Sign in
Search basicx
Subscribe to basicx
basicx by Keywords
Accelerometer | ADC | ADXL | Adxl20 | AVR | BasicStamp | BX-35 | BX28 | BX35 | COM3 | Compiler | Downloader | EEPROM | Electromagnet | GetADC | GP2D1 | GPS | I2C | IDE | Keypad | LCD | LCD+ | MIDI | Motors | Multitasking | Netmedia | Networking | PCB | PID | PlaySound | PWM | Relays | RTC | Servo | ShiftOut | SitePlayer | SPI | Stack | Timer | USB
Ads
Discussion Groups
Discussion Groups | BasicX | Failed BasicX Chip
Discussion forum for the BasicX family of microcontroller chips.
Failed BasicX Chip - Nathaniel Barshay - Apr 13 22:29:03 2007
Hey,
I'm trying to compete in the Trinity Robotics fire fighting contest on
Sunday but my relatively new BasicX-P Chip has stopped responding to
my attempts to download (or any other communication to the chip).
The chip still executes the program in it perfectly and even sends
messages back through the debugger, but I can't get it to pay
attention to the ATN. I have tried it in many other boards that I
have to the same result. The only thing I can think of for why it may
have failed so easily is that theres seems to be a lot of white
material over the traces which I assume to be screening material,
could this be an indicator of it being manufactured in some way and
why it is failing so early?.
Regardless of whether or not it can be fixed, if anyone in the general
vicinity of Hartford CT has a spare Basic-X that I can pick up before
Sunday I would be willing to drive 2 hours come and buy it from you
(for whatever price you ask),
Thanks,
Nathaniel
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
I'm trying to compete in the Trinity Robotics fire fighting contest on
Sunday but my relatively new BasicX-P Chip has stopped responding to
my attempts to download (or any other communication to the chip).
The chip still executes the program in it perfectly and even sends
messages back through the debugger, but I can't get it to pay
attention to the ATN. I have tried it in many other boards that I
have to the same result. The only thing I can think of for why it may
have failed so easily is that theres seems to be a lot of white
material over the traces which I assume to be screening material,
could this be an indicator of it being manufactured in some way and
why it is failing so early?.
Regardless of whether or not it can be fixed, if anyone in the general
vicinity of Hartford CT has a spare Basic-X that I can pick up before
Sunday I would be willing to drive 2 hours come and buy it from you
(for whatever price you ask),
Thanks,
Nathaniel
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Failed BasicX Chip - "G. Kramer Herzog" - Apr 14 7:01:14 2007
One suggestion is to remove the BasicX and let it 'rest' in a power
down state for 30 minutes or so before trying again. This is a
suggestion that I gleaned from another web site sometime ago and is
really 'when all else fails'. I have yet to have the problem, so this
is 2nd hand advice.
The simple fact is that BasicX has had problems with certain programing
modes ignoring the ATN line. Seems to be a long standing operating
system bug [thus the procedures in the documentation on how to overcome
it].
I personally would consider the BasicZ as an upgrade that might dodge
future problems. Code is similar, more speed, more options, etc.; but
haven't seen any complaints about this in particular.
>my relatively new BasicX-P Chip has stopped responding to
> my attempts to download (or any other communication to the chip).
>
> The chip still executes the program in it perfectly and even sends
> messages back through the debugger, but I can't get it to pay
> attention to the ATN.
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
down state for 30 minutes or so before trying again. This is a
suggestion that I gleaned from another web site sometime ago and is
really 'when all else fails'. I have yet to have the problem, so this
is 2nd hand advice.
The simple fact is that BasicX has had problems with certain programing
modes ignoring the ATN line. Seems to be a long standing operating
system bug [thus the procedures in the documentation on how to overcome
it].
I personally would consider the BasicZ as an upgrade that might dodge
future problems. Code is similar, more speed, more options, etc.; but
haven't seen any complaints about this in particular.
>my relatively new BasicX-P Chip has stopped responding to
> my attempts to download (or any other communication to the chip).
>
> The chip still executes the program in it perfectly and even sends
> messages back through the debugger, but I can't get it to pay
> attention to the ATN.
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Failed BasicX Chip - "nje...@ihug.co.nz" - Apr 14 18:47:13 2007
Nat
I have to agree with what tom said. I have used several
h7undred BX24s in a wide variety of apps and have never had the
condition you talk of. Try pwering off the board, start your down load
then when the "retry..." appears on the screen, turn on the power to the
develpment board. I've never had this fail yet. You could also try
holding the rest button down, startinmg the download the atfer a few
secs..release the reset.
neil
Nathaniel Barshay wrote:
> Hey,
> I'm trying to compete in the Trinity Robotics fire fighting contest on
> Sunday but my relatively new BasicX-P Chip has stopped responding to
> my attempts to download (or any other communication to the chip).
>
> The chip still executes the program in it perfectly and even sends
> messages back through the debugger, but I can't get it to pay
> attention to the ATN. I have tried it in many other boards that I
> have to the same result. The only thing I can think of for why it may
> have failed so easily is that theres seems to be a lot of white
> material over the traces which I assume to be screening material,
> could this be an indicator of it being manufactured in some way and
> why it is failing so early?.
>
> Regardless of whether or not it can be fixed, if anyone in the general
> vicinity of Hartford CT has a spare Basic-X that I can pick up before
> Sunday I would be willing to drive 2 hours come and buy it from you
> (for whatever price you ask),
> Thanks,
> Nathaniel
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/743 - Release Date: 2/04/2007 4:24 p.m.
>
>
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
I have to agree with what tom said. I have used several
h7undred BX24s in a wide variety of apps and have never had the
condition you talk of. Try pwering off the board, start your down load
then when the "retry..." appears on the screen, turn on the power to the
develpment board. I've never had this fail yet. You could also try
holding the rest button down, startinmg the download the atfer a few
secs..release the reset.
neil
Nathaniel Barshay wrote:
> Hey,
> I'm trying to compete in the Trinity Robotics fire fighting contest on
> Sunday but my relatively new BasicX-P Chip has stopped responding to
> my attempts to download (or any other communication to the chip).
>
> The chip still executes the program in it perfectly and even sends
> messages back through the debugger, but I can't get it to pay
> attention to the ATN. I have tried it in many other boards that I
> have to the same result. The only thing I can think of for why it may
> have failed so easily is that theres seems to be a lot of white
> material over the traces which I assume to be screening material,
> could this be an indicator of it being manufactured in some way and
> why it is failing so early?.
>
> Regardless of whether or not it can be fixed, if anyone in the general
> vicinity of Hartford CT has a spare Basic-X that I can pick up before
> Sunday I would be willing to drive 2 hours come and buy it from you
> (for whatever price you ask),
> Thanks,
> Nathaniel
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/743 - Release Date: 2/04/2007 4:24 p.m.
>
>
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: Failed BasicX Chip - Nathaniel Barshay - Apr 14 23:23:24 2007
Thank you all for your responses, after the contest I will be sure to try
your suggestions for recovering my chip,
Waiting in line to get into trinity today I was lucky enough to overhear
someone talking about the chip, and I was saved when they happened to have a
spare that they were willing to lone me,
thanks again,
Nathaniel
On 14 Apr 2007 17:10:24 -0700, Don Kirby wrote:
>
> > Regardless of whether or not it can be fixed, if anyone in the general
> > vicinity of Hartford CT has a spare Basic-X that I can pick up before
> > Sunday I would be willing to drive 2 hours come and buy it from you
> > (for whatever price you ask),
>
> Well, I might be a day late on this one, but I'm on Long Island, and I
> have one I can spare. I could meet you on my side of the ferry Sunday
> if you still need one.
