Anybody want to bid a circuit design?

David Eather · Dec 7, 2012

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 03:06:51 +1000, David Eather <eather@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 09:55:45 +1000, Daniel Pitts
newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> wrote:

On 12/6/12 3:50 PM, etpm@whidbey.com wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:42:42 -0800, Daniel Pitts
newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> wrote:

On 12/6/12 2:36 PM, etpm@whidbey.com wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:20:07 -0800, Daniel Pitts
newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> wrote:

On 12/6/12 9:12 AM, etpm@whidbey.com wrote:
I'm working on a project for myself. I need a circuit that will
output
several 5 volt pulses on one output then stop the pulses and
output 5
volts on another output constantly as long as a switch is on. The
number of pulses needs to be adjustable with a pot. The range of
pulses will be from two to perhaps twenty. If the project works out
then I will hopefully sell several hundred units. So I need to be
able
to send the circuit to a circuit board house, maybe even have them
populated and soldered into a readymade part for me. Keep that in
mind
when bidding on the job.
Thanks,
Eric Snow,
E T Precision Machine

The circuit is called an Arduino, the rest is software ;-)
I have an Arduino and have played with it. But it is too expensive
and
does way too much. I'm thinking the circuit will need a
microcontroller, voltage regulator, relay, pot, and maybe a couple
passive devices.
Eric

Ah, so you have price constraints. That is important to include in
your
requirements.

What is your target cost-per-unit?
Less than 5 US dollars per unit for 100 units if I do the assembly and
soldering.

I haven't even been able to find a place that will fab the circuit
board for that price at that volume.

http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/fusion-pcb-service-p-835.html

Tim Wescott · Dec 7, 2012

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 03:00:44 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

wrote in message news:9b72c8pjuknp5bukusjhk43tdat4abe66p@4ax.com...

I have an Arduino and have played with it. But it is too expensive and
does way too much. I'm thinking the circuit will need a
microcontroller, voltage regulator, relay, pot, and maybe a couple
passive devices.

Making a small PCB for about $1/each is not a problem. I had some
(1"x2") made by www.pcbcart.com that were panelized in a 5x10 matrix
with scored lines to break apart.

I have a little demo board module from Microchip with a PIC10F322 which
costs less than $1 and has enough IO for what you want. The demo board
has a switch, a pot, and two LEDs with PWM dimming. Otherwise a
PIC12F676 or similar is an 8 pin device that's about $1.20. The only
items with significant cost will be your relay and pot, depending on
what you actually want and need. You might be able to use an
optoisolator instead of the relay.

The boards are still available for about $12:
http://www.microchipdirect.com/ProductDetails.aspx?
Catalog=BuyMicrochip&Category=General%20Purpose&mid=1&treeid=6
See AC103011 - PIC10F32x Development Board (at the bottom of the page)

My email is valid, so you are welcome to contact me there.

Paul
www.pstech-inc.com

Oh cool -- that looks like a nice step beyond batchpcb (batchpcb is
really aimed at onesie-twosie stuff).

I've been playing with what one might do with this, and think my estimate
of $15.00 for the BOM (even before I knew of pcbcart.com) was a bit
excessive. But then, that depends on whether things like relays and
circuit protection devices and all of that are really required, or if
they can be left out.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Jasen Betts · Dec 8, 2012

On 2012-12-06, etpm@whidbey.com <etpm@whidbey.com> wrote:

I'm working on a project for myself. I need a circuit that will output
several 5 volt pulses on one output then stop the pulses and output 5
volts on another output constantly as long as a switch is on. The
number of pulses needs to be adjustable with a pot. The range of
pulses will be from two to perhaps twenty. If the project works out
then I will hopefully sell several hundred units. So I need to be able
to send the circuit to a circuit board house, maybe even have them
populated and soldered into a readymade part for me. Keep that in mind
when bidding on the job.
Thanks,
Eric Snow,
E T Precision Machine

a couple of 555s and a few resistors and capacitors, under $1 in parts
excluding pot and board (matchbox sized, or smaller)

--
ââ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Jasen Betts · Dec 8, 2012

On 2012-12-07, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 20:01:17 -0600, John Fields

1. The maximum number of pulses output?
2. The expected rise and fall times of the pulse edges?
3. The pulse repetition frequency?
3. The pulse duty cycle?

