Sign in
Search piclist
Subscribe to piclist
piclist by Keywords
12F675 | 16F628 | 16F84 | 16f877 | 16F877A | 16F88 | 18F458 | ADC | AVR | Bootloader | CAN | CCS | CRC | EAGLE | EEPROM | ICD | ICSP | IDE | JDM | LED | Macros | Microchip | MPLAB | PCB-CAD | PIC10F | Pic12f675 | PIC16F84 | PIC16F84A | PIC16F877 | PIC18 | PIC18F452 | PicBasic | PICC | PICSTART | PWM | RS-485 | RS232 | SMT | SPI | UART | USART | USB | Wireless | Wisp628 | Xilinx
Ads
Discussion Groups
Discussion Groups | Piclist | A beginner's question about programmers
A discussion group for the PICMicro microcontroller. Also called the Microchip PIC, this list is dedicated to the use and abuse of this fine, simple, microcontroller. Close to topic posts are welcome, ie. general electronics.
A beginner's question about programmers - d98mp - Dec 5 16:41:00 2004
|
As a beginner who haven't got started programming PICs, I have some questions regarding the programming equipment. What I find difficult is that the Internet is full of material which may or may not be too old to be relevant. I have downloaded a programmer program called ICProg which supports a variety of programming hardware. There is a Danish programmer called JDM which seems to be easy to build and is supported by ICProg. However, the PIC world is a jungle and none of the PICs I've read about are claimed to be supported on the JDM homepage. I consider using 18F452 or 16F628. Is there any user of the JDM who can verify its compatibility with these chips? If not, my second question is if there is any other simple programmer design which supports these chips and is supported by ICProg/any other free programming software. /Mattias |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: PLC vs PIC - pondindustrial - Dec 17 12:08:00 2004
|
Hi, >Is UL Listing a consideration? CE mark? Very good point, although we will have our PIC based controller UL listed upon completion, along with the rest of the system. If anyone is curious about the application, our website can be found here. http://www.pondpcs.com Thanks, Eric --- In , "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > Is UL Listing a consideration? CE mark? > > --- In , "pondindustrial" > <pondindustrial@y...> wrote: > > > > Dwayne, > > > > Wow, you hit the nail on the head! > > > > I was under the impression PIC's were sluggish compared to PLC's. > To > > be honest, I got this impression after searching the web for PIC > > projects and found nothing more than trivial, hobby oriented stuff > > (not that there's anything wrong with hobby projects). I did run > some > > minor speed test of my own on a PIC16F877, I simply created a For > > Loop and incremented a variable to 50k, turned on a LED, paused > for > > one second, then turned the LED off, reset the counter to zero, > then > > did it over again, and again. The time between illuminations was > > quick considering; from there I couldn't understand why I didn't > find > > any processor demanding applications as a result of my Goggle > > searches… > > > > I did a quick tally of parts to recreate the functionality of the > ML- > > 1500 PLC combination (I/O cards etc.) using a PIC, it came out to > > less than $100 per controller, depending on quantity. This > included a > > two layer PCB at a quantity of 100 per order assuming we stuffed > and > > soldered the PCB's ourselves, although I didn't include labor. > > > > Does this sound correct? > > > > Thanks, Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , Dwayne Reid <dwayner@p...> wrote: > > > At 02:41 PM 12/16/2004, pondindustrial wrote: > > > > > > >Lets assume I will use any PIC that will do the job, will any > PIC > > do > > > >the job of a MicroLogix-1500, or is this out of the league of > any > > PIC > > > >in terms of computing power? > > > >Remember, I do not need the flexibility of a PLC's programming > or > > > >hardware features, this product will be produced once and > > duplicated > > > >many times. The goal is to save money in reproduction cost, yet > > allow > > > >the machine to function the same. Is a PIC with the proper > > supporting > > > >components up to the task? > > > > > > Absolutely YES. > > > > > > All the hard work is going to be in the compiler end of things - > > the > > > application running on the PC that is taking in your ladder > logic > > and > > > turning it into state machines that run on the PIC. > > > > > > Eliminate the ladder logic end of things and you have something > > that many > > > of us do on a regular basis: write your application in Assembler > or > > a > > > high-level language of your choice. > > > > > > I can give a specific example: the card set we use in some of > our > > > industrial process ovens is based on a PIC 16c73b running at 4 > MHz > > (1 > > > MIPS). The card set consists of several cards. > > > > > > The main card contains: > > > 7 user controllable SPDT relays, > > > output drivers for 6 more off-board relays, > > > 14- 8-bit a/d inputs, > > > 1- RS-232 port, > > > 1- custom 1-wire network port for communications between 62 > other > > card sets > > > 2- 8 position dip switches > > > 8 wire buss that goes off to the display card > > > 14 pin ribbon header for LCD display > > > power supply (24 Vac CT input) > > > > > > The optional daughter card that sits on top of the main card > adds > > 14 more > > > a/d inputs, 8 more SPDT relays and 2 more 8-position dip > switches. > > > > > > The display card contains 40 LEDs, 7- trinary switch inputs > > (connect to > > > SPDT center-off switches), a ribbon header that goes off to a > small > > numeric > > > display card with up to 3 digits of 7-segment displays and > another > > ribbon > > > header used to connect multiple multiple systems together. > > > > > > The software originally written for the customer's application > was > > done as > > > a background / foreground cooperative muli-tasking application. > > The > > > background task looks after all I/O processes: getting a/d > > readings, > > > controlling all the relays & LEDs, managing all the > > communications. The > > > background task uses about 200 us out of each 1024 us time > tick. > > The > > > remaining 800 us is available to the foreground tasks. > > > > > > Just for giggles and laughs, I took a completely different > > application > > > originally written for an A-B slc500 PLC system and implemented > it > > on our > > > card set. Each major task in the original ladder diagram was > > implemented > > > as a state machine running in the foreground on my PIC system. > I > > think I > > > wound up with 15 or 20 state machines all running concurrently. > > > > > > Because the background task took care of all the I/O, making the > > original > > > application run on this card set took surprisingly little > effort. > > One > > > interesting consequence was that the effective loop time went > from > > tens of > > > ms down to the 1.024 ms tick rate of the background task. In > other > > words, > > > not only was it MUCH less expensive to produce, it was faster! > > > > > > The down sides were several but minor: > > > > > > 1) end user can't change the code - the 16c73 is an OTP part. > Some > > might > > > see that as a benefit. > > > > > > 2) Your typical electrician can't write the code him/herself. > They > > can > > > write it in ladder form and send it to us but they don't usually > > work in > > > PIC assembler themselves. That means that quick changes in the > > field don't > > > happen unless we are out there with the unit. > > > > > > 3) Failures / mistakes happen. The end user can't call up their > > local A-B > > > distributor and just order in a new PLC when a conveyor line > breaks > > and > > > dumps a two ton block of metal on top of the control cabinet or > > when the > > > local electrician accidently drops one leg of 600V feeder onto a > > 17V limit > > > switch connection. (I've seen both of the those as well as > other > > > interesting failures). > > > > > > We dealt with failures by including spare cards with each > system. > > The cost > > > of a set of spare cards was much less than the cost of the > > equivalent A-B PLC. > > > > > > Hope this helps! > > > > > > dwayne > > > > > > -- > > > Dwayne Reid <dwayner@p...> > > > Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd Edmonton, AB, CANADA > > > (780) 489-3199 voice (780) 487-6397 fax > > > > > > Celebrating 20 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2004) > > > .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .- > > > `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' > > > Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address. > > > This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited > > > commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email. |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: PLC vs PIC - pondindustrial - Dec 17 12:08:00 2004
|
Hi, >Is UL Listing a consideration? CE mark? Very good point, although we will have our PIC based controller UL listed upon completion, along with the rest of the system. If anyone is curious about the application, our website can be found here. http://www.pondpcs.com Thanks, Eric --- In , "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > Is UL Listing a consideration? CE mark? > > --- In , "pondindustrial" > <pondindustrial@y...> wrote: > > > > Dwayne, > > > > Wow, you hit the nail on the head! > > > > I was under the impression PIC's were sluggish compared to PLC's. > To > > be honest, I got this impression after searching the web for PIC > > projects and found nothing more than trivial, hobby oriented stuff > > (not that there's anything wrong with hobby projects). I did run > some > > minor speed test of my own on a PIC16F877, I simply created a For > > Loop and incremented a variable to 50k, turned on a LED, paused > for > > one second, then turned the LED off, reset the counter to zero, > then > > did it over again, and again. The time between illuminations was > > quick considering; from there I couldn't understand why I didn't > find > > any processor demanding applications as a result of my Goggle > > searches… > > > > I did a quick tally of parts to recreate the functionality of the > ML- > > 1500 PLC combination (I/O cards etc.) using a PIC, it came out to > > less than $100 per controller, depending on quantity. This > included a > > two layer PCB at a quantity of 100 per order assuming we stuffed > and > > soldered the PCB's ourselves, although I didn't include labor. > > > > Does this sound correct? > > > > Thanks, Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , Dwayne Reid <dwayner@p...> wrote: > > > At 02:41 PM 12/16/2004, pondindustrial wrote: > > > > > > >Lets assume I will use any PIC that will do the job, will any > PIC > > do > > > >the job of a MicroLogix-1500, or is this out of the league of > any > > PIC > > > >in terms of computing power? > > > >Remember, I do not need the flexibility of a PLC's programming > or > > > >hardware features, this product will be produced once and > > duplicated > > > >many times. The goal is to save money in reproduction cost, yet > > allow > > > >the machine to function the same. Is a PIC with the proper > > supporting > > > >components up to the task? > > > > > > Absolutely YES. > > > > > > All the hard work is going to be in the compiler end of things - > > the > > > application running on the PC that is taking in your ladder > logic > > and > > > turning it into state machines that run on the PIC. > > > > > > Eliminate the ladder logic end of things and you have something > > that many > > > of us do on a regular basis: write your application in Assembler > or > > a > > > high-level language of your choice. > > > > > > I can give a specific example: the card set we use in some of > our > > > industrial process ovens is based on a PIC 16c73b running at 4 > MHz > > (1 > > > MIPS). The card set consists of several cards. > > > > > > The main card contains: > > > 7 user controllable SPDT relays, > > > output drivers for 6 more off-board relays, > > > 14- 8-bit a/d inputs, > > > 1- RS-232 port, > > > 1- custom 1-wire network port for communications between 62 > other > > card sets > > > 2- 8 position dip switches > > > 8 wire buss that goes off to the display card > > > 14 pin ribbon header for LCD display > > > power supply (24 Vac CT input) > > > > > > The optional daughter card that sits on top of the main card > adds > > 14 more > > > a/d inputs, 8 more SPDT relays and 2 more 8-position dip > switches. > > > > > > The display card contains 40 LEDs, 7- trinary switch inputs > > (connect to > > > SPDT center-off switches), a ribbon header that goes off to a > small > > numeric > > > display card with up to 3 digits of 7-segment displays and > another > > ribbon > > > header used to connect multiple multiple systems together. > > > > > > The software originally written for the customer's application > was > > done as > > > a background / foreground cooperative muli-tasking application. > > The > > > background task looks after all I/O processes: getting a/d > > readings, > > > controlling all the relays & LEDs, managing all the > > communications. The > > > background task uses about 200 us out of each 1024 us time > tick. > > The > > > remaining 800 us is available to the foreground tasks. > > > > > > Just for giggles and laughs, I took a completely different > > application > > > originally written for an A-B slc500 PLC system and implemented > it > > on our > > > card set. Each major task in the original ladder diagram was > > implemented > > > as a state machine running in the foreground on my PIC system. > I > > think I > > > wound up with 15 or 20 state machines all running concurrently. > > > > > > Because the background task took care of all the I/O, making the > > original > > > application run on this card set took surprisingly little > effort. > > One > > > interesting consequence was that the effective loop time went > from > > tens of > > > ms down to the 1.024 ms tick rate of the background task. In > other > > words, > > > not only was it MUCH less expensive to produce, it was faster! > > > > > > The down sides were several but minor: > > > > > > 1) end user can't change the code - the 16c73 is an OTP part. > Some > > might > > > see that as a benefit. > > > > > > 2) Your typical electrician can't write the code him/herself. > They > > can > > > write it in ladder form and send it to us but they don't usually > > work in > > > PIC assembler themselves. That means that quick changes in the > > field don't > > > happen unless we are out there with the unit. > > > > > > 3) Failures / mistakes happen. The end user can't call up their > > local A-B > > > distributor and just order in a new PLC when a conveyor line > breaks > > and > > > dumps a two ton block of metal on top of the control cabinet or > > when the > > > local electrician accidently drops one leg of 600V feeder onto a > > 17V limit > > > switch connection. (I've seen both of the those as well as > other > > > interesting failures). > > > > > > We dealt with failures by including spare cards with each > system. > > The cost > > > of a set of spare cards was much less than the cost of the > > equivalent A-B PLC. > > > > > > Hope this helps! > > > > > > dwayne > > > > > > -- > > > Dwayne Reid <dwayner@p...> > > > Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd Edmonton, AB, CANADA > > > (780) 489-3199 voice (780) 487-6397 fax > > > > > > Celebrating 20 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2004) > > > .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .- > > > `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' > > > Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address. > > > This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited > > > commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email. |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )