Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:25 am Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

At 11:21 AM 4/9/2012, you wrote:




Bob,



I probably should have changed the Subject line on this but I decided 

to leave it alone to continue

the thread we had started. It is getting away from the LED wig-wag topic...



   Okay, how about 'open source product development for OBAM aircraft"

I have thought about this a little and I think it would be worthwhile 

to consider the option of a general purpose

programmable module and use the LED wig-wag as a simple example 

application. I see three useful

characteristics for this module



1. Functionality set in software

2. Some capability to configure the I/O circuits for each application

3. A standard module package and connector such as the one you showed 

using an enclosed case with d-sub connector

   That was the idea behind the "do allot" ECB

   and companion schematic. It's readily deduced

   that no single product would use ALL the parts

   in the schematic. But selective use of parts

   and software offers a host of possibilities.



   This particular board was bounded by the dimensions

   of the case . . . but there are larger cases

   that could be considered. But there's value in

   maximizing the 'core' of a bill of materials

   that varies only slightly from product to product

   and this size seemed like a good starting place.



To be useful for a wide audience there needs to be simple learning 

curve for developing the software

functionality and I/O configuration. I agree that the use of a PIC 

micro would be the way to go based on

their ready availability, good price per performance, and 

availability of development tools.

   <snip>



   My father-in-law has been doing my PIC software

   on a PICkit 1. I think they're $36 from Digikey.

   The source editor/compiler is free.



http://tinyurl.com/7dq97tv



   <snip>



I don't know enough about hardware design to know if the use of these 

types of boards or even just a prototyping board

from Radio Shack are robust enough to handle the environment of 

mounting in an experimental aircraft but based on the

VX-Aviation module it would seem they may be up to the job...



    these same considerations drove the do-lots board.

    Everything needed to do a lot of tasks could be

    completely contained in the 'standard enclosure'.



Anyway, this note is getting a little long so I will end it here. I 

would appreciate feedback from anyone who is interested

in something along these lines in order to see if my thoughts on this 

make any sense to anyone beside me. I am only

interested as an end user of the module and have no real interest in 

designing / producing any type of hardware boards.

I can handle setting up the I/O circuits on a pre-made board but I 

don't have much interest in board development even

though I know it is something that is not that hard to learn.



    Not 'hard' but certainly time consuming. This

    is where the open-source approach might allow

    the community of interested users to contribute

    in concert with their interests and available

    time.



    For my part, I can readily advise on schematics

    and functionality that are 'aviation friendly'.

    Been doing that for decades. I would proposed that

    the development chain of any single device be

    published, certainly here on the List and perhaps

    archived on aeroelectric.com



    I did the c-mos gate wig-wag as a practical exercise

    with low risk for success. It's not been laid up

    on a board but could be easily brass-boarded and

    hardened for installation on an airplane. Doing

    a PIC based flasher might be the short path to

    success. The board and packaging is done. The aviation

    friendly architecture is done.



    So, tell you what. If you program this beastie,

    I'll supply the parts. We can turn this into a practical

    path to service your needs along with a teaching

    moment for interested readers. I'll turn it into

    an off-the-shelf product. I'll make cases and bare

    board available to anyone who wants to do their own

    version of a do-lots module. If they contribute their

    own efforts to the open-source library, then depending

    on interest-at-large . . . we can make that an

    off the shelf product as well.



    I'll look into the options for getting some

    beefier fets in the box.



   Bob . . .

JLuckey(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:15 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

All



Regarding Selection of Micro-controller:



There should probably be some due diligence with respect to selection of

micro-controller and micro-controller families to be considered for a

Do-Lots (generic controller w/ hardened interfaces to the real world)

device.



I've used PIC & ATMEL uControllers and I have opinions about both (which I'm

happy to share if people are interested).  I'm hoping others on this list do

too.



With some careful design, it may be possible to create a device that is

uController/Manufacturer agnostic.



Food for thought...

-Jeff Luckey



--

gregmchugh

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 42

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:38 pm Post subject: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Bob,



Sounds like a reasonable approach to me. Using these PIC chips gives a lot

of options for software development. The kit you mention is $36 direct

from Microchip. I just ordered one and will come up with the code for

the wig-wag example using the kit. We just need to decide on which

chip provides the right capabilities for the expected applications. I

expect the option exists to allow several of the PIC chips to drop into

the same board layout since the added pins simply increase the

number of I/O ports.



I believe the PICAXE chips are drop in replacements for the standard PIC

chips supported by the kit you referenced without the need for the

development kit. They can be programmed using the PICAXE kits which

are readily available for $30 to $50 with the major cost being a USB

programming cable. If you have a serial port available the cable is $6.

I expect the serial cable is easy to make yourself since it is simply a

connection to a 3.5mm stereo audio plug...



Development tools for BASIC on the PICAXE are free and there is also

an option to program the PICAXE directly from flowcharts using the

Logicator tool ($15 tool).



Enough options to satisfy most of the potential users...



Greg McHugh

gregmchugh

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 42

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Bob,



One question I forgot to ask in the previous note. When I looked at

using the Perihelion Wig-Wag for my LED landing lights I was

surprised at the compact size and the capability to switch the loads

on standard landing lights. Is there something unique about this

design to handle the 250 watt load?



Greg McHugh

JLuckey(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:34 am Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

I will 3rd that.  C is the way to go.  It takes some effort to move from

BASIC but it is worth it.  Get the de facto C bible: "The C Programming

Language" by Kernighan & Ritchie.



I would also like to suggest that people look at the AVR line of

uControllers from Atmel.



I started many years ago on Parallax & pretty quickly needed more

performance.  Then I latched onto PIC because they are very popular in

industry & I had some acquaintances who were professional electronic types,

and they were using them.



The thing I did not like about PIC was that you needed different programming

hardware, software, techniques for different families of their uCons.  I

like to use the little 8-16 pin devices & they were difficult to get

programmed in C. On the very small PICs, they recommend you program them in

assembler.  (this may have changed by now)



So I began exploring AVR

http://www.atmel.com/products/microcontrollers/avr/default.aspx

and now primarily use them.  



I like:

1. One programming environment for their entire family

2. Their Tiny(tm) chips are programmed in C

3. All ATMEL development tools are free & pretty good

4. Very good programmer/debuggers are available for around $100. 



Aside from those differences, the product lines among uController

manufacturers are surprisingly similar.  So my logic at the time was, as a

newbie, I did not want to go spend a couple of hundred dollars on

programming tools (both software & hardware) only to find out later that the

tools did not support the chip I had chosen or that I needed another

emulator, etc.



It seemed that Atmel made that decision much safer because the software

tools are free.





--

gregmchugh

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 42

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:49 am Post subject: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Jeff,



On the PIC vs AVR question I am also getting the feeling that PIC

may not be the best long-term choice. Bob has some PIC's in

stock and has a board designed so I have no issue with supporting

a software application for the wig-wag on that module. As I noted

before I have no real experience with PIC, or with AVR for that

matter, but I do see that PIC development tools are not universal.

When I looked at adding a PICkit 3 Debug Express (their $45 low

end debugging tool) to get real time debugging I found that I

would have to also add an interface board ($9) then a debug board for

each of the chips that do not have onboard debug support. The

interface board essentially has a version of the chip in a larger

DIP package to include the debugging support. Each of these

goes for $25. So, as you change processors in the PIC line you

are looking at additional cost for development tools. If Atmel

works around this with universal tools then I think that is a

significant plus in their favor.



Not sure if the consistency between the general AVR chips and

Arduino plays into this. Similar to PIC and PICAxe but not

quite the same since Arduino runs compiled C code. Can a

generic AVR chip be made Arduino compatible with

the download of the Arduino Loader onto the chip?



Greg McHugh

JLuckey(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:35 am Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Greg,



I haven't had the time to play w/ Arduinos (but I know many people who

have). I believe that Arduinos are AVR chips just like PICAXE are PICs and

accomplish the same mission (i.e. making the chip more user-friendly) but I

think they suffer a performance hit, also.



I'm not familiar enough w/ Arduino to answer your question.

-Jeff

--

enginerdy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:47 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Yes, check out this fairly minimal implementation here:



http://arduino.cc/en/uploads/Main/Arduino-Pro-schematic.pdf



U2 is the 3.3v or 5v regulator, depending on the board variant, and the odd-looking 0.1uF cap (C2) coupled to DTR allows the serial dongle to reset the chip. This makes programming the Arduino simpler with many of the USB<->serial TTL converters out there. (the chip must be reset to enter the bootloader, and if it times out before programming begins, it will not work. This allows the Arduino IDE to enter the bootloader/programming mode without requiring the user to press reset)



Additionally, following the 'FTDI Basic' header convention at JP5 gives you several options for plug-and-play arduino programmers. (Make sure you pick the right one, either 3.3v or 5v!)

And don't forget the ISP port JP3 so you can load the Arduino bootloader, or alternately load programs with AVR Studio and an AVR ISP device, without taking the chip out of the board.



Overall, making an Arduino clone should be pretty straightforward.



--Daniel



On Apr 13, 2012, at 1:49 PM, gregmchugh wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Can a

 generic AVR chip be made Arduino compatible with

 the download of the Arduino Loader onto the chip?

 

 Greg McHugh

rose9065f

Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 10
Location: Pahrump, NV

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:33 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

BASIC, COBOL, assembler, C++++, reminds me of a heated debate many years ago regarding the merits of octal vs hex.  Of course all these things are tools, and you use the tool that is most appropriate for the job at hand.  But if your only tool is hammer then everything looks like a nail.

Another famous debate was on the use of the GOTO statement.  Everybody knows that the GOTO is very bad.  I am proud to say that I once assisted in the development of a system that completely eliminated the GOTO.  It was based on the COMEFROM  statement and also the FISH stack.  COMEFROM  has fallen out of favor recently, but the FISH stack is still widely used: first in, still here.  The system was implemented as a SNOBOL preprocessor for a structured JOVIAL compiler.  Sadly it never caught on.

My native language is FORTRAN, which is very useful because you can write FORTRAN in any language.  Nostalgia aint what it used to be.

Jim

PS The most useful assembler statement is XPI, execute programmer immediate

_________________
KF2 582

henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:03 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Interesting.  The octal vs. hex debate didn't last long, did it?  The reason these two were invented was to get away from too many 1s and 0s, i.e. binary.  There are only 10 types of people in this world - those who understand binary and those who don't.

Henador Titzoff

        From: rez <rrr.cavu(at)yahoo.com>

 To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 

 Sent: Tuesday, April 17,  2012 10:32 PM

 Subject: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

 BASIC, COBOL, assembler, C++++, reminds me of a heated debate many years ago regarding the merits of octal vs hex.  Of course all these things are tools, and you use the tool that is most appropriate for the job at hand.  But if your only tool is hammer then everything looks like a nail.

Another famous debate was on the use of the GOTO statement.  Everybody knows that the GOTO is very bad.  I am proud to say that I once assisted in the development of a system that completely eliminated the GOTO.  It was based on the COMEFROM  statement and also the FISH stack.  COMEFROM  has fallen out of favor recently, but the FISH stack is still widely used: first in, still here.  The system was implemented as a SNOBOL preprocessor for a structured JOVIAL compiler.  Sadly it  never caught  on.

My native language is FORTRAN, which is very useful because you can write FORTRAN in any language.  Nostalgia aint what it used to be.

Jim

PS The most useful assembler statement is XPI, execute programmer immediate.

 [quote]-===================================

[b]

ainut(at)knology.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:28 am Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Would that XPI be most effective when in indexed, indexed direct, or indexed

indirect mode?  My favorite instruction was NOP...  Octal didn't have a chance. 

PDP-8's didn't live long and besides, octal could only represent itself half as

well as hex.  2, 3, 4, (drum rap)

Nibbles, now there was some compact power.  

Today, one gets arrested for twiddling their bits in public...  Does that

register?  Ah, the highs and lows of assembly...  For one thing, we never knew

whether we were on the leading edge or the trailing edge...  Only Nyqist and our

hairdressers know for sure.



David 

On Tue 04/17/12 10:02 PM , Henador Titzoff henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com sent:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Interesting.  The octal vs. hex debate didn't last long, did it?  The

 reason these two were invented was to get away from too many 1s and

 0s, i.e. binary.  There are only 10 types of people in this world -

 those who understand binary and those who don't.

 Henador Titzoff

 -------------------------

 FROM: rez 

 TO: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 

 SENT: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 10:32 PM

 SUBJECT: Re: Open source product development for

 OBAM aircraft

 BASIC, COBOL, assembler, C++++, reminds me of a heated debate many

 years ago regarding the merits of octal vs hex.  Of course all these

 things are tools, and you use the tool that is most appropriate for

 the job at hand.  But if your only tool is hammer then everything

 looks like a nail.

 Another famous debate was on the use of the GOTO statement. 

 Everybody knows that the GOTO is very bad.  I am proud to say that I

 once assisted in the development of a system that completely

 eliminated the GOTO.  It was based on the COMEFROM  statement and

 also the FISH stack.  COMEFROM  has fallen out of favor recently, but

 the FISH stack is still widely used: first in, still here.  The system

 was implemented as a SNOBOL preprocessor for a structured JOVIAL

 compiler.  Sadly it never caught on.

 My native language is FORTRAN, which is very useful because you can

 write FORTRAN in any language.  Nostalgia aint what it used to be.

 Jim

 PS The most useful assembler statement is XPI, execute programmer

 immediate.

 -=================================== 

 

 Links:

 ------

 [1]

 http://webmail2.knology.net/HTTP://WWW.MATRONICS.COM/NAVIGATOR?AEROELECTRIC

 -LIST[2] http://webmail2.knology.net/HTTP://FORUMS.MATRONICS.COM

 [3] http://webmail2.knology.net/HTTP://WWW.MATRONICS.COM/CONTRIBUTION

steve(at)tomasara.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:10 am Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

All,



Regarding the discussions of what "real programmers" use etc. it was 

once explained to me that there are only two kinds of programming 

languages and those are ones that "everyone" bitches about and argues 

against and those that "nobody" uses.



Steve Stearns

Boulder/Longmont, Colorado

CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)

Restoring (since 1/07) and flying again (8/11!): N45FC O235 Longeze 

Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)

Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum