I'm looking at pins 7 and 8. What package are you using?
What voltage supplies are you using? The OPA237 in your diagram is not
marked with inverting/non-inverting inputs....

Are you using the digital or analog inputs of the MCU? Don't depend on
feeding an analog signal to a digital input to give consistent results. You
have to consider all the port parasitics.

You might also have capacitive coupling between primary and secondary of
your current transformer that affects the measurement.

http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts...cName=en010241
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/opa237.html

"Robert Baer" wrote in message
...
I have two identical motor current sense circuits like the one shown'
MOT1 to MCU pin 7, and MOT2 to MCU pin 8.
The MOT1 circuit has no hysteresis with the most sensitive setting
giving about 0.6A trip point.
The MOT2 circuit has a lot of hysteresis with the most sensitive
setting giving about 1.2A trip point current increasing; does not "drop
out" until 0.75A.
This hysteresis is consistent: at same pot settings MOT1 trips at
4.1A and MOT2 trips at 10.5A dropping out at 6.2A.
Not MOT2 dropout is near, but higher than MOT1 trip point (always
when pot settings are same).
Is there something special about pin 8 that would deliver such an
unexpected result?

I have two identical motor current sense circuits like the one shown'
MOT1 to MCU pin 7, and MOT2 to MCU pin 8.
The MOT1 circuit has no hysteresis with the most sensitive setting
giving about 0.6A trip point.
The MOT2 circuit has a lot of hysteresis with the most sensitive
setting giving about 1.2A trip point current increasing; does not "drop
out" until 0.75A.
This hysteresis is consistent: at same pot settings MOT1 trips at
4.1A and MOT2 trips at 10.5A dropping out at 6.2A.
Not MOT2 dropout is near, but higher than MOT1 trip point (always
when pot settings are same).
Is there something special about pin 8 that would deliver such an
unexpected result?

Oppie wrote:
I'm looking at pins 7 and 8. What package are you using?
* The chocolate bar..(40 pin).

What voltage supplies are you using? The OPA237 in your diagram is not
marked with inverting/non-inverting inputs....
* 5V; op amp drawn in standard configuration = = inverting input on top.


Are you using the digital or analog inputs of the MCU? Don't depend on
feeding an analog signal to a digital input to give consistent results.
You have to consider all the port parasitics.
* All ports being used for input are set as digital; threshold seems to
be similar to TTL (1.4V) altho i have not measured every pin.


You might also have capacitive coupling between primary and secondary of
your current transformer that affects the measurement.
* Cannot be relevant to the fact of the observed differences (hysteresis
vs "normal") as well as the fact the 2 channels are identical (ignoring
pin number).
Besides, the current transformer capacitance is about 2pF and (again)
the circuits are identical (same layout, same part types, etc).


http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts...cName=en010241
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/opa237.html

"Robert Baer" wrote in message
...
I have two identical motor current sense circuits like the one shown'
MOT1 to MCU pin 7, and MOT2 to MCU pin 8.
The MOT1 circuit has no hysteresis with the most sensitive setting
giving about 0.6A trip point.
The MOT2 circuit has a lot of hysteresis with the most sensitive
setting giving about 1.2A trip point current increasing; does not "drop
out" until 0.75A.
This hysteresis is consistent: at same pot settings MOT1 trips at
4.1A and MOT2 trips at 10.5A dropping out at 6.2A.
Not MOT2 dropout is near, but higher than MOT1 trip point (always
when pot settings are same).
Is there something special about pin 8 that would deliver such an
unexpected result?

I believe that you will find that the difference is in the different types
of digital inputs used on pins 7 and 8 of the MCU.
Look at pages 10-11 of the data sheet. Pin 7 (RA5) is 'ttl' input. Pin 8
(RE0) is a Schmitt Trigger TTL input. On pin 8, the Schmitt hysteresis is
giving the difference you observe.

Also look at the datasheet page 31 for details of the port structures and
how this might impact your design.

it is sometimes acceptable to use a digital input with an analog input. In
this case though, you should consider either using the analog input mode or
using an external comparator with well defined trip levels.
That's the 10 minute review, hope it helps - Oppie

"Robert Baer" wrote in message
net...
Oppie wrote:
I'm looking at pins 7 and 8. What package are you using?
* The chocolate bar..(40 pin).

What voltage supplies are you using? The OPA237 in your diagram is not
marked with inverting/non-inverting inputs....
* 5V; op amp drawn in standard configuration = = inverting input on top.


Are you using the digital or analog inputs of the MCU? Don't depend on
feeding an analog signal to a digital input to give consistent results.
You have to consider all the port parasitics.
* All ports being used for input are set as digital; threshold seems to be
similar to TTL (1.4V) altho i have not measured every pin.


You might also have capacitive coupling between primary and secondary of
your current transformer that affects the measurement.
* Cannot be relevant to the fact of the observed differences (hysteresis
vs "normal") as well as the fact the 2 channels are identical (ignoring
pin number).
Besides, the current transformer capacitance is about 2pF and (again)
the circuits are identical (same layout, same part types, etc).


http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts...cName=en010241
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/opa237.html

"Robert Baer" wrote in message
...
I have two identical motor current sense circuits like the one shown'
MOT1 to MCU pin 7, and MOT2 to MCU pin 8.
The MOT1 circuit has no hysteresis with the most sensitive setting
giving about 0.6A trip point.
The MOT2 circuit has a lot of hysteresis with the most sensitive
setting giving about 1.2A trip point current increasing; does not "drop
out" until 0.75A.
This hysteresis is consistent: at same pot settings MOT1 trips at
4.1A and MOT2 trips at 10.5A dropping out at 6.2A.
Not MOT2 dropout is near, but higher than MOT1 trip point (always
when pot settings are same).
Is there something special about pin 8 that would deliver such an
unexpected result?

"Robert Baer" wrote in message
net...
Thanks a lot; that does explain the matter.
Frankly i paid no attention to what pins could do what, except the
crystal clock pins and the programming pins (which they made almost
impossible to find due to their multiple naming schemes).
Why did i not pay any attention? Because it is a PITA to ramble thru a
ten thousand page document (not really quite that bad, but...) to perhaps
find what one is looking for (and easy to miss).
"Data sheet" ?? Horsefeathers..look at real datasheets on any simple
part and find: simple, understandable, non-conflicting pinning info, DC
specs and AC specs, maybe one app reference. No hundreds of pages for
other things that could be separate - like programming.
Since it works, i think i am going to ignore what pins could be analog
because i cannot use them.
Why? I know too little to do any real programming of that beastie - the
only way i am getting what i want is by learning ladder logic and using
LDmicro.exe .

Every micro manufacturer has a bit of a different scheme for writing data
sheets and establishing pin conventions. Microchip is a bit different from
the others but the information is pretty clear once you get used to the
format and design options. I've done a few designs with their processors so
I've got it down somewhat. First design, was 'WTF???!!!' but it got better
with experience.

What you did in digital was the equivalent of ignoring the common mode range
of an opamp. Both are parameters that are very easy to miss if you don't
watch closely.

Oppie

Oppie wrote:
I believe that you will find that the difference is in the different
types of digital inputs used on pins 7 and 8 of the MCU.
Look at pages 10-11 of the data sheet. Pin 7 (RA5) is 'ttl' input. Pin 8
(RE0) is a Schmitt Trigger TTL input. On pin 8, the Schmitt hysteresis
is giving the difference you observe.

Also look at the datasheet page 31 for details of the port structures
and how this might impact your design.

it is sometimes acceptable to use a digital input with an analog input.
In this case though, you should consider either using the analog input
mode or using an external comparator with well defined trip levels.
That's the 10 minute review, hope it helps - Oppie

"Robert Baer" wrote in message
net...
Oppie wrote:
I'm looking at pins 7 and 8. What package are you using?
* The chocolate bar..(40 pin).

What voltage supplies are you using? The OPA237 in your diagram is
not marked with inverting/non-inverting inputs....
* 5V; op amp drawn in standard configuration = = inverting input on top.


Are you using the digital or analog inputs of the MCU? Don't depend
on feeding an analog signal to a digital input to give consistent
results. You have to consider all the port parasitics.
* All ports being used for input are set as digital; threshold seems
to be similar to TTL (1.4V) altho i have not measured every pin.


You might also have capacitive coupling between primary and secondary
of your current transformer that affects the measurement.
* Cannot be relevant to the fact of the observed differences
(hysteresis vs "normal") as well as the fact the 2 channels are
identical (ignoring pin number).
Besides, the current transformer capacitance is about 2pF and
(again) the circuits are identical (same layout, same part types, etc).


http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts...cName=en010241
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/opa237.html

"Robert Baer" wrote in message
...
I have two identical motor current sense circuits like the one shown'
MOT1 to MCU pin 7, and MOT2 to MCU pin 8.
The MOT1 circuit has no hysteresis with the most sensitive setting
giving about 0.6A trip point.
The MOT2 circuit has a lot of hysteresis with the most sensitive
setting giving about 1.2A trip point current increasing; does not "drop
out" until 0.75A.
This hysteresis is consistent: at same pot settings MOT1 trips at
4.1A and MOT2 trips at 10.5A dropping out at 6.2A.
Not MOT2 dropout is near, but higher than MOT1 trip point (always
when pot settings are same).
Is there something special about pin 8 that would deliver such an
unexpected result?

Thanks a lot; that does explain the matter.
Frankly i paid no attention to what pins could do what, except the
crystal clock pins and the programming pins (which they made almost
impossible to find due to their multiple naming schemes).
Why did i not pay any attention? Because it is a PITA to ramble thru
a ten thousand page document (not really quite that bad, but...) to
perhaps find what one is looking for (and easy to miss).
"Data sheet" ?? Horsefeathers..look at real datasheets on any simple
part and find: simple, understandable, non-conflicting pinning info, DC
specs and AC specs, maybe one app reference. No hundreds of pages for
other things that could be separate - like programming.
Since it works, i think i am going to ignore what pins could be
analog because i cannot use them.
Why? I know too little to do any real programming of that beastie -
the only way i am getting what i want is by learning ladder logic and
using LDmicro.exe .

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:15:02 -0400, the renowned "Oppie"
wrote:

I believe that you will find that the difference is in the different types
of digital inputs used on pins 7 and 8 of the MCU.
Look at pages 10-11 of the data sheet. Pin 7 (RA5) is 'ttl' input. Pin 8
(RE0) is a Schmitt Trigger TTL input. On pin 8, the Schmitt hysteresis is
giving the difference you observe.

Also look at the datasheet page 31 for details of the port structures and
how this might impact your design.

it is sometimes acceptable to use a digital input with an analog input. In
this case though, you should consider either using the analog input mode or
using an external comparator with well defined trip levels.
That's the 10 minute review, hope it helps - Oppie

Or switch to the PIC16F887 or other micro with two comparators
on-board. As typical with Microchip, the newer parts are also
considerably cheaper than the long-in-the-tooth PIC16F877 (way less
than half the price in 100's).



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
That's the 10 minute review, hope it helps - Oppie

Or switch to the PIC16F887 or other micro with two comparators
on-board. As typical with Microchip, the newer parts are also
considerably cheaper than the long-in-the-tooth PIC16F877 (way less
than half the price in 100's).


The OP had the chip in a development board as I recall. Was just a learning
tool.
I did remember some MCUs that had analog comparators included but was not
going to spend any more time researching. Hey, at least it is one of the
flash devices and not the old OTP parts.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:52:23 -0400, "Oppie"
wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
.. .
That's the 10 minute review, hope it helps - Oppie

Or switch to the PIC16F887 or other micro with two comparators
on-board. As typical with Microchip, the newer parts are also
considerably cheaper than the long-in-the-tooth PIC16F877 (way less
than half the price in 100's).


The OP had the chip in a development board as I recall. Was just a learning
tool.

Right, but 40-pin parts are typically socketed, and he can probably
get a sample for free from Microchip, so it's just a matter of
deciding to put the effort in to learn (or not).

I did remember some MCUs that had analog comparators included but was not
going to spend any more time researching. Hey, at least it is one of the
flash devices and not the old OTP parts.

LOL. I blew the dust of my EPROM eraser just recently (something to do
with customizing a car engine controller). Good riddance to that
stuff, though you never needed to worry (as much) about program
retention. We're using OTP-only (no windowed version) 8051 variants in
production still, it's not really that bad to develop for them if you
spring for a real-time emulator. I don't think I wasted more than one
or two OTP chips in several develpment cycles.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:28:03 -0800, Robert Baer
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:15:02 -0400, the renowned "Oppie"
wrote:

I believe that you will find that the difference is in the different types
of digital inputs used on pins 7 and 8 of the MCU.
Look at pages 10-11 of the data sheet. Pin 7 (RA5) is 'ttl' input. Pin 8
(RE0) is a Schmitt Trigger TTL input. On pin 8, the Schmitt hysteresis is
giving the difference you observe.

Also look at the datasheet page 31 for details of the port structures and
how this might impact your design.

it is sometimes acceptable to use a digital input with an analog input. In
this case though, you should consider either using the analog input mode or
using an external comparator with well defined trip levels.
That's the 10 minute review, hope it helps - Oppie

Or switch to the PIC16F887 or other micro with two comparators
on-board. As typical with Microchip, the newer parts are also
considerably cheaper than the long-in-the-tooth PIC16F877 (way less
than half the price in 100's).



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Then suggest a PIC that is supported by LDmicro and hasat least as
many usable pins.

Unless you're contracting me to do the work, that's your job, not
mine, but the one I did suggest should be a pretty good choice. In DIP
package, it has 40 pins, all of them start out as being usable.

"Robert Baer" wrote in message
net...
Oppie wrote:
What you did in digital was the equivalent of ignoring the common mode
range of an opamp. Both are parameters that are very easy to miss if you
don't watch closely.

I did not ignore the common mode range; note the biasing puts the inputs
exactly in the middle: 2.5V of the 5V supply.
And at 10 amps input, the drive to the 10K is 1V so at a gain setting
near 2, all is linear for a drive to the MCU as a "hi" for overcurrent
tripping.
As long as the opamp is running in the linear region (as noted in
example), it is well within the common mode range.

I did not say you violated anything with the common mode range. Only meant
to say that some designers (and designer wanabes) miss what appear to be
obscure inconsequential bits... like what type of buffer is on a digital
input port. My record is not perfect in that respect and I've been an
engineer for 30+ years smile

Oppie wrote:
"Robert Baer" wrote in message
net...
Thanks a lot; that does explain the matter.
Frankly i paid no attention to what pins could do what, except the
crystal clock pins and the programming pins (which they made almost
impossible to find due to their multiple naming schemes).
Why did i not pay any attention? Because it is a PITA to ramble thru
a ten thousand page document (not really quite that bad, but...) to
perhaps find what one is looking for (and easy to miss).
"Data sheet" ?? Horsefeathers..look at real datasheets on any simple
part and find: simple, understandable, non-conflicting pinning info,
DC specs and AC specs, maybe one app reference. No hundreds of pages
for other things that could be separate - like programming.
Since it works, i think i am going to ignore what pins could be
analog because i cannot use them.
Why? I know too little to do any real programming of that beastie -
the only way i am getting what i want is by learning ladder logic and
using LDmicro.exe .

Every micro manufacturer has a bit of a different scheme for writing
data sheets and establishing pin conventions. Microchip is a bit
different from the others but the information is pretty clear once you
get used to the format and design options. I've done a few designs with
their processors so I've got it down somewhat. First design, was
'WTF???!!!' but it got better with experience.

What you did in digital was the equivalent of ignoring the common mode
range of an opamp. Both are parameters that are very easy to miss if you
don't watch closely.

Oppie
I did not ignore the common mode range; note the biasing puts the
inputs exactly in the middle: 2.5V of the 5V supply.
And at 10 amps input, the drive to the 10K is 1V so at a gain setting
near 2, all is linear for a drive to the MCU as a "hi" for overcurrent
tripping.
As long as the opamp is running in the linear region (as noted in
example), it is well within the common mode range.

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:15:02 -0400, the renowned "Oppie"
wrote:

I believe that you will find that the difference is in the different types
of digital inputs used on pins 7 and 8 of the MCU.
Look at pages 10-11 of the data sheet. Pin 7 (RA5) is 'ttl' input. Pin 8
(RE0) is a Schmitt Trigger TTL input. On pin 8, the Schmitt hysteresis is
giving the difference you observe.

Also look at the datasheet page 31 for details of the port structures and
how this might impact your design.

it is sometimes acceptable to use a digital input with an analog input. In
this case though, you should consider either using the analog input mode or
using an external comparator with well defined trip levels.
That's the 10 minute review, hope it helps - Oppie

Or switch to the PIC16F887 or other micro with two comparators
on-board. As typical with Microchip, the newer parts are also
considerably cheaper than the long-in-the-tooth PIC16F877 (way less
than half the price in 100's).



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Then suggest a PIC that is supported by LDmicro and hasat least as
many usable pins.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:15:54 -0800, Robert Baer
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:28:03 -0800, Robert Baer
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:15:02 -0400, the renowned "Oppie"
wrote:

I believe that you will find that the difference is in the different types
of digital inputs used on pins 7 and 8 of the MCU.
Look at pages 10-11 of the data sheet. Pin 7 (RA5) is 'ttl' input. Pin 8
(RE0) is a Schmitt Trigger TTL input. On pin 8, the Schmitt hysteresis is
giving the difference you observe.

Also look at the datasheet page 31 for details of the port structures and
how this might impact your design.

it is sometimes acceptable to use a digital input with an analog input. In
this case though, you should consider either using the analog input mode or
using an external comparator with well defined trip levels.
That's the 10 minute review, hope it helps - Oppie
Or switch to the PIC16F887 or other micro with two comparators
on-board. As typical with Microchip, the newer parts are also
considerably cheaper than the long-in-the-tooth PIC16F877 (way less
than half the price in 100's).



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Then suggest a PIC that is supported by LDmicro and hasat least as
many usable pins.

Unless you're contracting me to do the work, that's your job, not
mine, but the one I did suggest should be a pretty good choice. In DIP
package, it has 40 pins, all of them start out as being usable.

Pretty nice; suggesting a part that i am using..

Actually it was nice of him he gave you a more modern PIC comparable
to the one your using that's half the price.

Your using the PIC16F877 --note one 8

http://canada.newark.com/microchip/p...-ic/dp/61K3463

He suggested the PIC16F887-- note two 8's

http://canada.newark.com/microchip/p...-ic/dp/27M9657

Oppie wrote:
"Robert Baer" wrote in message
net...
Oppie wrote:
What you did in digital was the equivalent of ignoring the common
mode range of an opamp. Both are parameters that are very easy to
miss if you don't watch closely.

I did not ignore the common mode range; note the biasing puts the
inputs exactly in the middle: 2.5V of the 5V supply.
And at 10 amps input, the drive to the 10K is 1V so at a gain
setting near 2, all is linear for a drive to the MCU as a "hi" for
overcurrent tripping.
As long as the opamp is running in the linear region (as noted in
example), it is well within the common mode range.

I did not say you violated anything with the common mode range. Only
meant to say that some designers (and designer wanabes) miss what appear
to be obscure inconsequential bits... like what type of buffer is on a
digital input port. My record is not perfect in that respect and I've
been an engineer for 30+ years smile
Yes; if i were to learn how to program these PIC beasties, i would
take some care in the choosing of ports and add a few niceties: serial
I/O query of machine state along with unique machine number.

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:28:03 -0800, Robert Baer
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:15:02 -0400, the renowned "Oppie"
wrote:

I believe that you will find that the difference is in the different types
of digital inputs used on pins 7 and 8 of the MCU.
Look at pages 10-11 of the data sheet. Pin 7 (RA5) is 'ttl' input. Pin 8
(RE0) is a Schmitt Trigger TTL input. On pin 8, the Schmitt hysteresis is
giving the difference you observe.

Also look at the datasheet page 31 for details of the port structures and
how this might impact your design.

it is sometimes acceptable to use a digital input with an analog input. In
this case though, you should consider either using the analog input mode or
using an external comparator with well defined trip levels.
That's the 10 minute review, hope it helps - Oppie
Or switch to the PIC16F887 or other micro with two comparators
on-board. As typical with Microchip, the newer parts are also
considerably cheaper than the long-in-the-tooth PIC16F877 (way less
than half the price in 100's).



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Then suggest a PIC that is supported by LDmicro and hasat least as
many usable pins.

Unless you're contracting me to do the work, that's your job, not
mine, but the one I did suggest should be a pretty good choice. In DIP
package, it has 40 pins, all of them start out as being usable.

Pretty nice; suggesting a part that i am using..

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:04:14 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

snip
Why? I know too little to do any real programming of that beastie -
the only way i am getting what i want is by learning ladder logic and
using LDmicro.exe .


Interesting program. It seems to work well in wine under linux.
I've used ladder logic on elderly Siemens PLCs and this is fairly similar.

If you've done any programming in BASIC can I recommend the Great Cow
BASIC compiler? It works very well and is free (the full version, not a
crippled demo). It also has very good support for on-chip peripherals.
http://gcbasic.sourceforge.net/

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

Hammy wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:15:54 -0800, Robert Baer
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:28:03 -0800, Robert Baer
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:15:02 -0400, the renowned "Oppie"
wrote:

I believe that you will find that the difference is in the different types
of digital inputs used on pins 7 and 8 of the MCU.
Look at pages 10-11 of the data sheet. Pin 7 (RA5) is 'ttl' input. Pin 8
(RE0) is a Schmitt Trigger TTL input. On pin 8, the Schmitt hysteresis is
giving the difference you observe.

Also look at the datasheet page 31 for details of the port structures and
how this might impact your design.

it is sometimes acceptable to use a digital input with an analog input. In
this case though, you should consider either using the analog input mode or
using an external comparator with well defined trip levels.
That's the 10 minute review, hope it helps - Oppie
Or switch to the PIC16F887 or other micro with two comparators
on-board. As typical with Microchip, the newer parts are also
considerably cheaper than the long-in-the-tooth PIC16F877 (way less
than half the price in 100's).



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Then suggest a PIC that is supported by LDmicro and hasat least as
many usable pins.
Unless you're contracting me to do the work, that's your job, not
mine, but the one I did suggest should be a pretty good choice. In DIP
package, it has 40 pins, all of them start out as being usable.

Pretty nice; suggesting a part that i am using..

Actually it was nice of him he gave you a more modern PIC comparable
to the one your using that's half the price.

Your using the PIC16F877 --note one 8

http://canada.newark.com/microchip/p...-ic/dp/61K3463

He suggested the PIC16F887-- note two 8's

http://canada.newark.com/microchip/p...-ic/dp/27M9657
Missed that; thanks.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:28:56 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

mick wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:04:14 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

snip
Why? I know too little to do any real programming of that beastie -
the only way i am getting what i want is by learning ladder logic and
using LDmicro.exe .


Interesting program. It seems to work well in wine under linux. I've
used ladder logic on elderly Siemens PLCs and this is fairly similar.

If you've done any programming in BASIC can I recommend the Great Cow
BASIC compiler? It works very well and is free (the full version, not a
crippled demo). It also has very good support for on-chip peripherals.
http://gcbasic.sourceforge.net/

I have the "most recent" BASIC compiler that M$ made just before
Visual Basic..called Professional Development System; works just like
the slightly older QuickBasic with some extensions and it compiles and
one can hook code from other compilers as well.
What does Great Cow do that is interesting / different?


It compiles into PIC or AVR code, ready for burning onto the chip.
GCBASIC is just the compiler, you need a separate editor but instructions
are included for setting up the excellent Crimson editor to allow
compilation with a single key. When used with the Microchip PicKit
programmer then a couple of clicks burns it onto the chip.

Obviously, you have limitations compared to QuickBasic & co, but it is
quick to use and the resulting code seems to be pretty good. Have a look
through the on-line help file: http://gcbasic.sourceforge.net/help/

If you use the Microchip MPLAB development software the gcbasic code can
be read into that and run with full simulation, breakpoints etc. Could be
handy on larger projects, but I've never bothered.

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

mick wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:04:14 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

snip
Why? I know too little to do any real programming of that beastie -
the only way i am getting what i want is by learning ladder logic and
using LDmicro.exe .


Interesting program. It seems to work well in wine under linux.
I've used ladder logic on elderly Siemens PLCs and this is fairly similar.

If you've done any programming in BASIC can I recommend the Great Cow
BASIC compiler? It works very well and is free (the full version, not a
crippled demo). It also has very good support for on-chip peripherals.
http://gcbasic.sourceforge.net/

I have the "most recent" BASIC compiler that M$ made just before
Visual Basic..called Professional Development System; works just like
the slightly older QuickBasic with some extensions and it compiles and
one can hook code from other compilers as well.
What does Great Cow do that is interesting / different?

mick wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:28:56 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

mick wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:04:14 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

snip
Why? I know too little to do any real programming of that beastie -
the only way i am getting what i want is by learning ladder logic and
using LDmicro.exe .

Interesting program. It seems to work well in wine under linux. I've
used ladder logic on elderly Siemens PLCs and this is fairly similar.

If you've done any programming in BASIC can I recommend the Great Cow
BASIC compiler? It works very well and is free (the full version, not a
crippled demo). It also has very good support for on-chip peripherals.
http://gcbasic.sourceforge.net/

I have the "most recent" BASIC compiler that M$ made just before
Visual Basic..called Professional Development System; works just like
the slightly older QuickBasic with some extensions and it compiles and
one can hook code from other compilers as well.
What does Great Cow do that is interesting / different?


It compiles into PIC or AVR code, ready for burning onto the chip.
GCBASIC is just the compiler, you need a separate editor but instructions
are included for setting up the excellent Crimson editor to allow
compilation with a single key. When used with the Microchip PicKit
programmer then a couple of clicks burns it onto the chip.

Obviously, you have limitations compared to QuickBasic & co, but it is
quick to use and the resulting code seems to be pretty good. Have a look
through the on-line help file: http://gcbasic.sourceforge.net/help/

If you use the Microchip MPLAB development software the gcbasic code can
be read into that and run with full simulation, breakpoints etc. Could be
handy on larger projects, but I've never bothered.

Now _that_ is interesting..but then i would have to learn all of the
ins and outs of the PIC i am using (and next the ins and outs of the PIC
i should use next).

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:39:36 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

mick wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:28:56 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

mick wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:04:14 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

snip
Why? I know too little to do any real programming of that beastie
-
the only way i am getting what i want is by learning ladder logic
and using LDmicro.exe .

Interesting program. It seems to work well in wine under linux. I've
used ladder logic on elderly Siemens PLCs and this is fairly similar.

If you've done any programming in BASIC can I recommend the Great Cow
BASIC compiler? It works very well and is free (the full version, not
a crippled demo). It also has very good support for on-chip
peripherals. http://gcbasic.sourceforge.net/

I have the "most recent" BASIC compiler that M$ made just before
Visual Basic..called Professional Development System; works just like
the slightly older QuickBasic with some extensions and it compiles and
one can hook code from other compilers as well.
What does Great Cow do that is interesting / different?


It compiles into PIC or AVR code, ready for burning onto the chip.
GCBASIC is just the compiler, you need a separate editor but
instructions are included for setting up the excellent Crimson editor
to allow compilation with a single key. When used with the Microchip
PicKit programmer then a couple of clicks burns it onto the chip.

Obviously, you have limitations compared to QuickBasic & co, but it is
quick to use and the resulting code seems to be pretty good. Have a
look through the on-line help file:
http://gcbasic.sourceforge.net/help/

If you use the Microchip MPLAB development software the gcbasic code
can be read into that and run with full simulation, breakpoints etc.
Could be handy on larger projects, but I've never bothered.

Now _that_ is interesting..but then i would have to learn all of the
ins and outs of the PIC i am using (and next the ins and outs of the PIC
i should use next).


g
Lucky that gcbasic supports so many chips then. Should keep you busy and
out of mischief for quite a while!

You could always learn a bit of assembler of course...


Luckily the PICs tend to be fairly similar. Learning one will give a very
good grounding for any/all of the others.

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

mick wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:39:36 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

mick wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:28:56 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

mick wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:04:14 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

snip
Why? I know too little to do any real programming of that beastie
-
the only way i am getting what i want is by learning ladder logic
and using LDmicro.exe .
Interesting program. It seems to work well in wine under linux. I've
used ladder logic on elderly Siemens PLCs and this is fairly similar.

If you've done any programming in BASIC can I recommend the Great Cow
BASIC compiler? It works very well and is free (the full version, not
a crippled demo). It also has very good support for on-chip
peripherals. http://gcbasic.sourceforge.net/

I have the "most recent" BASIC compiler that M$ made just before
Visual Basic..called Professional Development System; works just like
the slightly older QuickBasic with some extensions and it compiles and
one can hook code from other compilers as well.
What does Great Cow do that is interesting / different?

It compiles into PIC or AVR code, ready for burning onto the chip.
GCBASIC is just the compiler, you need a separate editor but
instructions are included for setting up the excellent Crimson editor
to allow compilation with a single key. When used with the Microchip
PicKit programmer then a couple of clicks burns it onto the chip.

Obviously, you have limitations compared to QuickBasic & co, but it is
quick to use and the resulting code seems to be pretty good. Have a
look through the on-line help file:
http://gcbasic.sourceforge.net/help/

If you use the Microchip MPLAB development software the gcbasic code
can be read into that and run with full simulation, breakpoints etc.
Could be handy on larger projects, but I've never bothered.

Now _that_ is interesting..but then i would have to learn all of the
ins and outs of the PIC i am using (and next the ins and outs of the PIC
i should use next).


g
Lucky that gcbasic supports so many chips then. Should keep you busy and
out of mischief for quite a while!

You could always learn a bit of assembler of course...


Luckily the PICs tend to be fairly similar. Learning one will give a very
good grounding for any/all of the others.

Well, i do know ASM for a number of computers, and the same scheme is
common to all of them - just the details (one address, two, or three;
indexing, etc).
Where it gets dicey are the details of the MCU structu
Start-up code, where and how to store/access things (RAM, ROM, I/O, etc).
Sigh....nuttin' EZ...