By golly! Looks like a 555 to me >:-}

Two. one to generate pulses and the other to wait when N pulses go
out port 'A' and to drive port 'B', and shut doen the pulse generator.

The pot controls either the pulse rate of the first or the delay time
of the second,

--
ââ 100% natural

Jim Thompson · Dec 8, 2012

On 8 Dec 2012 12:54:41 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2012-12-07, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 20:01:17 -0600, John Fields

1. The maximum number of pulses output?
2. The expected rise and fall times of the pulse edges?
3. The pulse repetition frequency?
3. The pulse duty cycle?

By golly! Looks like a 555 to me >:-}

Two. one to generate pulses and the other to wait when N pulses go
out port 'A' and to drive port 'B', and shut doen the pulse generator.

The pot controls either the pulse rate of the first or the delay time
of the second,

P E Schoen · Dec 9, 2012

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
news:3po6c8t717jl92qdfiv5pfcr2lus0pt69a@4ax.com...

On 8 Dec 2012 12:54:41 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

Two. one to generate pulses and the other to wait when N pulses go
out port 'A' and to drive port 'B', and shut doen the pulse generator.

The pot controls either the pulse rate of the first or the delay time
of the second,

Yep, And maybe a little jelly-bean glue-logic for the sequencing.

By the time you do that, you will have already far surpassed the simplicity,
elegance, and cost of a $0.50 microcontroller. The only possible advantage
of a 555 is its output drive capability. Of course if all you know is how to
swing an antique hammer, one might never even consider the advantages of a
screwgun.

Paul

Michael A. Terrell · Dec 9, 2012

P E Schoen wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
news:3po6c8t717jl92qdfiv5pfcr2lus0pt69a@4ax.com...

On 8 Dec 2012 12:54:41 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

Two. one to generate pulses and the other to wait when N pulses go
out port 'A' and to drive port 'B', and shut doen the pulse generator.

The pot controls either the pulse rate of the first or the delay time
of the second,

Yep, And maybe a little jelly-bean glue-logic for the sequencing.

By the time you do that, you will have already far surpassed the simplicity,
elegance, and cost of a $0.50 microcontroller. The only possible advantage
of a 555 is its output drive capability. Of course if all you know is how to
swing an antique hammer, one might never even consider the advantages of a
screwgun.

Dumbass. If the OP had the tools and knew how to program a 50 cent
processor, he wouldn't be asking for help on news:sci.electronics.basics

P E Schoen · Dec 9, 2012

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:aN2dnaZEZbWfglnNnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Dumbass. If the OP had the tools and knew how to program a 50 cent
processor, he wouldn't be asking for help on news:sci.electronics.basics

Before you start spouting off, you should pay more attention. The OP has
already used an Arduino and declared it to be too expensive with more
features than needed. The tools for the PIC10F322 consist of a $45 PICkit3
and the $12 demo board. I was referring to Jim Thompson's love of the
ancient 555 which he likes to squeeze into any design, rather than go with
more modern (and better) technology.

So, right back atcha!

Paul

Michael A. Terrell · Dec 9, 2012

P E Schoen wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:aN2dnaZEZbWfglnNnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Dumbass. If the OP had the tools and knew how to program a 50 cent
processor, he wouldn't be asking for help on news:sci.electronics.basics

Before you start spouting off, you should pay more attention. The OP has
already used an Arduino and declared it to be too expensive with more
features than needed. The tools for the PIC10F322 consist of a $45 PICkit3
and the $12 demo board. I was referring to Jim Thompson's love of the
ancient 555 which he likes to squeeze into any design, rather than go with
more modern (and better) technology.

When has Jim posted a design with a 555? It's John Fields who
suggests designs using them, to people without the skills to design and
program something from scratch. Unless the OP plans on doing a lot of
design with PICs, it's a waste of time to learn to program them for such
a small projected run of boards. Your attitude stinks. Modern isn't
always better. In some cases, it isn't worth a damn.

So, right back atcha!

before you spout off. Using the Arduino has nothing to do with
programming a 50 cent PIC processor. I have a couple mega 2560 Ardunio,
and it's nothing like building a controller from scratch & writing the
code. The Arduino uses what they refer to as 'Sketches' or .pde files.
From what I see online most users can't even port a sketch from on board
to another let alone write one from scratch. I bought the Mega boards
to see if they would be useful, but decided to use some Atmel chips on
custom boards instead.

I'll admit that most of my machine language work was with 6502/6510
and 6803 processors.

The code for the 6502/6510 was written byte at a time, without a
compiler. The code for the 6803 was a simple compiled program that took
9600,8,N,1 serial to control a group of six PIO chips in a programmable
test fixture where a Qbasic program let you specify the port, direction
& either load the data or read the results. It took a manual test from
12 man hours to 30 seconds, and gave the tech pointers on what to look
for at each known failure. It was the inteface board between the front
panel & all the modules in a $20,000 telemetry receiver. It took longer
to plug in all the cables than to run the actual tests.

P E Schoen · Dec 9, 2012

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:nbmdnZcAfuLu21nNnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

When has Jim posted a design with a 555? It's John Fields who
suggests designs using them, to people without the skills to design and
program something from scratch. Unless the OP plans on doing a lot of
design with PICs, it's a waste of time to learn to program them for such
a small projected run of boards. Your attitude stinks. Modern isn't
always better. In some cases, it isn't worth a damn.

Jim suggested a 555 or this. But it needs at least two of them or a 556,
plus "glue" logic and various other components for timing. If the customers
decide that a different sequence is desired, they're SOL unless they buy new
ones or change components or add cuts and jumpers. The OP has asked for
help, and apparently has some experience with programming. Or I could do it
for him.

before you spout off. Using the Arduino has nothing to do with
programming a 50 cent PIC processor. I have a couple mega 2560
Ardunio, and it's nothing like building a controller from scratch &
writing the code. The Arduino uses what they refer to as 'Sketches'
or .pde files.
From what I see online most users can't even port a sketch from on
board to another let alone write one from scratch. I bought the
Mega boards to see if they would be useful, but decided to use
some Atmel chips on custom boards instead.

I'll admit that most of my machine language work was with 6502/6510
and 6803 processors.

The code for the 6502/6510 was written byte at a time, without a
compiler. The code for the 6803 was a simple compiled program that
took 9600,8,N,1 serial to control a group of six PIO chips in a
programmable test fixture where a Qbasic program let you specify
the port, direction & either load the data or read the results. It took
a manual test from 12 man hours to 30 seconds, and gave the tech
pointers on what to look for at each known failure. It was the inteface
board between the front panel & all the modules in a $20,000 telemetry
receiver. It took longer to plug in all the cables than to run the actual
tests.

I could say "yawn", but I have no desire to belittle your accomplishments.
However, I have had extensive experience with programming of microprocessors
such as the 8085 and Z80. At that time, around 1985, it was pretty much all
assembly code. These projects involved thousands of lines of code, and used
two or more 2764 EPROMs. Starting around 2002 I started using Microchip PICs
for various projects, and I attended two of their MASTERs conferences in
Arizona. I have designed simple circuits as well as more complex projects
using serial communications and USB.

The OP's application seems to be a very simple project that would take no
more than about a day to design, and a few hours more to do the PC boards. I
usually work with small production runs such as this, so I'm confident that
I can help him. It's probably not a source of much money, but then again
it's only a few days of part time work.

Paul

Michael A. Terrell · Dec 9, 2012

P E Schoen wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:nbmdnZcAfuLu21nNnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

When has Jim posted a design with a 555? It's John Fields who
suggests designs using them, to people without the skills to design and
program something from scratch. Unless the OP plans on doing a lot of
design with PICs, it's a waste of time to learn to program them for such
a small projected run of boards. Your attitude stinks. Modern isn't
always better. In some cases, it isn't worth a damn.

Jim suggested a 555 or this. But it needs at least two of them or a 556,
plus "glue" logic and various other components for timing.

No, it doesn't. The 555 would be the adjustable clock. A couple
Exclusive OR gates, a flip-flop and a settable counter IC could provide
the two outputs as desired, and at the same clock rate. The counter
would not only drive the output through the EXOR gates, but toggle the
flipflop. Yes, it can be softeware and a processor, but people will
never learn how simplew things work without some hands on design with
the basic components. It's like people who jump in with both hfeet with
Spice, then can't understtand why their perfect design does nothing but
smoke. Have you done everyting in software for so long that you can't
see a simple design in your head? 30 years ago, i needed an electronic
lock. I used a single 4017 for a five digit lock. You had to select the
right digit at each step or it rested the counter & timed out for 15
secoonds. A low power switching transistor drove a low power relay, end
everything fit on the back of the 16 button non-matrix surplus keypad.
Total cost was about 70 cents, anbd the whole project took onder 30
minutes.

Simple designs should stay that way.

If the customers
decide that a different sequence is desired, they're SOL unless they buy new
ones or change components or add cuts and jumpers. The OP has asked for
help, and apparently has some experience with programming. Or I could do it
for him.

Then do it, don't just say that you can.

before you spout off. Using the Arduino has nothing to do with
programming a 50 cent PIC processor. I have a couple mega 2560
Ardunio, and it's nothing like building a controller from scratch &
writing the code. The Arduino uses what they refer to as 'Sketches'
or .pde files.
From what I see online most users can't even port a sketch from on
board to another let alone write one from scratch. I bought the
Mega boards to see if they would be useful, but decided to use
some Atmel chips on custom boards instead.

I'll admit that most of my machine language work was with 6502/6510
and 6803 processors.

The code for the 6502/6510 was written byte at a time, without a
compiler. The code for the 6803 was a simple compiled program that
took 9600,8,N,1 serial to control a group of six PIO chips in a
programmable test fixture where a Qbasic program let you specify
the port, direction & either load the data or read the results. It took
a manual test from 12 man hours to 30 seconds, and gave the tech
pointers on what to look for at each known failure. It was the inteface
board between the front panel & all the modules in a $20,000 telemetry
receiver. It took longer to plug in all the cables than to run the actual
tests.

I could say "yawn", but I have no desire to belittle your accomplishments.

Go ahead and yawn your head off, I don't really care. Programing
wasn't part of my job. I did it because the one who was assigned the
the task didn't do it on time. I also wrote a decomplier for the 6502
for my own use on the old Commodore computers and disk drives.

However, I have had extensive experience with programming of microprocessors
such as the 8085 and Z80. At that time, around 1985, it was pretty much all
assembly code. These projects involved thousands of lines of code, and used
two or more 2764 EPROMs. Starting around 2002 I started using Microchip PICs
for various projects, and I attended two of their MASTERs conferences in
Arizona. I have designed simple circuits as well as more complex projects
using serial communications and USB.

Assembly isn't machine code. You let the assembler crunch your code
to spit out machine code. Don't confuse people who have never written
any code.

I did some work with both the 8085 and Z80, but not enough to ever
like them. I really didn't like their support chips.

The OP's application seems to be a very simple project that would take no
more than about a day to design, and a few hours more to do the PC boards. I
usually work with small production runs such as this, so I'm confident that
I can help him. It's probably not a source of much money, but then again
it's only a few days of part time work.

Jasen Betts · Dec 9, 2012

On 2012-12-09, P E Schoen <paul@peschoen.com> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
news:3po6c8t717jl92qdfiv5pfcr2lus0pt69a@4ax.com...

On 8 Dec 2012 12:54:41 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

Two. one to generate pulses and the other to wait when N pulses go
out port 'A' and to drive port 'B', and shut doen the pulse generator.

The pot controls either the pulse rate of the first or the delay time
of the second,

Yep, And maybe a little jelly-bean glue-logic for the sequencing.

By the time you do that, you will have already far surpassed the simplicity,
elegance, and cost of a $0.50 microcontroller.

555s were $0.13 by the 100 last time I looked.

The only possible advantage
of a 555 is its output drive capability.

power supply range may help too, but if he wants 5V he can probably
provide a 5V supply.

--
ââ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Jasen Betts · Dec 9, 2012

On 2012-12-09, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

P E Schoen wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:nbmdnZcAfuLu21nNnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

When has Jim posted a design with a 555? It's John Fields who
suggests designs using them, to people without the skills to design and
program something from scratch. Unless the OP plans on doing a lot of
design with PICs, it's a waste of time to learn to program them for such
a small projected run of boards. Your attitude stinks. Modern isn't
always better. In some cases, it isn't worth a damn.

Jim suggested a 555 or this. But it needs at least two of them or a 556,
plus "glue" logic and various other components for timing.

No, it doesn't. The 555 would be the adjustable clock. A couple
Exclusive OR gates, a flip-flop and a settable counter IC could provide
the two outputs as desired, and at the same clock rate. The counter
would not only drive the output through the EXOR gates, but toggle the
flipflop.

you've got a 5 bit counter that responds to a potentiometer for its
limit?

Simple designs should stay that way.

seriously it's much easier to just use 2 555s and a few passive
components.

--
ââ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

David Eather · Dec 9, 2012

On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:06:10 +1000, Michael A. Terrell
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

P E Schoen wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:aN2dnaZEZbWfglnNnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Dumbass. If the OP had the tools and knew how to program a 50 cent
processor, he wouldn't be asking for help on
news:sci.electronics.basics

Before you start spouting off, you should pay more attention. The OP has
already used an Arduino and declared it to be too expensive with more
features than needed. The tools for the PIC10F322 consist of a $45
PICkit3
and the $12 demo board. I was referring to Jim Thompson's love of the
ancient 555 which he likes to squeeze into any design, rather than go
with
more modern (and better) technology.

When has Jim posted a design with a 555? It's John Fields who
suggests designs using them, to people without the skills to design and
program something from scratch. Unless the OP plans on doing a lot of
design with PICs, it's a waste of time to learn to program them for such
a small projected run of boards. Your attitude stinks. Modern isn't
always better. In some cases, it isn't worth a damn.

So, right back atcha!

before you spout off. Using the Arduino has nothing to do with
programming a 50 cent PIC processor. ...

He could use a demo/trial version of PICBASIC Pro or similar - it is well
within his budget and the 30 or 40 line code limitation is not going to be
an issue. Makes a PIC very easy to program.

Dimitrij Klingbeil · Dec 9, 2012

<etpm@whidbey.com> wrote in message
news:srj1c8h21soct9bfa5kg1q3jpudue69k9p@4ax.com...

I'm working on a project for myself. I need a circuit that will output
several 5 volt pulses on one output then stop the pulses and output 5
volts on another output constantly as long as a switch is on. The
number of pulses needs to be adjustable with a pot. The range of
pulses will be from two to perhaps twenty. If the project works out
then I will hopefully sell several hundred units. So I need to be able
to send the circuit to a circuit board house, maybe even have them
populated and soldered into a readymade part for me. Keep that in mind
when bidding on the job.
Thanks,
Eric Snow,
E T Precision Machine

Hello Eric

Have a look at this simple pulser made from 2 NE555 ICs (LTSpice schematic).

There are two 555 ICs, just because LTSpice has a model for it. In a real
device, you'll likely want to use a 556 IC (dual 555 in a package) instead.

The values of some passive components may need a little "polishing" too.

It's not completely finished for use in a product (may need an inverter at
the output, depending on the polarity you need, or a driver). If it needs
industrial robustness (EMC-wise, withstand ESD or even surge at the
outputs),
that would mean transient suppressors and even more passive components.

Also a reverse polarity protection diode could be a good idea if the power
is
provided by a plug-in power supply or a battery, giving the user a chance to
carelessly mess up the polarity.

Regards
Dimitrij

--- cut here for the LTSpice file ---

Version 4
SHEET 1 2384 680
WIRE -624 -512 -720 -512
WIRE -288 -512 -624 -512
WIRE 208 -512 -288 -512
WIRE 336 -512 208 -512
WIRE 720 -512 336 -512
WIRE 864 -512 720 -512
WIRE 1184 -512 864 -512
WIRE -288 -448 -288 -512
WIRE 720 -432 720 -512
WIRE 336 -400 336 -512
WIRE -192 -320 -448 -320
WIRE 208 -320 208 -512
WIRE 208 -320 32 -320
WIRE 1248 -304 592 -304
WIRE -192 -256 -240 -256
WIRE 336 -256 336 -320
WIRE 336 -256 32 -256
WIRE 720 -256 720 -352
WIRE 816 -256 720 -256
WIRE -192 -192 -352 -192
WIRE 160 -192 32 -192
WIRE 928 -192 720 -192
WIRE 1184 -192 1184 -512
WIRE 1184 -192 1152 -192
WIRE 336 -176 336 -256
WIRE -720 -144 -720 -512
WIRE -288 -128 -288 -368
WIRE -192 -128 -288 -128
WIRE 80 -128 32 -128
WIRE 816 -128 816 -256
WIRE 928 -128 816 -128
WIRE 1248 -128 1248 -304
WIRE 1248 -128 1152 -128
WIRE -624 -64 -624 -512
WIRE 928 -64 896 -64
WIRE 1248 -64 1152 -64
WIRE -240 -48 -240 -256
WIRE 160 -48 160 -192
WIRE 160 -48 -240 -48
WIRE 336 -48 336 -96
WIRE 336 -48 160 -48
WIRE -288 0 -288 -128
WIRE 592 0 592 -304
WIRE 592 0 -288 0
WIRE 864 0 864 -512
WIRE 928 0 864 0
WIRE 1344 0 1152 0
WIRE 1360 0 1344 0
WIRE 1520 0 1440 0
WIRE 1728 0 1600 0
WIRE 1248 112 1248 -64
WIRE 1248 112 592 112
WIRE -288 144 -288 0
WIRE 160 160 160 -48
WIRE 896 192 896 -64
WIRE 1504 192 896 192
WIRE 464 240 416 240
WIRE 592 240 592 112
WIRE 592 240 528 240
WIRE 80 256 80 -128
WIRE 592 272 592 240
WIRE 816 288 816 -128
WIRE 1344 336 1344 0
WIRE -352 384 -352 -192
WIRE 224 384 -352 384
WIRE 416 384 416 240
WIRE 416 384 368 384
WIRE 464 384 416 384
WIRE 592 384 592 336
WIRE 592 384 528 384
WIRE -720 464 -720 -64
WIRE -624 464 -624 0
WIRE -624 464 -720 464
WIRE -448 464 -448 -320
WIRE -448 464 -624 464
WIRE -288 464 -288 208
WIRE -288 464 -448 464
WIRE 80 464 80 320
WIRE 80 464 -288 464
WIRE 160 464 160 224
WIRE 160 464 80 464
WIRE 592 464 592 384
WIRE 592 464 160 464
WIRE 720 464 720 -192
WIRE 720 464 592 464
WIRE 816 464 816 352
WIRE 816 464 720 464
WIRE 1344 464 1344 400
WIRE 1344 464 816 464
WIRE 1728 464 1728 0
WIRE 1728 464 1344 464
WIRE -720 560 -720 464
WIRE -352 560 -352 384
WIRE 1504 560 -352 560
FLAG -720 560 0
FLAG 1504 192 OUTB
FLAG 1504 560 OUTA
SYMBOL Misc\\NE555 -80 -224 R0
SYMATTR InstName U1
SYMBOL Misc\\NE555 1040 -96 R0
SYMATTR InstName U2
SYMBOL voltage -720 -160 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 39 24 44 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 5
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=100m
SYMBOL cap -640 -64 R0
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 1ľ
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=10m
SYMBOL cap 288 368 R90
WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value 22n
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=10m
SYMBOL res 384 368 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 100
SYMBOL schottky 528 368 R90
WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName D1
SYMATTR Value BAT54
SYMATTR Description Diode
SYMATTR Type diode
SYMBOL schottky 464 256 R270
WINDOW 0 32 32 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 0 32 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName D2
SYMATTR Value BAT54
SYMATTR Description Diode
SYMATTR Type diode
SYMBOL cap 576 272 R0
SYMATTR InstName C3
SYMATTR Value 470n
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=10m
SYMBOL cap 800 288 R0
SYMATTR InstName C4
SYMATTR Value 100n
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=10m
SYMBOL res 704 -448 R0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 4k7
SYMBOL res 1456 -16 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 470
SYMBOL res 1616 -16 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName R4
SYMATTR Value 47k
SYMBOL cap 1328 336 R0
SYMATTR InstName C5
SYMATTR Value 10n
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=10m
SYMBOL cap 144 160 R0
SYMATTR InstName C6
SYMATTR Value 2ľ2
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=10m
SYMBOL res 320 -192 R0
SYMATTR InstName R5
SYMATTR Value 47k
SYMBOL res 320 -416 R0
SYMATTR InstName R6
SYMATTR Value 2k2
SYMBOL cap 64 256 R0
SYMATTR InstName C7
SYMATTR Value 10n
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=10m
SYMBOL res -304 -464 R0
SYMATTR InstName R7
SYMATTR Value 4k7
SYMBOL cap -304 144 R0
SYMATTR InstName C8
SYMATTR Value 100n
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=10m
TEXT -754 622 Left 2 !.tran 10 startup uic
TEXT 1352 -104 Left 3 ;R4 is an approx 50K potentiometer (audio taper),\nit
controls the number of pulses generated.
TEXT 1352 -472 Left 3 ;Put switch in series with the power source
TEXT 1352 -352 Left 3 ;Use NC7SC125 or similar line drivers\nto drive the
outputs, invert if needed.
TEXT 1352 -232 Left 3 ;Adjust pulse frequency with C6 and R5.\nUse a pot
plus 4k7 for R5 if needed.

Jim Thompson · Dec 9, 2012

On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 03:06:10 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

P E Schoen wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:aN2dnaZEZbWfglnNnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Dumbass. If the OP had the tools and knew how to program a 50 cent
processor, he wouldn't be asking for help on news:sci.electronics.basics

Before you start spouting off, you should pay more attention. The OP has
already used an Arduino and declared it to be too expensive with more
features than needed. The tools for the PIC10F322 consist of a $45 PICkit3
and the $12 demo board. I was referring to Jim Thompson's love of the
ancient 555 which he likes to squeeze into any design, rather than go with
more modern (and better) technology.

When has Jim posted a design with a 555? It's John Fields who
suggests designs using them, to people without the skills to design and
program something from scratch. Unless the OP plans on doing a lot of
design with PICs, it's a waste of time to learn to program them for such
a small projected run of boards. Your attitude stinks. Modern isn't
always better. In some cases, it isn't worth a damn.

[snip]

I only bring up the 555 because it annoys the elitist crowd so much

:-}

That elitist crowd can't really "design" anything. All they can
barely do is follow the instructions on programming some
microprocessor, if it's pretty much all pre-canned.

But the 555 is actually quite an elegant design (Hans Camenzind,
R.I.P.)

So elegant in fact, that it's trivial to design an equivalent in
modern CMOS that will do 500MHz.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Fred Abse · Dec 9, 2012

On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:08:27 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It's like people who jump in with both hfeet with Spice

Not to mention Pfeet, or LTfeet ;-)

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)

P E Schoen · Dec 9, 2012

"Jasen Betts" wrote in message news:ka1t3h$2dj$3@reversiblemaps.ath.cx...

On 2012-12-09, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

No, it doesn't. The 555 would be the adjustable clock. A couple
Exclusive OR gates, a flip-flop and a settable counter IC could provide
the two outputs as desired, and at the same clock rate. The counter
would not only drive the output through the EXOR gates, but toggle
the flipflop.

you've got a 5 bit counter that responds to a potentiometer for its
limit?

Simple designs should stay that way.

seriously it's much easier to just use 2 555s and a few passive
components.

Actually it's just more challenging to design a circuit using 555s and logic
components, and sort of a "badge of honor" to be able to do so, even if the
end result is inferior or no better than what could be done with a PIC. It's
like someone wanting to build a cabin using nothing but hand tools, like Abe
Lincoln. It may be a "noble" project and a learning (and muscle-building)
experience, but if your goal is to get the job done, there's nothing like a
chain saw.

Paul

John Fields · Dec 10, 2012

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:12:03 -0800, etpm@whidbey.com wrote:

I'm working on a project for myself. I need a circuit that will output
several 5 volt pulses on one output then stop the pulses and output 5
volts on another output constantly as long as a switch is on. The
number of pulses needs to be adjustable with a pot. The range of
pulses will be from two to perhaps twenty. If the project works out
then I will hopefully sell several hundred units. So I need to be able
to send the circuit to a circuit board house, maybe even have them
populated and soldered into a readymade part for me. Keep that in mind
when bidding on the job.
Thanks,
Eric Snow,
E T Precision Machine

---
Go to "Gated logic pulser" at alt.binaries.schematics.electronic, or
click this:

news:02bbc8dkc5cnkd3j4k5sul02587k77p4dv@4ax.com

--
JF

Michael A. Terrell · Dec 10, 2012

P E Schoen wrote:

"Jasen Betts" wrote in message news:ka1t3h$2dj$3@reversiblemaps.ath.cx...

On 2012-12-09, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

No, it doesn't. The 555 would be the adjustable clock. A couple
Exclusive OR gates, a flip-flop and a settable counter IC could provide
the two outputs as desired, and at the same clock rate. The counter
would not only drive the output through the EXOR gates, but toggle
the flipflop.

you've got a 5 bit counter that responds to a potentiometer for its
limit?

Simple designs should stay that way.

seriously it's much easier to just use 2 555s and a few passive
components.

Actually it's just more challenging to design a circuit using 555s and logic
components, and sort of a "badge of honor" to be able to do so, even if the
end result is inferior or no better than what could be done with a PIC. It's
like someone wanting to build a cabin using nothing but hand tools, like Abe
Lincoln. It may be a "noble" project and a learning (and muscle-building)
experience, but if your goal is to get the job done, there's nothing like a
chain saw.

Chainsaws are great, if all you want is firewood & sawdust.

Anybody want to bid a circuit design?

David Eather

Guest

Tim Wescott

Guest

Jasen Betts

Guest

Jasen Betts

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

P E Schoen

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

P E Schoen

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

P E Schoen

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jasen Betts

Guest

Jasen Betts

Guest

David Eather

Guest

Dimitrij Klingbeil

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Fred Abse

Guest

P E Schoen

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor