Re: How to count pulses per second ?

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:52:47 -0600, "Anthony Fremont"
<spam-not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:22:58 -0600, "Anthony Fremont"
<spam-not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ehsjr wrote:
In the time you've all been talking about this, he could have done
it by now by buying a cheap PIC programmer, a couple of PICs, and
visiting the piclist a few dozen times.

No. He (the OP) said it would be a big learning curve.

PIC's are great, but how is it that the "PIC crowd"
always comes in with the same mantra "he could have done
it with a PIC in a few hours" or similar, yet we never
see a PIC solution offered by them?

Could it be that the OP never wants to see one? The circuit for
this using a PIC is a joke, the code is the real work effort. If
the OP doesn't want to use a PIC, why should someone write code?

---
Exactly. And if the OP doesn't want to use a PIC why should he be
berated for that?
---

Show me a post where I berated someone asking for help.

---
The berating isn't direct, it's in your attitude and in your disdain
for anything other than a PIC to be used as a solution to a problem.
---

Take a look at the huge number of helpful answers on
this newsgroup and others from John Fields. He posts
complete, solid solutions with schematics & identified
parts values. He doesn't just say, "you could do that
with an electronic circuit" and walk away.

If the "PIC crowd" wants to promote PIC solutions, show
them.

I'm sorry, I can't seem to find your solution here.

---
So what, neither is yours. Fact is, Ed's posted a lot of schematics
with nice solutions to various problems, but I don't recall ever
seeing anything from you other than telling people to do it your
way.
---

Show me a post where I "tell people to do it my way". Your absolutely
juvenile and a liar.

---
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you say, "A PIC is
the right way to do it." that that's your way and that's what you're
telling them to use.
---

In the time *you've* been following the thread, John has
already designed and posted a hardware solution. You

Several in fact, most don't work or meet the OP requirements, but I
guess that doesn't matter because it didn't involve a PIC.

---
Two only, in this thread, but the second try should have cleared up
the problems I had with the first one, so what's wrong with that? I
often have errors with design first cuts, but I always fix them
before I put the thing to bed. I guess you write totally bug-free
code out of the box huh?

I certainly have, plenty of times. Don't you believe me?

---
So have I, but so what? That's not the point. The point is that we
all make mistakes and you're insultingly criticizing me for making
one as if you were a lily-white infallible judge.
---

haven't - no one from the PIC crowd has. If it's so
damn easy that a "PIC newbie" like the OP can do it with
a few hours work, then one has to wonder why experienced
PICers can't/don't/won't come up with something. Lord
knows there's plenty of opportunities. Fields has proven
that by posting solutions over and over and over again
countless times to a wide variety of questions. The

Too bad that he's such an offensive person. If he wasn't in
everyone's killfile, more people might appreciate his efforts.

---
I'm generally offensive only to those I find offensive, like you,

That's only because you jumped before you looked, as usual. Or don't you
remember that, "current/power hog"? You struck the first, second, .... and
tenth blows before you even bothered to do a Google search. You had to come
back with your tail between your legs and fess up. Why do you do this to
yourself John?

---
I don't recall anything like that. Refresh my memory.
---

and I'm sure I'm not in _everyone's_ killfile, LOL. Those who've
plonked me I have no use for anyway. I'm also sure that my efforts
are appreciated from the thanks I get from the folks I help out.

You get killfiled more in one week than I have in a lifetime.

---
Even for you, that's a ridiculous statement.
---

I think you
should look at it like this, "the ones that plonked you, have no use for
YOU".

---
Which goes to prove what I said about you wanting people to do
things your way.
---

I've gotten plenty too, should we compete on that too?

---
I don't consider you to be competition, I consider you to be more
like a gadfly, just buzzing around making a lot of noise and being
generally annoying. As far as the plonking thing goes, if you've
been plonked "plenty" of times, (and I certainly believe _that_ !)
then I'm sure you win that one.
---

"PIC crowd" has made comments. As to providing solutions,
they are dead silent. You guys want to take what you
see as tantamount to "the moral high ground" with your
"use a PIC" chant, then arrogantly walk away, offering
nothing. When you start providing practical solutions
your words will take on weight. Otherwise, they are
smokescreen that may look good, but is without substance.

Ed

Yet another PIC hater speaks. Same old mantra: learning curve, PIC
crowd, no help, rah rah rah. And where is your schematic showing
how to do it the Rube Goldberg way?

---
"Rube Goldberg"? See, now _you're_ being gratuitously offensive

Continually adding parts just to make the point that a PIC isn't necessary
is a silly exercise.

---
Hardly. Using two pots because the OP doesn't _want_ to use a PIC is
perfectly acceptable. Depending on his accuracy requirements, the
pots might be replaced with fixed resistors, but he hasn't replied
with that information, so the thing is a work in progress and the
pots are there because they'll cover any eventuality.
---

Two pots? Come on, a micro has far more accuracy
using the internal osc (1%) without adjustment. Times change, even if you
don't want to.

---
I see. You're a PIC programmer so that puts you at the forefront of
technology, while I'm just an old has-been twiddling pots, huh? LOL,
Fremont, you're a piece of work all right. You need to do a little
more legwork before you start making assumptions.
---


because he made a point which struck a nerve and you're being
retaliatory. Besides, why should he have to post a design to

Look who's being retaliatory.

---
You are.
---

register his opinion? You certainly didn't and you're certainly
being critical as hell. And an *** as well. How's that? Want
to kick it up a notch?
---

My code will be posted later, now that someone actully wants to see some.

---
If you think that's me, don't bother.
---

I've posted PIC code here before, have you? IOW, until
you offer up more than rhetoric, you're no better than "us".

---
You're being ridiculous. If he has a good non-PIC way of doing
something, then why should he post code. As I noted before, he's
contributed lots of _complete_ solutions in the past, but I can't
recall ever seeing _anything_ from you. What did you post, some
stubs? No doubt.

I've given away plenty of code, you just don't know where to look for it.

---
Nor do I care.
---

I'd be willing to wager money that you couldn't duplicate the functionality
with discretes either. Now go ahead and shoot your mouth off some more
without knowing what will be actually required of you.

---
"Discretes" like in transistors, resistors, and capacitors?
---

I you want to convince everyone how great a PIC would be for this
application why don't you build the thing (It's only a PIC, a
resistor, and an LED after all) then sit down and work out the code

Convince everyone? Get real. The PIC haters are the PIC haters period,
there is no "convincing".

---
Sure there is. The proof is in the pudding and we all like to see
something that works, so if it's as easy as you say it is why don't
you just go ahead and build it, post some information as to how you
tested it, and the code, and maybe some pictures, and then for the
fillip, send it to the OP? After all, it's only a cheap chip, a
resistor, and an LED, no?
---

(It should only take an hour, you said) program the PIC, test it,
then go through the several cycles of debug I'm sure you'll have to
go through, and then post the code so we can all enjoy it.

That's the difference between you and I. I think before I write, therefore
it likely won't take "several" cycles to debug. This is one of those things
that will likely work the first time out.

---
Prove it, then.
---

Should be duck soup now that you've seen how to do it in hardware
and the hardware's been debugged.

You're the one that couldn't even interpret the OP's requirements without
asking more questions, even though they were fairly clearly stated.

---
So you think that "fairly clearly stated" is enough to base a design
on?

I can see it now... You get a "fairly clear" set of specs for some
embedded thingy so you work up a design, write the code, order the
parts, build it, test it and it works perfectly! You then proudly
take it to your customer only to find out that you should have been
a little more diligent up front and gotten the specs _very clear_
because the way it works is not the way he wants it to work.

I preferred to iron out all the big wrinkles up front, and if you
think that wasn't necessary then you didn't understand the
subtleties of the problem. Still might not for that matter, had it
not been cleared up.
---

Once you knew what they actually were,

---
Which I wouldn't have known, had I not asked the questions I did,
would I?
---

you couldn't wait to shout down someone
elses reintroduction to your idea of a missing pulse detector.

---
Well, "shouting down" is a little harsh, I think, but in any case
telling someone that it's not a missing pulse detector when it isn't
should be permitted, don't you think?
---

It's all about being first isn't it John, never about getting it right the first
time?

---
You're the one making all the noise about competition, Anthony, so
you tell me.
---

How is your hardware design going to help me? Outside of the LED and
resistor, there will be no common parts. You don't even think things thru,
you just keep ratcheting your jaws.

---
If you can read a schematic you can understand the design philosophy
and then replicate it, via software, in a microcontroller. A
microcontroller is all hardware inside, you know, and all you're
doing with software is hooking it up so it'll do what the original
hardware design did.
---

When have you seen a poster ask for the code and a "PIC lover"
just blew them off?

---
When have you seen a poster ask for the code? IME they don't and
they don't want any part of it since they're usually looking for a
simple one-off and don't want to get involved with PICs.

Changing the subject doesn't constitute a rebuttal of my statement. Show us
an example of what you claimed or please shut up.

---
Not changing the subject at all. The fact is that I've never seen
anyone ask a "PIC lover" for code, and my opinion as to the reason
behind that was as I stated, "they don't want any part of it since
they're usually looking for a simple one-off and don't want to get
involved with PICs." YMMV, but I think it's more likely that you
were sharing code with other PIC lovers or PIC lover newbies than
with real people.


--
JF
.

Loading