|
mtwieg posted:In the interest of giving this thread another jolt, I'm considering giving another series of lessons/tutorials. If you didn't catch my first one on switching power supplies, it starts on page 12 and goes until page 15. As far as subjects go, I have a few ideas: The effects or resonance one would be good. The effects one could gain some ML interest too, as there's people asking about effects a lot there. Musicians should know what's going on in those little boxes!
|
# ? Sep 8, 2008 17:53 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 13:09 |
|
Ok, what are these called, and where can I get/make a custom one? Click here for the full 1024x768 image. Is it just another form of ribbon cable? I need to use one in a project I'm tinkering around with that I'll post up here when(if) I finish. ante fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Sep 9, 2008 |
# ? Sep 9, 2008 01:16 |
|
mtwieg posted:
AVRs dude, they're awesome and I'd love to get more in-depth than the Arduino.
|
# ? Sep 9, 2008 01:44 |
I should also mention I program in straight assembly (I said it would be technical)
|
|
# ? Sep 9, 2008 01:53 |
|
mtwieg posted:I should also mention I program in straight assembly (I said it would be technical) Oh god just kidding.
|
# ? Sep 9, 2008 01:57 |
|
w_hat posted:Oh god just kidding. AVR assembly is about as friendly as it comes. Its about as readable as C is. Note, thats microcontroller C, so you're using jibberish* looking register names all over the place to set up hardware features and so on. *until you've written a few programs for the MCU, then the register names some how start making sense. (that is excluding using a c std library, like the amazing ones available free as in speech for AVRs) hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Sep 9, 2008 |
# ? Sep 9, 2008 02:25 |
|
ante posted:Ok, what are these called, and where can I get/make a custom one? Those are called FFC (Flat Flex Cable). They are really hard to get in small quantities. If you're a hobbyist, forget about getting a custom one. I needed to replace a broken FFC in a barcode scanner some time ago and got it from some guy who was selling them on eBay.
|
# ? Sep 9, 2008 11:33 |
|
mtwieg posted:I should also mention I program in straight assembly (I said it would be technical) ASM seems the most sane way to program PICs. :-) I can actually read it... I'd love the transistor writeup. If you can find the time.
|
# ? Sep 9, 2008 15:51 |
|
Nerobro posted:ASM seems the most sane way to program PICs. :-) I can actually read it... FLOWCODE is pretty good, you can write code as a flowchart. Writing code for a SMART battery calibrator was very quick. You can compile to C and to the HEX, ready to program onto your PIC. (nuts, no WAFFLEIMAGES...) HiroshigeStations fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Sep 9, 2008 |
# ? Sep 9, 2008 17:39 |
|
HiroshigeStations posted:FLOWCODE is pretty good, you can write code as a flowchart. Writing code for a SMART battery calibrator was very quick. Does that actually work very well? I may just have a disproportional dislike of flow chart programming due to my experiences with Cypress's thing for their PSoCs. It, uh, was not pleasant.
|
# ? Sep 9, 2008 20:19 |
|
For what I needed to do, it did it very well. For about 4-5 hours, I have a box that calibrates my batteries, as I intended. The programming isn't that sophisticated (loops, branches, and such) - but I see that modules exist for working with TCP/IP, Bluetooth, and a variety of serial buses. Great feature is that it is self-documenting; all of your variable names and comments from the flowchart are copied over to the C; it is readable code. You can never have one disagree with the other. HiroshigeStations fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Sep 10, 2008 |
# ? Sep 9, 2008 22:29 |
I'll wait for a couple more votes before I start anything. If I were to do the MCU stuff, it would likely be mostly about how how the hardware peripherals work, things you need to know when programming in assembly (and should know anyways). I've nothing against higher languages. I wish I could use them, but I'm not that great in C. But knowing assembly allows you to be much more in touch with your hardware so you know what is truly happening. It's also inherently more efficient than compiling from higher languages.
|
|
# ? Sep 10, 2008 14:18 |
|
mtwieg posted:I've nothing against higher languages. I wish I could use them, but I'm not that great in C. But knowing assembly allows you to be much more in touch with your hardware so you know what is truly happening. It's also inherently more efficient than compiling from higher languages. If you are trying to squeeze out as much performance as you can from the hardware, then you can do no better than assembler for optimizing your code. However, trying to do a very complex task entirely in assembler seems a bit masochistic. The optimization in a good C compiler is going to get you pretty close, you can tighten up areas using assembler macros. Of course, if you are doing something that contains simple elements, and you need/want to bang it out quick, tools like Flowcode are a dream. Sure, the beauty for knowing every corner of your micro, writing tight code, and fitting the program into a tiny space is attractive, but sometimes it is such an impediment to reaching that much more attractive thing - finishing your creation. This discussion is starting to belong elsewhere...I vote for the oscillators.
|
# ? Sep 10, 2008 15:02 |
|
mtwieg posted:In the interest of giving this thread another jolt, I'm considering giving another series of lessons/tutorials. If you didn't catch my first one on switching power supplies, it starts on page 12 and goes until page 15. As far as subjects go, I have a few ideas: I am up for topic 3 and 4. I use AVR's too but with C generally, sometimes I use ARM MCU's, like the LPC2100 series.
|
# ? Sep 10, 2008 17:27 |
HiroshigeStations posted:If you are trying to squeeze out as much performance as you can from the hardware, then you can do no better than assembler for optimizing your code. However, trying to do a very complex task entirely in assembler seems a bit masochistic. The optimization in a good C compiler is going to get you pretty close, you can tighten up areas using assembler macros. Of course, if you are doing something that contains simple elements, and you need/want to bang it out quick, tools like Flowcode are a dream. As long as you have a good library that is grounded in ASM, not other libraries, it's a great trade off between efficiency and difficulty. But only someone who is familiar with ASM will likely be able to judge the quality of a library or not, which is why every serious programmer should know it. ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Sep 10, 2008 |
|
# ? Sep 10, 2008 21:12 |
|
I code in straight up binary.
|
# ? Sep 11, 2008 01:43 |
|
mtwieg posted:It's also inherently more efficient than compiling from higher languages. No, not really. A compiler is generally smarter than all but the most geniuslike of programmers. Programming in assembly is also much, much slower than using a high level language.
|
# ? Sep 11, 2008 05:01 |
|
BeefofAges posted:No, not really. A compiler is generally smarter than all but the most geniuslike of programmers. Programming in assembly is also much, much slower than using a high level language. I sort of agree. I think that knowing how to program in assembly gives one a much greater appreciation for the underlying hardware, leading to more efficient programming in a higher level language. Sometimes you can really trim down an inner loop by writing in assembly, since you can cut away any and all unnecessary instructions. But, depending on how complicated the ISA is, many times a modern compiler will produce faster/better code. This is especially true for processors with a more complicated architecture. For a RISC ISA, it may not make much of a difference in performance, but C will usually be fast enough until you are trying to squeeze out the last cycle. In addition, it is much faster to program in C vs asm. Then again, C is basically assembler with some syntactic sugar...
|
# ? Sep 11, 2008 05:47 |
I meant assembly can always be more efficient with the MCU's resources, not your own time. It will take longer, but not too much (as long as we're talking about MCUs). I can generally write a couple kb in a few hours if I've already drawn out flow charts and such.
|
|
# ? Sep 11, 2008 06:41 |
Okay I'm narrowing down the topics a bit. After thinking about it, AVR tutorials would be really involved, and people likely won't be interested in ASM, and I doubt I could do a much better job than some of the existing tutorials out there. And resonance oscillators would only make sense to people who already have a firm grounding in EE, so that's out. So the options so far, with some more details: 1. Signal filters/effects, with an emphasis on audio stuff (but small signal conditioning, not power amplifiers). Covers things like clipping, clamping, tone control, simple graphic EQ, phasing, wah, rectification, envelope detectors, etc. 2. Transistor stuff. Covers basic theory and a couple different transistor models, different devices (mosfets, jfets, bjts) and circuits like class A, class B, and class AB amplifiers, differential pairs (by the end you would understand the internals of an operational amplifier), current mirrors, current sources, voltage references, etc. 3. Eagle cad tutorial. Covers how to make schematics and layouts, how to easily make your own library components, and general methodology for laying out circuits (star grounds, ground planes, loop area, component packages, heatsinks, etc) Again, I'll wait for several people to vote before getting started.
|
|
# ? Sep 11, 2008 15:37 |
|
Hopefully some can help with some old stuff. Im looking for any information on using a Huntron and hope someone can either give me a quick how to or point me in the right direction. I remember messing with them about 15 years ago in the navy and they seemed like a viable tool (I'm also very bored at work and want to buy something to tinker with). They are pretty old and everywhere I look just points me back to huntrons website. edit: http://www.huntron.com/products/videos/signatures.wmv This help, but still a bit hazy micron fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Sep 11, 2008 |
# ? Sep 11, 2008 20:13 |
|
mtwieg posted:2. Transistor stuff. Covers basic theory and a couple different transistor models, different devices (mosfets, jfets, bjts) and circuits like class A, class B, and class AB amplifiers, differential pairs (by the end you would understand the internals of an operational amplifier), current mirrors, current sources, voltage references, etc. Yes, this this this. I've always wanted to know more about that but never bothered to research it.
|
# ? Sep 11, 2008 22:06 |
|
SnoPuppy posted:Then again, C is basically assembler with some syntactic sugar... Are you expecting to be called out on this? Would you care to back that up at all or are you just trolling?
|
# ? Sep 12, 2008 00:12 |
|
JawnV6 posted:Are you expecting to be called out on this? Would you care to back that up at all or are you just trolling? All I meant is that straight C is pretty low level. There are very few things that you could do that wouldn't be obvious how to do in assembly. And, unless it relies on some obscure opcode, you can generally turn assembly into C.
|
# ? Sep 12, 2008 00:55 |
|
I vote for effects! We've had the C/assembly discussion here before, and all the pertinent points stand in favour of C, in my view: - modern C compilers are incredibly efficient, there is almost no overhead and the compiler knows all the tricks and optimisations that a human would be very hard pressed to consistently implement - using C greatly speeds up software development, provides portability, and allows the ease of use of non-native integer types (amongst other things) through compiler libraries (eg. AVR-GCC) - C is still sufficiently low-level to have a direct correspondence to hardware and addressing Basically any advantages one can dream up to using assembly to code are illusory, and there are massive benefits to be reaped by using C for doing anything not completely trivial. And if you're really really worried about the compiler interpretation of certain critical routines, it's easy to insert them as assembly routines inside C.
|
# ? Sep 12, 2008 01:22 |
|
Hillridge posted:I code in straight up binary. I have a motorola 68k dev board that i was using until my PIC showed up. i didn't know you could type in assembler and have it run so i was writing in bytecode. Got a cylon face display and a KITT-style fading thingy going before I found out about typing in assembly. So, something besides MCUs is cool with me. I really dig transistors. I think MOSFETs are cool.
|
# ? Sep 12, 2008 04:18 |
|
mtwieg posted:Okay I'm narrowing down the topics a bit. After thinking about it, AVR tutorials would be really involved, and people likely won't be interested in ASM, and I doubt I could do a much better job than some of the existing tutorials out there. And resonance oscillators would only make sense to people who already have a firm grounding in EE, so that's out. Definitely transistors. My transistor course this term is taught by a horrible teacher
|
# ? Sep 12, 2008 04:44 |
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:So, something besides MCUs is cool with me. I really dig transistors. I think MOSFETs are cool. Things best left unsaid on a date...
|
# ? Sep 12, 2008 06:13 |
|
catbread.jpg posted:stuff on C vs Asm This is a good point when talking about PCs, but compilers for MCUs are often pretty lovely. Also C cannot match hand-written assembly for writing small code, which is often a concern on MCUs.
|
# ? Sep 12, 2008 13:03 |
|
mtwieg posted:1. Signal filters/effects, with an emphasis on audio stuff (but small signal conditioning, not power amplifiers). Covers things like clipping, clamping, tone control, simple graphic EQ, phasing, wah, rectification, envelope detectors, etc. I'd like to submit my vote for this one if you please.
|
# ? Sep 12, 2008 13:36 |
|
Any goons in here know a decent amount about simple ICs? I'm building a solid state component A/V switch box right now, and trying to figure out exactly which parts I want (and source all of them from a single supplier) is giving me major headaches. From the top: The box is going to take five sets of inputs. Input 0 comes from an RGB -> YCbCr converter that I have wired up to an old SCART switch box (so that I can hook my old consoles up to my new projector), and inputs 1-4 are four sets of 5 (Y, Cb, Cr, L, R) RCA sockets on the back of the box. The inputs will be wired up to a bank of six 4051-type multiplexers: three chips for video, two for audio, and one for ground. The outputs of the multiplexers will be connected to another set of RCA sockets on the front panel. I'm going to include a binary ripple counter, with its outputs connected to the select pins on each of the multiplexers and its clock pin wired to a push switch on the front panel, so I can cycle through the inputs one at a time by pressing the switch. For an extra flourish, the ripple counter's outputs will also go to an LED controller, so the number of the current input can be shown on a 7-segment display. Lastly, the whole thing is going to be powered by a USB 5V line. If you read through all that, then you're probably wonder what I'm actually asking here, so here it is: I've already got a packet of HEF4051BP multiplexers, but I'm also seeing people say that 4000-series ICs are only good up to about 1MHz. Of course I'm trying to push an SD signal through these, so 640 columns of horizontal resolution at 15KHz = 9.6MHz minimum, or double that if I try to go up to 480p. Am I screwed with these ICs? Does anyone know of another type that can switch analog signals but has higher bandwidth?
|
# ? Sep 13, 2008 19:36 |
|
There's an electronics surplus place nearby that I like to visit; it has several large boxes full of old vacuum tubes (Sylvania, Philips, etc). I'd love to build a tube-related project but I have no idea how to identify what tubes might be useful. Short of taking note of each and every tube variety, is there a way I can learn about different tube specs, and what ones are generally considered "useful"?
|
# ? Sep 14, 2008 03:43 |
|
Cyril Sneer posted:Short of taking note of each and every tube variety, is there a way I can learn about different tube specs, and what ones are generally considered "useful"? Can't short-cut experience. You got to come in knowing what you want for a project or to maintain/upgrade what you got. You go in just picking this and that because 'I can build a camera out of this" or "this is a tube used on Fender amplifiers, and they rock", then they will sit unused in your storage-area-of-choice. While the tube is important, its an inert piece of glass without of the rest of the equipment to run it. These projects fail: Hey, I'm new to this, but there is this cool tube. I'm going to build X... Same sad result, wasted money, good parts rotting in the basement, and said person working harder on justifying why they didn't finish then on overcoming their lack of knowledge and finishing said project. My advice, unless you are looking to collect tubes, wait till you actually have a need for them. Find a circuit to start with, one somebody else has already built. Be willing to spend the cash to finish - account for tools, nobody figures the costs of chassis punches and filament/plate transformers. Better yet, get one of those really cheap 50's AM radios and amplifiers and mess around with them. If you see any 6JS6, PM me. I need them as spares for a transceiver. Lastly, https://www.tubedata.org and cheap 12AX7s, 6V6, 811, 807, and 0A2. HiroshigeStations fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Sep 14, 2008 |
# ? Sep 14, 2008 05:07 |
|
I vote for audio effects. I'm learning about transistors this semester anyway and I'm not really interested in EagleCAD, but signal conditioning is always interesting.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2008 07:02 |
I'll go with filters and effects then. Less math and such than transistors anyways, plus I already explained op amps in the last series, which makes things easier. I'll likely start it up tomorrow.
|
|
# ? Sep 15, 2008 05:54 |
Usagi-Sauce posted:Any goons in here know a decent amount about simple ICs? I'm building a solid state component A/V switch box right now, and trying to figure out exactly which parts I want (and source all of them from a single supplier) is giving me major headaches.
|
|
# ? Sep 15, 2008 05:59 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:Practice helps more than anything else. I was kind of afraid when first soldering (OMG it says 600!), just working with it helped me more than anything. Thanks for the advice everyone. With a little practice I was soldering 0402 resistors and performing wacky SMT board mods without too much trouble. Another question: I once saw in a youtube video this special desoldering solder than stayed liquid for several seconds after being heated. What was the name of it, and does anyone have any experience as to whether or not it works that well?
|
# ? Sep 16, 2008 04:31 |
SecretFire posted:Thanks for the advice everyone. With a little practice I was soldering 0402 resistors and performing wacky SMT board mods without too much trouble. the tutorial was posted a few pages back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NN7UGWYmBY the product you're thinking of is chip quik. I've never used it before, but it seems pretty neat, and the maker seems to give free samples.
|
|
# ? Sep 16, 2008 06:08 |
|
If you can get your hands on a hot air station, you can take ANYTHING off a SMT board very easily. I've never used the chip quik stuff, so I can't comment on it.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2008 14:31 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 13:09 |
|
Hillridge posted:If you can get your hands on a hot air station, you can take ANYTHING off a SMT board very easily. I've never used the chip quik stuff, so I can't comment on it. Chipquik works pretty well, I have used it to remove a flash chip from a broken MP3 player PCB I found by the road. I cleaned off the chipquik without a problem and reattached it to a breakout bord zo I could read off the data. It stays molten for about 10 seconds giving you ample time to heat all the sides of a chip that you want loose, so big QFP's would work without a problem.
|
# ? Sep 18, 2008 20:30 |