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

klehman(at)albedo.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:38 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Another option is a $20. Atmel Butterfly demo board from digi-key. It is 

based on the Atmel 169 and has many on board capabilities to grow into. 

For example I use a Butterfly to monitor amphib gear position, hydraulic 

pressure, engine rpm and to trigger appropriate voice alerts. It also 

integrates EFI pulses and displays fuel flow and fuel remaining for me 

on its aphanumeric LCD display. Not bad for $20. of hardware. The 

butterfly comes with a 3 volt coin cell or it accepts external power and 

it also just needs a serial (RS232) cable to program it.

Ken

On 13/04/2012 4:45 PM, Daniel Hooper wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Hooper<enginerdy(at)gmail.com>

 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:

> Can a generic AVR chip be made Arduino compatible with the download

> of the Arduino Loader onto the chip?

>

> Greg McHugh

retasker(at)optonline.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:20 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Uh, no...  REAL programmers program in machine code or at worst assembly... 



do not archive



Jeff Luckey wrote:

[quote] 



 Bob,



 Your assessment of the Picaxe is right on.  They are great for

 beginners/simple/low performance devices but their interpreter is at least a

 couple of orders of magnitude slower than devices programmed w/ a compiler.



 There is a myriad of experimental aviation applications where that level of

 performance would be adequate.



 Several years ago when I first started programming uControllers, I examined

 PICAXE&  Parallax Stamps.  I settled on the Stamps (They also have built-in

 interpreters).  They are great for getting up and running simply&  quickly,

 which is key for the initial learning curve, but I quickly outgrew them.



 As I'm sure you are aware the standard in BASIC programming w/ PICs is

 microEngineering Labs PICBASIC PRO Compiler.  It is a great product and

 reasonably priced at $120-$270.  I know several people who use&  really like

 it.



 And, of course, Real Programmers program uCons in C 



 -Jeff



 --

ainut(at)knology.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:09 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Arghhhh.....

REAL programmers cannot program complex notions in machine (toggle switches!) or

assembler.  It is simply too hard.  It is hard enough to do in third generation

languages like 'C' or 'Fortran' or Basic or Pascal or ...  Even as long ago as

the 1980's, real world tests showed that compilers had gotten so good that

executables were better by all metrics when written in a higher level language

than in assembler.

I have written in assembler and even (once) did the toggle thing on a PDP-11. 

Once the translators are written (compilers), let the computer do the donkey work

that they're good at and let the people work at the conceptual levels, which they

are good at.

In some environments, the slow speed of interpreter execution is still good

enough, as you've said.

What the world still needs is a good fourth or fifth generation language but that

is REALLY hard to build and build well.  In the database world, we had a product

that used relational calculus (high level programming) instead of relational

algebra (clunky SQL).  The product was called ZIM by Zanthe Information Systems

out of Canada at the time.  Extremely powerful language that even CEO's could use

to query their information.  Sadly, it never caught on in the marketplace.  There

are some current attempts at 4th and 5th G languages but they are still in their

infancy after 40 years of trying.

David M.

On Sat 04/14/12  4:16 PM , "Richard E. Tasker" retasker(at)optonline.net sent:

[quote] 

 er(at)optonline.net>

 Uh, no...  REAL programmers program in machine code or at worst assembly...

 do not archive

 Jeff Luckey wrote:

 > 

 Luckey"JLuckey(at)p

 acbell.net>>

 > Bob,

 >

 > Your assessment of the Picaxe is right on.  They

 are great for> beginners/simple/low performance devices but their

 interpreter is at least a> couple of orders of magnitude slower than devices

 programmed w/ a compiler.>

 > There is a myriad of experimental aviation

 applications where that level of> performance would be adequate.

 >

 > Several years ago when I first started programming

 uControllers, I examined> PICAXE&  Parallax Stamps.  I settled on the Stamps

 (They also have built-in> interpreters).  They are great for getting up and

 running simply&  quickly,> which is key for the initial learning curve, but I

 quickly outgrew them.>

 > As I'm sure you are aware the standard in BASIC

 programming w/ PICs is> microEngineering Labs PICBASIC PRO Compiler.  It is

 a great product and> reasonably priced at $120-$270.  I know several

 people who use&  really like> it.

 >

 > And, of course, Real Programmers program uCons in C

 >

 > -Jeff

 >

 > --

henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:56 am Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

I agree with David wholeheartedly but would like to add one more simple comment.  Real programmers these days do not program because they're out of work.  While machine code is efficient, real programmers are inefficient.  They can do only the simplest of tasks, and even a programmer using Basic will outrun him and leave him in the dust.  Guess which one will get the job done?  The days of writing machine code are over except for the simplest tasks that somehow need specialized hand tweaking.

So if you know any machine code real programmers, they're probably bag boys at your local supermarket because they can't get a job. The rest are either in the ground or on display at your local dinosaur museum.

Henador  Titzoff

        From: David <ainut(at)knology.net>

 To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 

 Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 11:07 PM

 Subject: Re: Re: Open source product development for OBAM  aircraft

--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David <ainut(at)knology.net (ainut(at)knology.net)>

Arghhhh.....

REAL programmers cannot program complex notions in machine (toggle switches!) or

assembler.  It is  simply too hard.  It is hard enough to do in third generation

languages like 'C' or 'Fortran' or Basic or Pascal or ...  Even as long ago as

the 1980's, real world tests showed that compilers had gotten so good that

executables were better by all metrics when written in a higher level language

than in assembler.

I have written in assembler and even (once) did the toggle thing on a PDP-11. 

Once the translators are written (compilers), let the computer do the donkey work

that they're good at and let the people work at the conceptual levels, which they

are good at.

In some environments, the slow speed of interpreter execution is still good

enough, as you've said.

What the world still needs is a good fourth or fifth generation language but that

is REALLY hard to build and build well.  In the database world, we had a product

that used relational calculus (high level programming) instead of  relational

algebra (clunky SQL).  The product was called ZIM by Zanthe Information Systems

out of Canada at the time.  Extremely powerful language that even CEO's could use

to query their information.  Sadly, it never caught on in the marketplace.  There

are some current attempts at 4th and 5th G languages but they are still in their

infancy after 40 years of trying.

David M.

On Sat 04/14/12  4:16 PM , "Richard E. Tasker" retasker(at)optonline.net (retasker(at)optonline.net) sent:

[quote] --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" retask

 er(at)optonline.net (er(at)optonline.net)>

 Uh, no...  REAL programmers program in machine code or at worst assembly...

 do not archive

 Jeff Luckey wrote:

 > -->   AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff

 Luckey"JLuckey(at)p

 acbell.net>>

 > Bob,

 >

 > Your assessment of the Picaxe is right on.  They

 are great for> beginners/simple/low performance devices but their

 interpreter is at least a> couple of orders of magnitude slower than devices

 programmed w/ a compiler.>

 > There is a myriad of experimental aviation

 applications where that level of> performance would be adequate.

 >

 > Several years ago when I first started programming

 uControllers, I examined> PICAXE&  Parallax Stamps.  I settled on the Stamps

 (They also have built-in> interpreters).  They are great for getting up and

 running simply&  quickly,> which is key for the initial learning curve, but I

 quickly outgrew them.>

 > As I'm sure you are  aware the standard in BASIC

 programming w/ PICs is> microEngineering Labs PICBASIC PRO Compiler.  It is

 a great product and> reasonably priced at $120-$270.  I know several

 people who use&  really like> it.

 >

 > And, of course, Real Programmers program uCons in C

 >

 > -Jeff

 >

 > --

retasker(at)optonline.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:00 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

My comment on "real programmers" was merely a response to the comment that "real programmers program uCons in C".

In fact, real programmers program in either what they are told to use for the particular project.  Or, if they work for an intelligent company, they program in whatever gets the job done most 

efficiently and the definition of that depends on what the constraints are.  If there is plenty of memory to store the program, then any language will work.  If the program storage is limited, then 

what language one chooses is also limited.

Do not archive.

Henador Titzoff wrote:

[quote] I agree with David wholeheartedly but would like to add one more simple comment.  Real programmers these days do not program because they're out of work.  While machine code is efficient, real 

 programmers are inefficient.  They can do only the simplest of tasks, and even a programmer using Basic will outrun him and leave him in the dust.  Guess which one will get the job done?  The days 

 of writing machine code are over except for the simplest tasks that somehow need specialized hand tweaking.

 So if you know any machine code real programmers, they're probably bag boys at your local supermarket because they can't get a job. The rest are either in the ground or on display at your local 

 dinosaur museum.

 Henador Titzoff

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

 *From:* David <ainut(at)knology.net>

 *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com

 *Sent:* Saturday, April 14, 2012 11:07 PM

 *Subject:* Re: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

 Arghhhh.....

 REAL programmers cannot program complex notions in machine (toggle switches!) or

 assembler.  It is simply too hard.  It is hard enough to do in third generation

 languages like 'C' or 'Fortran' or Basic or Pascal or ...  Even as long ago as

 the 1980's, real world tests showed that compilers had gotten so good that

 executables were better by all metrics when written in a higher level language

 than in assembler.

 I have written in assembler and even (once) did the toggle thing on a PDP-11.

 Once the translators are written (compilers), let the computer do the donkey work

 that they're good at and let the people work at the conceptual levels, which they

 are good at.

 In some environments, the slow speed of interpreter execution is still good

 enough, as you've said.

 What the world still needs is a good fourth or fifth generation language but that

 is REALLY hard to build and build well.  In the database world, we had a product

 that used relational calculus (high level programming) instead of relational

 algebra (clunky SQL).  The product was called ZIM by Zanthe Information Systems

 out of Canada at the time.  Extremely powerful language that even CEO's could use

 to query their information.  Sadly, it never caught on in the marketplace.  There

 are some current attempts at 4th and 5th G languages but they are still in their

 infancy after 40 years of trying.

 David M.

 On Sat 04/14/12  4:16 PM , "Richard E. Tasker" retasker(at)optonline.net <mailto:retasker(at)optonline.net> sent:

 > 

 > er(at)optonline.net <mailto:er(at)optonline.net>>

 > Uh, no...  REAL programmers program in machine code or at worst assembly...

 > 

 > do not archive

 >

 > Jeff Luckey wrote:

 > > 

 > Luckey"JLuckey(at)p

 > acbell.net>>

 > > Bob,

 > >

 > > Your assessment of the Picaxe is right on.  They

 > are great for> beginners/simple/low performance devices but their

 > interpreter is at least a> couple of orders of magnitude slower than devices

 > programmed w/ a compiler.>

 > > There is a myriad of experimental aviation

 > applications where that level of> performance would be adequate.

 > >

 > > Several years ago when I first started programming

 > uControllers, I examined> PICAXE&  Parallax Stamps.  I settled on the Stamps

 > (They also have built-in> interpreters).  They are great for getting up and

 > running simply&  quickly,> which is key for the initial learning curve, but I

 > quickly outgrew them.>

 > > As I'm sure you are aware the standard in BASIC

 > programming w/ PICs is> microEngineering Labs PICBASIC PRO Compiler.  It is

 > a great product and> reasonably priced at $120-$270.  I know several

 > people who use&  really like> it.

 > >

 > > And, of course, Real Programmers program uCons in C

 > >

 > > -Jeff

 > >

 > > --

ainut(at)knology.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:24 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

I will stick my neck out and say that real programmers (aka software engineers)

tell the company what language to use.



David







On Sun 04/15/12  6:53 PM , "Richard E. Tasker" retasker(at)optonline.net sent:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 er(at)optonline.net>

 My comment on "real programmers" was merely a response to the comment that

 "real programmers program uCons in C".

 In fact, real programmers program in either what they are told to use for

 the particular project.  Or, if they work for an intelligent company, they

 program in whatever gets the job done most efficiently and the definition of

that depends on what the constraints are.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		    If there is plenty of memory to store the program, then any language will

 work.  If the program storage is limited, then what language one chooses is

also limited.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Do not archive.

 

 Henador Titzoff wrote:

 > I agree with David wholeheartedly but would like to

 add one more simple comment.  Real programmers these days do not program

 because they're out of work.  While machine code is efficient, real

 > programmers are inefficient.  They can do only the

 simplest of tasks, and even a programmer using Basic will outrun him and

 leave him in the dust.  Guess which one will get the job done?  The days

 > of writing machine code are over except for the

 simplest tasks that somehow need specialized hand tweaking.>

 > So if you know any machine code real programmers,

 they're probably bag boys at your local supermarket because they can't get

 a job. The rest are either in the ground or on display at your local

 > dinosaur museum.

 >

 > Henador Titzoff

 >

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

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

 --------------------------------------------------> *From:* David ainut(at)knolo

 gy.net>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com> *Sent:* Saturday, April 14,

2012 11:07
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   PM> *Subject:* Re: Re: Open source

 product development for OBAM aircraft>

 > 

 ainut(at)knolo

 gy.net>>>

 > Arghhhh.....

 >

 > REAL programmers cannot program complex notions in

 machine (toggle switches!) or> assembler.  It is simply too hard.  It is hard

 enough to do in third generation> languages like 'C' or 'Fortran' or Basic or

Pascal
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   or ...  Even as long ago as> the 1980's, real world tests showed that compilers

 had gotten so good that> executables were better by all metrics when written

 in a higher level language> than in assembler.

 >

 > I have written in assembler and even (once) did the

 toggle thing on a PDP-11.> Once the translators are written (compilers), let

 the computer do the donkey work> that they're good at and let the people work

at the
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   conceptual levels, which they> are good at.

 >

 > In some environments, the slow speed of interpreter

 execution is still good> enough, as you've said.

 >

 > What the world still needs is a good fourth or

 fifth generation language but that> is REALLY hard to build and build well.  In the

 database world, we had a product> that used relational calculus (high level

 programming) instead of relational> algebra (clunky SQL).  The product was

called ZIM
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   by Zanthe Information Systems> out of Canada at the time.  Extremely powerful

 language that even CEO's could use> to query their information.  Sadly, it

never caught
	


[quote] on in the marketplace.  There> are some current attempts at 4th and 5th G

 languages but they are still in their> infancy after 40 years of trying.

 >

 > David M.

 >

 >

 >

 > On Sat 04/14/12  4:16 PM , "Richard E. Tasker"

 retasker(at)optonline.net retask

 er(at)optonline.net> sent:> > 

 E. Tasker" retask> > er(at)optonline.net er(at)optonline

 .net>>> > Uh, no...  REAL programmers program in machine

 code or at worst assembly...> > 

 > > do not archive

 > >

 > > Jeff Luckey wrote:

 > > > 

 "Jeff> > Luckey"JLuckey(at)p

 > > acbell.net>>

 > > > Bob,

 > > >

 > > > Your assessment of the Picaxe is right on. 

 They> > are great for> beginners/simple/low performance

 devices but their> > interpreter is at least a> couple of orders of

 magnitude slower than devices> > programmed w/ a compiler.>

 > > > There is a myriad of experimental

 aviation> > applications where that level of> performance

 would be adequate.> > >

 > > > Several years ago when I first started

 programming> > uControllers, I examined> PICAXE&  Parallax

 Stamps.  I settled on the Stamps> > (They also have built-in> interpreters).  They

 are great for getting up and> > running simply&  quickly,> which is key for the

 initial learning curve, but I> > quickly outgrew them.>

 > > > As I'm sure you are aware the standard in

 BASIC> > programming w/ PICs is> microEngineering Labs

 PICBASIC PRO Compiler.  It is> > a great product and> reasonably priced at

 $120-$270.  I know several> > people who use&  really like> it.

 > > >

 > > > And, of course, Real Programmers program uCons

 in C> > >

 > > > -Jeff

 > > >

 > > > --

Eric M. Jones

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 565
Location: Massachusetts

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:40 am Post subject: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

Tip:



As in most cool electro-parts, "Deal Extreme" has Arduino (and other) parts and a vast selection of extremely cheap accessories for wanna-be-programmers. Cheap cheap cheap. And free shipping.

_________________
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net

retasker(at)optonline.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:04 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

I don't know what you use for board layout, but if you use something like Eagle from http://www.cadsoftusa.com/ the layout connections will always agree with the schematic since they are linked.



They have a freeware version that is complete and only limited by the layers (2 allowed) and the board size (100 x 80 mm) - neither of which is a limit to most of us.  If you pay $69 you can use the 

same program to make boards that you can sell.  There are other levels that allows progressively more (up to 16 layers and 4m x 4m size).



I use it at home for home projects and we have one of the professional multi-user copies at my business.



Highly recommended!



Dick Tasker



Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 The ECB layout is done. I'll put it down for a few

 hours and then 'proof' it against the schematic.



 I'll publish the ECB layout and schematic as soon

 as I've confirmed their agreement.

   Bob . . .




	


-- 

Please Note:

No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message.  We do concede, however,

that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.

--

Eric M. Jones

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 565
Location: Massachusetts

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:15 am Post subject: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

 	  Quote: 	
		  I don't know what you use for board layout, but if you use something like Eagle from http://www.cadsoftusa.com/ the layout connections will always agree with the schematic since they are linked. 	




I love Eagle and have used it extensively. Express PCB is better for my purposes now (my average PCB is under one-square inch). Furthermore Express PCB's learning curve is almost ZERO. You can be set up and using it in minutes. Please note: Express PCB's schematic program is also linked to the PCB.

_________________
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net

retasker(at)optonline.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:45 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

I will answer and comment to all the previous inquiries.



S. Ramirez:  Eagle has schematic capture that, in my opinion, is very good.  I have not used one of the PADS suites in many years so I cannot really comment on how it compares.  Eagle does have 

schematic capture that is linked to the board layout.  It has an auto-router that seems to be pretty good if you want to use it.  I don't use it myself.  You can download a free copy and try it out 

for yourself.  It is pretty easy to learn.



Bob N.:  I too started with the same stuff you mention.  Doing layouts on a drafting board at 5:1 and flipping translucent sheets to make multilayer boards - the "good old days".  I don't use the 

auto-router in Eagle myself, although it is there if one wants it.  I would really recommend you download a copy of the Eagle freeware and check it out.  It is really easy to use and definitely helps 

with the final checkouts to make sure you didn't miss anything and that you haven't done anything stupid.  I do the boards I design just like you describe, except I enter the schematic first and then 

switch to the board where all the parts are waiting for me to place wherever I want them.  Then auto-route if you want or manually rout if you prefer (I prefer).  Don't know if it will work, but I 

have attached a copy of one of our schematics so you can see what it looks like.  If you don't like what it looks it, you can make and add your own symbols for anything to the library and use them 

instead.



Eric:  Express PCB is also very good.  The only disadvantage is that it is linked to the particular board supplier - which is fine as long as that is who you want to deal with.  With Eagle you can use 

the Gerber files it generates with any board supplier.



Dick Tasker



Eric M. Jones wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

> I don't know what you use for board layout, but if you use something like Eagle from http://www.cadsoftusa.com/ the layout connections will always agree with the schematic since they are linked.



 I love Eagle and have used it extensively. Express PCB is better for my purposes now (my average PCB is under one-square inch). Furthermore Express PCB's learning curve is almost ZERO. You can be set up and using it in minutes. Please note: Express PCB's schematic program is also linked to the PCB.



 --------

 Eric M. Jones

 www.PerihelionDesign.com

 113 Brentwood Drive

 Southbridge, MA 01550

 (508) 764-2072

 emjones(at)charter.net





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=371144#371144




	


-- 

Please Note:

No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message.  We do concede, however,

that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.

--

Voltage_Output.pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

Voltage_Output.pdf

Filesize:

42.67 KB

Downloaded:

339 Time(s)

Eric M. Jones

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 565
Location: Massachusetts

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:12 am Post subject: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft

 	  Quote: 	
		  Eric: Express PCB is also very good. The only disadvantage is that it is linked to the particular board supplier - which is fine as long as that is who you want to deal with. With Eagle you can use 

the Gerber files it generates with any board supplier. 	




Dick, ExpressPCB is full of surprises. They will send you the Gerber Files for a small fee after the first run, I believe. (Check with them for the most recent policy). Their mini-board service also expands to almost anything else you want, other sizes, two or four layers, other quantities, for competitive prices. They also don't quibble about the number of boards you put on one sheet, although they have a limit of 350 holes per sheet on their standard 3-PCB mini-board service (...and I bump up against the hole-limit all the time!).



ps: Don't confuse the original "Express PCB" with the copycat "PCB Express".

_________________
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net

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