Re: How to count pulses per second ?

John Fields wrote:
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.
---

There you go again John, making untrue statements. I have never even begun
to insinuate something as stupid as that. Other solutions are fine as long
as the limitations are fine too. As I stated before, this particular
problem can be done with less parts by using a PIC, and so far we all know
that it can, including you John. Why is that so disturbing to you?


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.
---

Suggesting the use of a PIC is a far cry from "ramming it down someones
throat", now isn't it John? Should I never suggest one? Have I ever
suggested one in an inappropriate way? You make it sound like I'm some kind
of Java nut that can't see anything else. Nothing could be further from the
truth, and I think you know that well. You just have to keep your perpetual
battle going with someone, even if you have to "gild the lilly" as it were.
Just because you can do it without a PIC doesn't make using one wrong.


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.
---

Actually that was exactly the point. I have written "bug free" code the
first time, so what?

And exactly what stimulated you to start this whole mess between us? It
couldn't be that you jumped all over something I said that really wasn't
even all that incorrect. Then when I clarified my answer instead of falling
into your trap, you got all pissed and started ranting and raving, just like
now. Picking on spelling errors and petty nonsense like that; you don't
seem to like it being done to you, so why do you do it to so many others
without cause?


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.
---

OK, here you go.

Here's the entire thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/browse_frm/thread/1ac6a2a42cb52897/3129a9be61736e0c?lnk=st&q=simple+led+12+author%3Abrilla&rnum=1&hl=en#3129a9be61736e0c

Here is the tail dragging post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/tree/browse_frm/thread/1ac6a2a42cb52897/65c58ced69f1f877?rnum=41&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.electronics.basics%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1ac6a2a42cb52897%2F0c8d0b21e0e8046c%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3D%26rnum%3D2%26hl%3Den%26#doc_0c8d0b21e0e8046c

And just so people don't have to hunt for it:

"I will say one thing now, though, and that is that after having
checked your posting history last night I found that you do seem to
know what you're talking about, technically, most of the time, so I
apologize for any inaccurate broad-brush slurs I may have made
earlier."

Ignite any brain cells yet?

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've only been plonked a couple of times, you got two yesterday IIRC.


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.
---

Are you feeling ok? My statement has nothing to do with myself. The quotes
are to set apart my statement.


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.
---

I meant thanks, not plonks. Sorry about the confusion.


"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

Enough is enough. Where did the OP say that exactly? Oh, that's right, he
didn't. That's your misinterpretation of what he said.

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.
---

I'll go ahead and help you out then, I'd like to see .005%. Does that give
you what you need?

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.
---

Oh does it look like I actually made an assumption? I know you've worked
with micros..

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.
---

You say that now, but later on down........


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.
---

Then why did you bring it up John? Sounds like a typical response from you.
What you can recall has little to do with what has taken place here, good
thing we don't all rely on your recollection. Most of us don't even need to
pin our name and address to our shirts before leaving home. :-) Just
kickin' it up a notch.

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?
---

Anything you want, except a micro, PEEL, PAL, GAL, FPGA ..... you get the
idea, no programmable logic. Ready to commit yet?

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?
---

The irony here is that you already know that I'm right and so does most
everyone else, you're now just hoping that I can't actually produce some
code that works. You're absolutely incredible John.


(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.
---

Come on over and watch me. How else will I prove it to you? This is a
simple piece of code, it really doesn't get much easier. Why is it so hard
for you to believe that it won't be hard to write.

I have a user with a serious production problem right now (not my fault
though, just trying to be a nice guy for them) so I may not have code posted
until morning. I think that's fair enough, it took you 24 hours to get it
right and you're the expert. I'm just a tinker.

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?

Before you get your mouth open too far here, remember that I came closer to
interpreting his first post correctly than you did. I've been extracting
what people want from what they say for more than 25 years, I have some
experience at this.

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.

Are you taking some kind of medication that brings on these fanciful
hallucinations? You put more words into my mouth than I do. Just wishing
that my behavior was as you say won't make it true. You just can't resist
making foolish accusations, without evidence, even though you have been
proven wrong time and again.

For God's sake John, I've been a "professional programmer" for more than 25
years. Do you honestly believe that anyone proceeds like you described.
Oh, I keep forgetting, you do it that way.

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.
---

Is that why you immediately proceeded to develop the wrong solution? The
whole world saw it already John, you're just making a bigger fool of
yourself with every post.

Once you knew what they actually were,

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

Then please explain how his post wasn't clear on when to extinguish the LED,
I still haven't figured out how that part confused you. I didn't want to
say anything, but here we are.

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?
---

You're absolutely right, the shouting down was a bit harsh.

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.
---

You were the first to make a contest out of this with your smart remarks
about having it done while the suggestor would still be struggling with his
code.

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.
---

That doesn't answer the question. I've already submitted that I understood
a proper solution before you did, or don't you believe that either? Will I
have to prove that too?

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.

---

Wow, just happened to snip your part off huh, your such a cheat when it
comes to debate.

Not changing the subject at all. The fact is that I've never seen

You absolutely changed the subject and you know it.

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

Another lie. There have been a myriad of posts were people wanted help with
PIC code. There have also been people that were willing to use a PIC even
if they had to pay someone to flash it for them.

Now, grow up, stop the hand waving, stop the creative snippery and just
debate like a man. Can you do that John?

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.

And now you speak for all the past, present and future noobs that want some
help? And exactly how are PIC lovers not real people John. You just can't
alienate people fast enough, can you?


.

Loading