y'all could help me stop burning voltage regulators. I have a 4D cell battery pack I'm using as a USB charger. But they rapidly fall under the 5 volts USB is rated at, and after that, charging is awfully slow. How do I maintain a steady 5v output while the input ranges from 6V down to 2 or 3V?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2009 08:05
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:And none of this really addresses my original question, which is how I could interface a device to an existing phone line on the hardware level. I'm open to other means of transmitting data, but a few acronyms don't help me. I need to know more specifically how the interface might work. Well for starters get ready to enter the world of regulation compliance. You can't hook up just any old circuit to POTS lines. The FCC has strict requirements as to what can be hooked up. Most likely you will need to purchase a DAA and hang your circuit off of that. Cermetek makes some. Next you are going to need to run the proposed design across the schools attorney. I can guarantee that there are state regulations in your area about how safety systems like this have to function. Most likely you could just use a PIC w/ an internal DAC, a digital wireless reciever that can hook up to the pic over SPI and a power supply. Couple that to the DAA with a transformer. That said, this is a bad idea. You are making poor assumptions that potentially involve peoples lives. Delaying calls from phones or fobs presents avenues that people could use to disable the emergency system. Or poor design could end up delaying getting aid to someone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2009 08:40
|
|
|
rotor posted:I'm trying to figure out how to do this very simple thing and I was hoping y'all could help me stop burning voltage regulators. You need to put together a simple switching converter to do something like that. A linear regulator can only lower a voltage, not raise it. Maxim makes quite a few regulators of various kinds. I'd say put the batteries in in parallel-series pattern so you have about 2.5 volts coming off the pack at full charge. Use a MAX1705 to boost it up to 5v.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2009 09:00
|
|
|
Argh, some fucker in the shop lost the cap to the flux and then someone else left it near the drill press. Which someone else was using to drill aluminum. Guess what happens when you solder a circuit using conductive flux?   
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2009 09:11
|
|
|
ValhallaSmith posted:Well for starters get ready to enter the world of regulation compliance. You can't hook up just any old circuit to POTS lines. The FCC has strict requirements as to what can be hooked up. quote:Most likely you will need to purchase a DAA and hang your circuit off of that. quote:Next you are going to need to run the proposed design across the schools attorney. I can guarantee that there are state regulations in your area about how safety systems like this have to function. quote:Most likely you could just use a PIC w/ an internal DAC, a digital wireless reciever that can hook up to the pic over SPI and a power supply. Couple that to the DAA with a transformer. quote:That said, this is a bad idea. You are making poor assumptions that potentially involve peoples lives. Delaying calls from phones or fobs presents avenues that people could use to disable the emergency system. Or poor design could end up delaying getting aid to someone. I can't see how you could be seeing this as being less safe than the current system. It reminds me of people who used to say "don't use seatbelts, you might get tangled up and die!" which, even if true, is a problem that is completely dwarfed by the benefits. You're talking about delaying alarms from keyfobs, but without this system, those alarms wouldn't even happen. The dispatchers told me that at least 80% of calls they get from emergency towers are from people reporting incidents that already happen, meaning they've been pretty useless as a preventative measure. That's what this project addresses. Not only can students alert authorities from anywhere, inconspicuously and easily, but the network nodes contain alarms to deter offenders. I can't see how this is a net loss of safety.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2009 15:36
|
|
|
Mill Town posted:Argh, some fucker in the shop lost the cap to the flux and then someone else left it near the drill press. Which someone else was using to drill aluminum. aaaaaaaaaah christ ValhallaSmith posted:You need to put together a simple switching converter to do something like that. A linear regulator can only lower a voltage, not raise it. Maxim makes quite a few regulators of various kinds. I'd say put the batteries in in parallel-series pattern so you have about 2.5 volts coming off the pack at full charge. Use a MAX1705 to boost it up to 5v. In order to regulate a voltage from a source voltage that can drift both above and below the output, you need some fairly specialized circuitry called a buck-boost converter. Basically it is a single circuit that can change its function from buck to boost during operation. However, many devices claim to be buck-boost, but are not. Most of them are devices that can be configured as either buck or boost, depending on how the circuit is built, but they can only do one function once built. True buck boost devices usually use synchronous rectification (a cool technique that also makes incredibly high efficiency possible). Buck boost converters are pretty specialized though. I doubt you could even find a suitable one that isn't in a smd package. ValhallaSmith's idea is probably your best bet. Put the batteries in a parallel-serial combination so their voltage is always less than the desired output, then use a common boost converter IC to step up the voltage. Many boost converters can operate from down to a volt, some even less. ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Feb 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2009 15:38
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:aaaaaaaaaah christ The best part was how when I took it off the bench and tested for shorts, I didn't find them. Then I'd put it back down (on a piece of paper to make sure I wasn't touching any scraps on the bench) and power it up, and it'd act fine for a few seconds until all the output transistors just turned on by themselves, and a few seconds later it would start smoking again. Or sometimes it would see a flash of light coming through the board and unplug it right away. It wasn't until I started thinking about why there were so many bits of crap in the flux that I figured out what was going on. In related questions, what's the best way to get flux off a board? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2009 20:23
|
|
|
Mill Town posted:In related questions, what's the best way to get flux off a board? Tetraflouride works well if you don't mind cancer. You can also buy aerosol cans of flux remover that are safer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2009 00:10
|
|
|
I've switched over to water soluble flux pens because of crap like that, and wash all my boards after each solder session. I think it's harder on the boards, but it keeps stupid crap from happening...
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2009 00:46
|
|
|
jG1ALlFOeB1N6JQ2GC7g 2HF3TxmnH4yXChuCyxWZ 1oUSXqGsfHRVGEUqHv9P jC0Jp9hUTNMK0BuzKVQA b6m4s2LG68Lbph8FrH9m TN9gDfMUrraGymHVMx0n LrRZwJOmNoYLc0byfcvA F8a6zdv75xIoDoaRWxFN BoLMyJdfirIBtGlsQdmo dLajTMVDhCRhGXOrLueK Plasmafountain fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Feb 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2009 18:59
|
|
|
Arduino isn't a microcontroller, it's actually a development board for an Atmel AVR microcontroller (AtMega88). Think of it as an AVR with training wheels - the microcontroller on the board is preflashed with a bootloader and the board itself contains a hardware interface for putting your program on it. It also has an oscillator, voltage regulator, and connects all the I/O pins to breakout headers. The "programming language" it uses is actually C with some headers automatically included. PICAXEs are similar in concept but are based off of Microchip's PIC series. Arduino boards are great for beginners, and are fairly popular, but if you want to do something more hardcore later on you'll want to start working with AVRs or PICs without the training wheels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2009 19:13
|
|
|
Honestly I'm in an electronics club now, and we're using Arduinos to do tons of things that 'beginner' boards just shouldn't be able to do (admittedly doing tons of register manipulation). You're limited to some pretty puny microcontrollers but it's really nice that you can just start coding and not worry about having to set everything up each time. That and for us, we can get 'newbies' started out doing stuff and let the veterans work on the crazy complicated stuff. That and the sheer number of libraries available for the Arduinos is amazing. Just about anything you want to do there's example code for (cept high-speed SPI, that's a bitch). So yeah, they're slow dogs and pretty underpowered, but never underestimate the power of a huge library to work from and a system where a lot of the hard work is done for you (correctly).
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2009 22:14
|
|
|
It's for beginners, but it's nowhere close to underpowered. Not like BASIC stamps, ugh. I personally favour DIY solutions because I'm into PICs, and the PIC product line is downright massive. There's something for everything, and they're dirt-cheap, easy to wire up, and extremely easy to program in assembly (which is an oxymoron on some other platforms). Of course, until you know what you should be looking for in a microcontroller, you should go for a learning system like the Arduino or PICAXE. And even though I like PICs I'm going to have ot recommend the Arduino since it has so much support available.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2009 22:20
|
|
|
I'm used to Blackfins and ARM7s being my metric for 'powerful', so they're underpowered by my standards, but compared to generic PIC16s and whatnot yeah they're plenty beefy. PICs are really good to learn too, since they're absofreakinglutely everywhere and super super cheap. Any legitimate project that's going to be produced in large quantities should favor a PIC or AVR on bare metal over Arduino or something, and use Arduinos/PICAXEs as prototyping environments. For just screwing around, kinda depends on your personal views, do you like talking to the bare metal or do you just want to be up fast. I do both, so I guess I'm just doubly crazy...
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2009 22:33
|
|
|
I tried to learn PIC programming, but having to buy a separate programmer and the language scared me away. Wish I had heard about PICAXE at that time. Then I discovered arduino and it's been bliss ever since. Plug it in and start typing away with regular libc support. Where speed is needed you can bypass the wiring lib or go straight to assembly. With regards to cost the cheapest solution is to build it yourself: the atmega IC (168V/L) is $5 and the USB interface is $7. Add a couple of capacitors, a crystal, and you're done 
Cross_ fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Feb 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2009 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
Arduinos are certainly better than STAMPs by a long shot. In general they're find as long as you don't mind the loss of certain I/O pins and you don't need fast serial communication. Is it possible to mix assembly in with arduino code? Always wanted to try it, since it would make them a lot more flexible. I'm also starting to hit the peak of what the midline atmel chips can do (I've been using the mega series). They've got new stuff out like the picopower devices which are pretty impressive, and Xmega is supposedly coming soon, but I really should look into a 32 bit architecture like blackfins or ARMs (not to mention FPGAs). Thing is at that point using assembly would become unbearable, so I'd really have to teach myself a bunch of computer science crap to properly utilize them. Also I really need to learn Labview, it's such a great program.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2009 15:47
|
|