Counter ICs

[Jasen Betts]

http://www.technologystudent.com/elec1/count1.htm

Plus, take a look at pin 1 of the 555!

pin 2 is wrong as well.


I should have just posted the you-tube link, but you-tube wasn't
working here and I didn't want to post a link without seeing the content.

I should have checked this one more closely too, it had the air of
being educational; but has turned out more educational than I expected!

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

 

[John Fields]

On 5 Jul 2011 10:04:05 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

http://www.technologystudent.com/elec1/count1.htm

Plus, take a look at pin 1 of the 555!

pin 2 is wrong as well.


I should have just posted the you-tube link, but you-tube wasn't
working here and I didn't want to post a link without seeing the content.

I should have checked this one more closely too, it had the air of
being educational; but has turned out more educational than I expected!

---
True.

Perhaps those were "intentional" errors?

I emailed the author and invited him to join us here in order to
discuss the errors in his circuit but, so far, no response via PM or
USENET.

--
JF

 

[default]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:05:30 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

So to display a count of 7953 we need four, 4 bit counters:


Q1-Q4 Q1-Q4 Q1-Q4 Q1-Q4
BCD sequence:......... 0111 1001 0101 0011

Decimal displayed:.......... 7 9 5 3

Output of 4 bit counter is base-2 code.

Not sure yet how you would get to display 7953 using the 10 bit counter.

Whether in fact you would or could use 7 segment LED displays.

---
You could, but you'd have to use a one out of ten to 7 segment
decoder.

Unobtainium, I think, unless you rolled your own.

He doesn't give a lot of info on what he's ultimately after

The CD4026 does all the heavy lifting with a 7 segment output

Counter latch decoder driver in one IC with a carry out for multiple
digits, no fuss. Only downside is with a 3 milliamp drive capability
it won't blind you or might not even impress without some high
efficiency 7 segment displays

http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd4026b.pdf
--

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:53:46 -0400, default <default@nowhere.net> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:05:30 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

So to display a count of 7953 we need four, 4 bit counters:


Q1-Q4 Q1-Q4 Q1-Q4 Q1-Q4
BCD sequence:......... 0111 1001 0101 0011

Decimal displayed:.......... 7 9 5 3

Output of 4 bit counter is base-2 code.

Not sure yet how you would get to display 7953 using the 10 bit counter.

Whether in fact you would or could use 7 segment LED displays.

---
You could, but you'd have to use a one out of ten to 7 segment
decoder.

Unobtainium, I think, unless you rolled your own.

He doesn't give a lot of info on what he's ultimately after

The CD4026 does all the heavy lifting with a 7 segment output

Counter latch decoder driver in one IC with a carry out for multiple
digits, no fuss. Only downside is with a 3 milliamp drive capability
it won't blind you or might not even impress without some high
efficiency 7 segment displays

http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd4026b.pdf

Use a CPLD. Some will easily drive a 7-segment display, even multiplexed
several deep. Then he can use whatever style counter he wants. Even a direct
7-segment count is a trivial[*] exercise.

[*] learning to drive the tools is a bit more complicated.

 

[Roberto Waltman]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

you could do all of it, including getting a complete
development system and two cpus and an IDE, compiler, and
debugger and board and everything but the digits themselves
shipped to your home, all expenses paid, for $4.30 total. The
darned kit even includes pin headers and header connectors
needed to place a daughter board on top with the 7-segment
displays mounted there. Each cpu has 10 I/O pins and 1
input-only pin. Of course, there's still the coding time.
But it's not much to do that kind of work. If you wanted it,
I'd create the code for you and send it to match up with the
kit you'd buy. You would need a tiny bit of vector board and
some wire and solder and soldering iron.

https://estore.ti.com/MSP-EXP430G2-MSP430-LaunchPad-Value-Line-Development-kit-P2031.aspx

Doesn't get cheaper or easier.

More expensive, ($14.95 at Mouser,) but more oompish, (for later
projects?):

http://www.st.com/internet/evalboard/product/250990.jsp
http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/STM32L-DISCOVERY/?qs=yG9lYqi0EGF76ompnSpXbQ%3d%3d
--
Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group.
Return address is invalid ]

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 22:23:23 -0400, Roberto Waltman
<usenet@rwaltman.com> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
you could do all of it, including getting a complete
development system and two cpus and an IDE, compiler, and
debugger and board and everything but the digits themselves
shipped to your home, all expenses paid, for $4.30 total. The
darned kit even includes pin headers and header connectors
needed to place a daughter board on top with the 7-segment
displays mounted there. Each cpu has 10 I/O pins and 1
input-only pin. Of course, there's still the coding time.
But it's not much to do that kind of work. If you wanted it,
I'd create the code for you and send it to match up with the
kit you'd buy. You would need a tiny bit of vector board and
some wire and solder and soldering iron.

https://estore.ti.com/MSP-EXP430G2-MSP430-LaunchPad-Value-Line-Development-kit-P2031.aspx

Doesn't get cheaper or easier.

More expensive, ($14.95 at Mouser,) but more oompish, (for later
projects?):

http://www.st.com/internet/evalboard/product/250990.jsp
http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/STM32L-DISCOVERY/?qs=yG9lYqi0EGF76ompnSpXbQ%3d%3d

I'd say go for whatever tickles one's fancy. And experience
counts, so if one has experience with the tools then go for
that. And if one knows others with experience who can help
out? Same thing.

I have a bunch of the STM32 discovery systems. Love them.
But I have to say that the tools are a slight bit more of an
uphill learning curve for those doing any of this for the
first time. The TI "easy path" is via IAR's toolkit, which
actually is easy to get and easy to install and easy to use.
The STM32 path is complex enough that I've actually received
emails begging for help from me just to get started with the
STM32 Discovery kit. I muddled through on my own. But I've
had to help others figure things out. So I personally know
there is a difference here. So if one hasn't done either of
these, I'd recommend going with the LaunchPad. It's just
easier for neophytes.

Regarding the STM32, I installed this:

Atollic TrueSTUDIO STM32 Lite 1.4.0

and,

IAR Embedded Workbench for ARM 5.50 Kickstart

I looked at other toolkits, as well.

By the way, the source code stuff for the Discovery kit is
called:

stm32vldiscovery_package

There is a ZIP file called:

AN3268.ZIP

And a similarly named PDF file for the documentation.

Look for those, if the STM32 is the direction headed. It's
really a great device, no question. And at the $10 price I
paid for them, worth every single penny. So I agree there.

The whole area of 32-bit processors, though, can be a bit
daunting to start with. There is so much to set up. If
anyone takes a look at the provided example code used just to
set up the STM32, it's frighteningly complex. Anyone without
a fair bit of experience will find it mind-boggling. By
comparison, the MSP430 is very much less complex to get going
and working well.

Final note. The OP wasn't really talking about using a
micro, at all, if I recall. So while using a micro is
probably the "right way" to do this, it does also require
skills and background and tools that may not be necessary
with a hardware-only solution.

Jon

 

[Roberto Waltman]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

...
The whole area of 32-bit processors, though, can be a bit
daunting to start with. There is so much to set up. If
anyone takes a look at the provided example code used just to
set up the STM32, it's frighteningly complex. Anyone without
a fair bit of experience will find it mind-boggling. By
comparison, the MSP430 is very much less complex to get going
and working well.

Final note. The OP wasn't really talking about using a
micro, at all, if I recall. So while using a micro is
probably the "right way" to do this, it does also require
skills and background and tools that may not be necessary
with a hardware-only solution.

All valid points - I tend to forget about the learning curve, since I
use the STM32 family + IAR at work.
--
Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group.
Return address is invalid ]

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:22:24 -0400, Roberto Waltman
<usenet@rwaltman.com> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
...
The whole area of 32-bit processors, though, can be a bit
daunting to start with. There is so much to set up. If
anyone takes a look at the provided example code used just to
set up the STM32, it's frighteningly complex. Anyone without
a fair bit of experience will find it mind-boggling. By
comparison, the MSP430 is very much less complex to get going
and working well.

Final note. The OP wasn't really talking about using a
micro, at all, if I recall. So while using a micro is
probably the "right way" to do this, it does also require
skills and background and tools that may not be necessary
with a hardware-only solution.

All valid points - I tend to forget about the learning curve, since I
use the STM32 family + IAR at work.

I had to laugh when I read your comment here.

I just cannot possibly forget the learning curves I've had on
most 32-bit and 64-bit processors I've used. I can't forget,
for a moment, the 88k or the MIPS R2000 (or PIC32) or the
STM32 or the Stellaris/Luminary micro stuff or, for
absolutely sure, the x86 family starting with the 286 and 386
protected modes. By comparison, I can see forgetting about
the learning curve with some of the 8-bit processors.

They are just ALL so complex. They have to be, because by
the time an application demands such a beast (often in BGA
and many hundreds of pins in size), we are also already
talking about protected memory systems, AES encryption
hardware on-chip (Energy Micro, for example), operating
system rings of operation, caching of various kinds, and a
host of complexities that almost demand a full featured
operating system and set of libraries plus hardware tools
just to survive. And expensive stuff, besides!! Not at all
cheap by the time all is said and done, even if you forget
the complexity of just getting to say "Hello world" on them.

....

I just received today, by the way, my new EFM32 Development
Kit and EFM32 Gecko Starter Kit from Energy Micro. Haven't
even powered them up, yet. It will be interesting and fun to
play with, I'm sure. Hopefully, I'll find them worth doing
something with. At least they are obtainable from Digikey
and I have gotten _good_ support on the few questions I've
had, so far. Time will tell.

Jon

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 21:44:29 -0700, I wrote:

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:22:24 -0400, Roberto Waltman
usenet@rwaltman.com> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
...
The whole area of 32-bit processors, though, can be a bit
daunting to start with. There is so much to set up. If
anyone takes a look at the provided example code used just to
set up the STM32, it's frighteningly complex. Anyone without
a fair bit of experience will find it mind-boggling. By
comparison, the MSP430 is very much less complex to get going
and working well.

Final note. The OP wasn't really talking about using a
micro, at all, if I recall. So while using a micro is
probably the "right way" to do this, it does also require
skills and background and tools that may not be necessary
with a hardware-only solution.

All valid points - I tend to forget about the learning curve, since I
use the STM32 family + IAR at work.

I had to laugh when I read your comment here.

I just cannot possibly forget the learning curves I've had on
most 32-bit and 64-bit processors I've used. I can't forget,
for a moment, the 88k or the MIPS R2000 (or PIC32) or the
STM32 or the Stellaris/Luminary micro stuff or, for

--- should have added the DEC Alpha -- that was work, too.

absolutely sure, the x86 family starting with the 286 and 386
protected modes. By comparison, I can see forgetting about
the learning curve with some of the 8-bit processors.

They are just ALL so complex.

--- by 'they' I mean the 32- and 64- bit processor families.

They have to be, because by
the time an application demands such a beast (often in BGA
and many hundreds of pins in size), we are also already
talking about protected memory systems, AES encryption
hardware on-chip (Energy Micro, for example), operating
system rings of operation, caching of various kinds, and a
host of complexities that almost demand a full featured
operating system and set of libraries plus hardware tools
just to survive. And expensive stuff, besides!! Not at all
cheap by the time all is said and done, even if you forget
the complexity of just getting to say "Hello world" on them.

...

I just received today, by the way, my new EFM32 Development
Kit and EFM32 Gecko Starter Kit from Energy Micro. Haven't
even powered them up, yet. It will be interesting and fun to
play with, I'm sure. Hopefully, I'll find them worth doing
something with. At least they are obtainable from Digikey

--- by 'they' I mean the cpus, not the kits.

and I have gotten _good_ support on the few questions I've
had, so far. Time will tell.

Jon