>
> -Don
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
your suggestions for recovering my chip,
Waiting in line to get into trinity today I was lucky enough to overhear
someone talking about the chip, and I was saved when they happened to have a
spare that they were willing to lone me,
thanks again,
Nathaniel
On 14 Apr 2007 17:10:24 -0700, Don Kirby
>
> > Regardless of whether or not it can be fixed, if anyone in the general
> > vicinity of Hartford CT has a spare Basic-X that I can pick up before
> > Sunday I would be willing to drive 2 hours come and buy it from you
> > (for whatever price you ask),
>
> Well, I might be a day late on this one, but I'm on Long Island, and I
> have one I can spare. I could meet you on my side of the ferry Sunday
> if you still need one.
>
> -Don
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Failed BasicX Chip - Tom Becker - Apr 16 11:15:06 2007
> ... I'm trying to compete in the Trinity Robotics fire fighting
contest on Sunday...
How did you do?
Tom
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Failed BasicX Chip - "G. Kramer Herzog" - Apr 16 13:51:49 2007
Tom Becker wrote:
>
> > ... The simple fact is that BasicX has had problems with certain
programming modes ignoring the ATN line.
>
> So that we all can avoid these certain programming modes, which are
they, G?
>
Hi Tom,
As of yet, I haven't ever been locked out and discussion and
speculation does appear to center around Timer0.
My information came from several websites, particulary one NYC
instructor that claimed several occasions in teaching BasicX courses.
It is reputed that streaming Analog to Digital Data directly to through
the RS-232 [ADCtoCOM1] is a higher risk.
Frankly, I have no clarity as to whether this is inherent in the
silicon or the firmware. Reading about Timer0 confounds me.
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
>
> > ... The simple fact is that BasicX has had problems with certain
programming modes ignoring the ATN line.
>
> So that we all can avoid these certain programming modes, which are
they, G?
>
Hi Tom,
As of yet, I haven't ever been locked out and discussion and
speculation does appear to center around Timer0.
My information came from several websites, particulary one NYC
instructor that claimed several occasions in teaching BasicX courses.
It is reputed that streaming Analog to Digital Data directly to through
the RS-232 [ADCtoCOM1] is a higher risk.
Frankly, I have no clarity as to whether this is inherent in the
silicon or the firmware. Reading about Timer0 confounds me.
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: Failed BasicX Chip - Nathaniel Barshay - Apr 16 13:56:09 2007
I had a first incredibly fast run with deductions coming to about 6 seconds,
putting me in second this time was .7 seconds of the leader and since my
robot failed to go home that run (would have resulted in a time of 5.1) if I
could do two more runs like that plus return home the entry level devision
was mine. Unfortunately the second run the fan stuck to the tape that holds
it in place so it doesn't block the sensors (high speed, very low torque
fan), it came unstuck in that last few seconds of the putout routine, and
the candle looked like it was out (the judges even stopped their watches at
under 3 seconds!) but again re-lit when I turned around to go home. I
wasn't a very good sport and lost hope after that run and didn't properly
prepare for the third run so I failed there too,
Overall disappointing but considering it was built in a month, programmed in
a week, and then rebuilt on Saturday even qualifying was good and there
always next year,
Nathaniel
On 16 Apr 2007 08:15:02 -0700, Tom Becker wrote:
> > ... I'm trying to compete in the Trinity Robotics fire fighting
> contest on Sunday...
>
> How did you do?
>
> Tom
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
putting me in second this time was .7 seconds of the leader and since my
robot failed to go home that run (would have resulted in a time of 5.1) if I
could do two more runs like that plus return home the entry level devision
was mine. Unfortunately the second run the fan stuck to the tape that holds
it in place so it doesn't block the sensors (high speed, very low torque
fan), it came unstuck in that last few seconds of the putout routine, and
the candle looked like it was out (the judges even stopped their watches at
under 3 seconds!) but again re-lit when I turned around to go home. I
wasn't a very good sport and lost hope after that run and didn't properly
prepare for the third run so I failed there too,
Overall disappointing but considering it was built in a month, programmed in
a week, and then rebuilt on Saturday even qualifying was good and there
always next year,
Nathaniel
On 16 Apr 2007 08:15:02 -0700, Tom Becker
> > ... I'm trying to compete in the Trinity Robotics fire fighting
> contest on Sunday...
>
> How did you do?
>
> Tom
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )