I own it. At least I own everything that is important to making it go.
The ex GM of the company has filed patents in his name (he invented 
shit) he was too dumb even to realuise what the crucial elements were, 
and has patented crap, nothing I need to make it run. Problem is that it 
is an expensive thing to do. This work was done in 1995-6 as a 
substitute for vapour LPG. Although I know how to do a pure LPG vehicle 
it hasn't been done. Incidentally  on two occasions my cars have been 
taken over to the US for alternate fuel competitions/expos, and have 
cleaned up each time. Interestingly the cars taken were bought by people 
hoping to attract investment in technology they didn't own. I believe 
that every after market ECU maker in aus has been shown my hardware, or 
what was left after I hacked it to bits with an axe, yet none of them 
could make the car drive even remotely well. My car was tested on long 
haul drives to Darwin at temperstures over 45C, and up in the snowfields.

I also worked on LPG supplementation/substitution for diesel. Over the 
intervening years I have had various people approach me to resurrect 
these projects, but, unless they are prepared to fully fund it I have no 
interest.  I was in the final throws of landing a deal with a large 
asian car maker, then my accident bollocksed that up. The main cost 
issue is the development of the custom tank. My last one disappeared as 
soon as it was fitted to a car owned by the last guy I thought was a 
serious partner.

Al

Raymond Keefe wrote:

> Hi Al,
> 
> for the liquid propane injection project, who owns the IP?  Should be
> progressable on commercial grounds if you can secure it?
> 
> Just an idea.
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 

Robert Wood wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On the other matters, I'm afraid to say I don't even know what
separate 
> compilation is and I've never found any C commands that don't
work on it. I'm 
> really an assembly language programmer who's finally given in to C, so
I'm 
> sure I hugely underuse the language anyway! 
> 
> Rob

Boo Hiss, traitor to the cause!

;@}

Al

Hi Paul,

>> None taken. You can, of course, configure
exactly how you'd like to lay
out CrossWorks, and it even comes with a couple of pre-canned layouts
(VS.NET and VC 6) which are on Windows > Workspace Layouts.  <<

<Goes off and looks>

Oh yeah. Hadn't noticed this...

>> If you like AVR Studio's layout (I
don't particularly) it would be
a simple matter to add the XML configuration file for that to the
distribution. <<

What I think's much better with Crossworks is how easy it is to set break 
points while looking at the source code, but running the debugger. I'm not 

bothered about trying to recreate Studio, Crossworks is just fine. :-) 

>>  On another note, we'll be releasing the
v1.0 AVR product for a beta
period next week. It's been through the mill, but you never know
what
customers are going to do with it... <<

I certainly want to have a play with it because I can run it under Linux which 
is a big thing for me. 

Cheers,

Rob

Hi Robert, 

> >> None taken.  You can, of course,
configure exactly how 
> you'd like to 
> >> lay
> out CrossWorks, and it even comes with a couple of pre-canned 
> layouts (VS.NET and VC 6) which are on Windows > Workspace 
> Layouts.  <<
> 
> <Goes off and looks>
> 
> Oh yeah. Hadn't noticed this...

And, of course, you can have different layout in Editing and Debugging
and Full Screen mode.  Eclipse calls these, err, Perspectives.  I was
considering adding user-defined perspectives so that you can, for
instance, drop into a "Finding" perspective or a "Browsing"
perspective
where you can configure (e.g.) the Source Navigator to show in the main
tab area.  It's just getting the time to do this.

> >>  On another note, we'll be releasing
the v1.0 AVR product 
> for a beta
> period next week.  It's been through the mill, but you never 
> know what customers are going to do with it... <<
> 
> I certainly want to have a play with it because I can run it 
> under Linux which is a big thing for me. 

We have the JTAG ICE running on Linux (I think Mike's tested it), but
have not yet finished (or probably even started) the JTAG ICE Mk II
support.  Tsvetan will, hopefully, be providing us his new USB JTAG
gizmo for debugging, so we can ensure that things are working with that.

Regards,

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, and (soon) Atmel AVR processors  

Hi Paul,

> > I too felt spoilt with AVR Studio, very nice
debugging, and 
> > then came CrossWorks :-) I'm actually as we speak/type doing 
> > an RF Modem for a client with AVR Studio on ATMmega32 and 
> > JTAGIceMKII - using ICC-AVR.
> 
> Richard's or IAR's compiler?

Richard's.
When I introduced this client to AVR in 1999, I suggested he start with ICC-AVR.
He straight away bought the whole hoopla on IAR, did one SUA, and then went to
ICC-AVR.
Reckons he likes it a lot more :-)

I've been trying to lure him to MSP430, but no avail yet... heh ...

> The MkII is a nice piece of kit (read:
> faster), hopefully we'll support it in the v1.1 toolset or as a patch
to
> the v1.0 toolset.

I had so much fiddling to get the darn thing to work, turns out a Vcc track on
JTAG
was missing (pin 4) on the HW I was given, as was a tarck on the 6 pin ISP conn.
Gave Target Power errors all the time, arrgh. ("Target power lost..")
But it really does fly on the USB allright....

-- Kris

Hey Kris,

>> I too felt spoilt with AVR Studio, very nice
debugging, and then came
CrossWorks :-) <<

Really? I do like Crossworks - a lot (and I do like its integration with the 
compiler/editor) - but I still think Studio is better laid out. No offence to 
Paul. ;-) 

>> (The fuse setting is a pain, can't
"boot" of an internal Osc when injecting 
Ext clock) <<

Oh yeah. The AVR fuses are a real PITA! Nothing's ever perfect...

Cheers,

Rob

Hey Roberto,

> Hey Kris,
> 
> >> I too felt spoilt with AVR Studio, very nice debugging, and then
came
> CrossWorks :-) <<

> > Really? I do like Crossworks - a lot (and I
do like its integration with the 
> compiler/editor) - but I still think Studio is better laid out. No offence
to 
> Paul. ;-) 

I did mean that CrossWorks is *that* much better for me.
I vividly recall seeing the first glimpse of the internal Beta and thinking
(or even saying to Paul), "hey, that looks a bit like Studio..." :-)

Using AVR Studio makes me limp along, but hey, it's free SW ...
It just takes a lot of space, but doesn't provide enough "all in one
glance".
(ie. stack, vars, locals, threads, symbols, source, regs, C module usage
Flash/RAM wise 
just about all at once before me)
Here CrossWorks is lightyears ahead.
The highlight about Studio IMO is the tree-approach to all peripherals, but
considering how much I would use it, not fussy either way...

Probably because I've used CW430 for so long, but I've felt right at
home
since the first few moments I tested with it.

Cheers Rob,

B rgds
Kris

Hi Kris, 

> Hi Robert,
> 
> > I'm also not that bothered about there being no debugger 
> because the 
> > Atmel Studio debugger is just about the best debugger I've 
> ever used; 
> > it's free and Codevision works seamlessly with it for me. :-)
> 
> I too felt spoilt with AVR Studio, very nice debugging, and 
> then came CrossWorks :-) I'm actually as we speak/type doing 
> an RF Modem for a client with AVR Studio on ATMmega32 and 
> JTAGIceMKII - using ICC-AVR.

Richard's or IAR's compiler?  The MkII is a nice piece of kit (read:
faster), hopefully we'll support it in the v1.1 toolset or as a patch to
the v1.0 toolset.

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, and (soon) Atmel AVR processors  

Hi Robert, 

> >> I too felt spoilt with AVR Studio, very
nice debugging, 
> and then came
> CrossWorks :-) <<
> 
> Really? I do like Crossworks - a lot (and I do like its 
> integration with the
> compiler/editor) - but I still think Studio is better laid 
> out. No offence to Paul. ;-) 

None taken.  You can, of course, configure exactly how you'd like to lay
out CrossWorks, and it even comes with a couple of pre-canned layouts
(VS.NET and VC 6) which are on Windows > Workspace Layouts.  The v1.3
release has lots of minor improvements in all the windows, as well as
supporting more chips, more target interfaces, new help system, and so
on.  If you like AVR Studio's layout (I don't particularly) it would
be
a simple matter to add the XML configuration file for that to the
distribution.

On another note, we'll be releasing the v1.0 AVR product for a beta
period next week.  It's been through the mill, but you never know what
customers are going to do with it...

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, and (soon) Atmel AVR processors  

Hi Paul,

>> > >> On the AVR, there's the low
cost competitor from Romanian. <<
> 
> I assume you mean Pavel at Codevision? He does an unbelievable job I
> think. It's a great compiler at a truly fantastic price. He does have
> the luxury of not having to worry about the debugger though! 

There are, of course, compromises with this system, not least of which
is no separate compilation, no full support for the C language, and no
debugger. Other than that, it seems OK, but the code it generates is,
err, rather bloated. <<

I believe he's made a few improvements on the code generation in the last 
release. It certainly seems acceptable to me and I'm working on a release 
that's well over a year old. 

On the other matters, I'm afraid to say I don't even know what
separate 
compilation is and I've never found any C commands that don't work on
it. I'm 
really an assembly language programmer who's finally given in to C, so
I'm 
sure I hugely underuse the language anyway! 

I'm also not that bothered about there being no debugger because the Atmel 
Studio debugger is just about the best debugger I've ever used; it's
free and 
Codevision works seamlessly with it for me. :-) 

>> > I believe he's developing a compiler
for MSP430. I assume this will
> have a debugger with it.

Brave man. There are too many C compilers for the MSP430 now. I don't
think the MSP430 tool market can stand much more in the way of
additional compiler toolsets. <<

Yes, I politely made this observation on the Codevision list and I got shouted 
down big time by lots of other people on the list! It's his lookout, he has

been warned! ;-) 

Cheers,

Rob