Help choose a PIC programmer.
in [Design]
|
Prev: Adapting a Garmin Traffic Receiver to car antenna?
Next: PIC 18F22K14 as class D audio output amplifier, 2 components... first test
From: Jan Panteltje on 25 Feb 2010 07:26 On a sunny day (Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:14:45 +0000) it happened Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in <wYshn.36387$K81.23106(a)newsfe18.iad>: >> >> Unwary should not program PICs. > >I dunno about that. They are among the cheapest ways for hobbyists to do >small projects requiring modest amounts of data storage and i/o for >minimal cost. That is true, but if somebody wants to wire up one, then they should know about 5V logic levels, 3.3V logic levels, all that stuff, else they cannot even *use* the PIC. So if they know that, then they know about parport interface. These days it is very simple, you can google parport PC on the net, and get all the info you want. In the early days I had documentation from IBM, that was only accessible to us. >>> Older chips also want a higher programming voltage applied. But there >>> are cheap DIY PIC programmer kits for hobbyists about. >> >> Indeed: >> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/jppp18/index.html >> >> >>> It is quite cute to make designs fully in circuit programmable. >> >> Doing that puts restrictions on I/O pins. >> Low voltage programming sucks up an other I/O pin. >> That is why I use high voltage programming only. >> And leave the low voltage stuff to the unwary :-) > >You might need removable links or live with the restrictions. >I find it useful YMMV. Yes, I used a switch in one case. You know about the expression 'in circuit programming'? I work exactly the opposite way: I use 'in programmer circuiting'. LOL. What that means is that I leave the PIC in my noppp programmer, and simply solder the wires to my circuit under test to it: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/pwr_pic/power_pic-0.1_the_hardware_img_0938.jpg The little veroboard on the left is the noppp programmer (old version with 16F690 in it). The 4 wire header on the bottom of that programmer goes to a MAX232 serial interface box. When project development is finished I unsolder the wires to the programmer... >> Now life on Enceladus? >> Should be easy to do a sample return, not much gravity. >> Bring some bugs over here:-) > >Be careful what you wish for. Na, we are probably seeded by space resistant bugs, if we are not descendents of some. Mosquitos survived on the outside of the ISS for month, the eggs came out OK. I will not go into how lawyers will survive in space here ... >I favour on site mass spec and FTIR as the best tests for interesting >organic molecules - which from the colours in the gas giants and their >moons are almost certainly present. The big question is are they >sufficiently far down the track of self organisation to count as life. > >Self organising catalytic reactions are more common than is generally >supposed. One of the simplest and prettiest is the BZ bromate/malonic >acid/cerium mix which is so tolerant that it is demonstrable in a high >school lab. Very cute behaviour when unstirred in a shallow dish. > >Poeple have already done liquid logic with the BZ reaction...and they >are pushing the boundaries with wet chemistry modelling of neurons. > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8452196.stm Interesting. >Regards, >Martin Brown >
From: John Ferrell on 25 Feb 2010 11:02 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:28:40 -0800 (PST), coldfeet <sixcoldfeet(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, > >I am thinking about buying or building a PIC programmer and would >appreciate some advice in choosing one. I've never laid hands on one >so am I not sure what to look for. > >I am a hobbyist and would like to program the occasional IC just to >simplify my circuit building. It would be nice to program a wide >variety if chips but in reality I would probably just pick a few that >I was comfortable with and stick to them. My programming skills >aren't all that great. I'm comfortable with editing VB script or >using graphical programs. If I have to I could probably learn basic >or c. The less code I have to write the better. I would like to keep >the price tag under $60. I've read that it's best to get one that can >be debugged in place so that would probably be good too. > >Anyone have any ideas which programmer might be best for someone like >me? > >TIA I like http://www.mikroe.com/en/ Good compilers, good hardware, up and programming all in one day. Not cheap, but you can test drive the compiler indefinately with 2K program limits. C, Pascal or Basic. I use Pascal John Ferrell W8CCW
From: Ian Malcolm on 25 Feb 2010 12:52 "Somebody" <why.do.you.want(a)to.know.invalid> wrote in news:hm5kdp$ltd$1 @speranza.aioe.org: > "IanM" <look.in.my.sig(a)totally.invalid> wrote in message > news:hm5is1$qd2$1(a)energise.enta.net... >> >> The PICkit 2 'does what it says on the box', reliably programming the >> vast majority of PIC10Fxxx, PIC12Fxxx, PIC16Fxxx, PIC18Fxxx and >> PIC24Fxxx parts. It also supports basic debugging (register inspection, >> single step and single hardware breakpoint) on all parts that have >> native silicon support for ICD (a few PIC16, nearly all PIC18 and Pic24) > > Could you expand on ICD? Does this mean that there are built-in debug > registers in the chip? Yes, on a typical ICD enabled PIC16 part, there are two registers associated with debugger control: the ICKBUG and BIGBUG registers. ICKBUG contains the high bits of the breakpoint address and BIGBUG contains the low byte. ICKBUG also contains flags: INBUG, FREEZ and SSTEP that control single stepping and whether or not peripherals are frozen while in the debug executive. INBUG is read only and indicates if debugging is in progress. Debugging requires a minimum of one level of stack and a few locations of RAM are also reserved. For more details see the Microchip data sheet DS51242A. > > I had naively assumed that the single step and breakpoint facility were > achieved in some way by reprogramming the Flash memory on-the-fly, > relying on the fact that even the 100,000 rewrite limit would not be > exceeded. No, FLASH memory (by definition) can only be erased in pages. I suppose it would be *possible* to write a monitor program that saved the rest of th page before changing the instruction at the breakpoint address but the PICs that can write their own FLASH at runtime usually have debug silicon anyway. It cant be done externally as the program counter is shared between running and as the current address when programming the chip and it is reset in between. -- Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED) ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk [at]=@, [dash]=- & [dot]=. *Warning* HTML & >32K emails --> NUL
From: Phil Hobbs on 25 Feb 2010 14:50 On 2/25/2010 5:21 AM, IanM wrote: > coldfeet wrote: >> Hey, thanks for all the info. Yes, I did mean any micro controller. >> I guess PIC was the first one I learned about. The Arduino looks >> pretty cool but I am leaning towards the PICkit 2. I may have to pick >> up the Arduino just to play with. The PICaxe also looks good but I >> think I would have a hard time deciding what exactly to buy. The >> PICkit 2 looks like it comes in an "everything I need" package. >> >> Also, special thanks to David for the vblogs even though it was 90% >> rant. It helps to see someone hold up the product and talk about it. >> It would have been really great if you had demonstrated the products >> for us. I know it would probably seem inane but seeing someone plug >> one in, write a short program, display the interface, etc. would >> probably answer a lot of questions that I hadn't thought to ask. > > The PICkit 2 'does what it says on the box', reliably programming the > vast majority of PIC10Fxxx, PIC12Fxxx, PIC16Fxxx, PIC18Fxxx and > PIC24Fxxx parts. It also supports basic debugging (register inspection, > single step and single hardware breakpoint) on all parts that have > native silicon support for ICD (a few PIC16, nearly all PIC18 and Pic24) > Compatible Debug 'headers' are available for most of the rest. A few of > the latest parts are not supported, but there is supposed to be a final > update later this year and the firmware, stand-alone GUI and command > line utility are open source. > > The PICkit 3 is supposed to be the successor to the PICkit 2. It is > still very buggy and I would NOT consider buying it as my sole > programmer yet. When it is fully debugged it will probably be faster > than a PICKit 2 and may have better features, but at the moment there is > a strong suspicion it has serious hardware problems and the software > lacks many features PICkit 2 users expect and is not exactly stable. > > With either you need some way of connecting to your chosen PIC. You can > 'roll your own' ICSP hook-up or buy a kit that includes a > demo/development board. > > Avoid the 'PICkit 2 Starter Kit' DV164120 as the supplied 'Low Pin Count > Demo Board' for 8/14/20 pin mid-range PICs does NOT support any PIC that > has built-in debugging support. The bundled PICkit 2 is of course ICD > capable but the complete kit doesn't get you there. There are 18 pin > and 28 pin DIP demo boards available that you can plug a debug capable > PIC straight into but they aren't bundled as a kit and dont have a nice > set of tutorials. > > The 'PICkit 2 Debug Express' DV164121 is usable for debugging 'out the > box' but the demo board has a soldered on surface mount PIC16F887, with > a surface mount prototyping area and all thru-hole pads for off board > connections at 2mm pitch :-( so can be a pain to hook up to your own > breadboarded experimental circuits. > > There is one other kit that rarely shows up if you are looking for a > PICkit 2: the 'PICDEM Lab Development Kit' DM163035. > From Microchip's site: >> The PICDEM� Lab Development Kit is designed to provide a comprehensive >> development and learning platform for Microchip's FLASH-based 6-, 8-, >> 14-, 18- and 20-pin 8-bit PIC� microcontrollers. >> >> Geared toward first-time PIC� microcontroller users and students, the >> PICDEM� Lab Development Kit is supplied with five of our most >> popular 8-bit PIC� microcontrollers and a host of discrete components >> to create instructive applications. >> >> Expansion headers provide complete access/connectivity to all pins on >> the connected PIC� microcontrollers and all mounted components. >> >> A solderless prototyping block is included for quick exploration of >> the application examples described in the �hands-on� labs included in >> the user�s guide. These labs provide an intuitive introduction to >> using common peripherals and include useful application examples, from >> lighting an LED to some basic mixed signal applications using the free >> HI-TECH C� PRO for the PIC10/12/16 MCU Family Lite Mode Compiler. >> >> Alternately, a companion guide featuring the free version of Matrix > > Multimedia�s Flowcode V3 Visual Programming Environment (VPE) provides > > a flowchart-based method of implementing a series of introductory > > labs. > > It is bundled with a PICkit 2. One of the supplied PICs is debug > capable. The solderless breadboard area is large enough to take 28 or 40 > pin PICs jumpered to the programming signals from one of the sockets so > it will do to program all DIP pics the PICKit 2 supports. > > You should also check out this link: > <http://www.auelectronics.com/Hardware-MiniLab.htm> > A PICkit 2 (or 3) compatible demo board with a ZIF socket for > programming/testing all DIP PICs that the PICkit 2 supports up to 40 > pins, on board regulators, 6 LEDS and I2C/SSP level translators. (It is > definitely superior to Microchip's ZIF socket adapter for the ICD series > which itself requires an adaptor to connect to a PICkit 2 or 3_ > They also make an enhanced PICkit 2 clone with a very good reputation. > To get my decade-old PIC skills back in tune, I recently bought a "PIC18F4xK20 Starter Kit" (14-00807). It comes with a PICkit 2 and a pretty nice demo board--18F46K20, 64x128 OLED display, thermometer, flash, 32.768 kHz crystal oscillator, ICD and serial headers. A pretty nice demo board overall. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: Jon Kirwan on 25 Feb 2010 16:03
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:14:45 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Jan Panteltje wrote: >> On a sunny day (Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:16:55 +0000) it happened Martin Brown >> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in >> <RM8hn.10115$ND2.304(a)newsfe05.iad>: >> >>> Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>> On a cloudy miserable winter ice day "David L. Jokes" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Get the PICkit2 or PICkit3, don't touch the build-it-yourself programmers, >>>>> they are not worth the trouble. >>> For a hobbyist I'd have thought a kit might be ideal. The suggestion >>> below is a bit too minimalist and unsafe for my liking. YMMV >>>> HEY IDIOT YOU ONLY NEED 1 RESISTOR: >>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~davesullins/software/pic18f.html >>> Provided that you don't mind the risk of damage to your parallel port. >>> The design is totally unbuffered, voltage dependent and may not work, >>> and some of the suggestions there are likely to wreck a PIO if used by >>> the unwary. >> >> Unwary should not program PICs. > >I dunno about that. They are among the cheapest ways for hobbyists to do >small projects requiring modest amounts of data storage and i/o for >minimal cost. > >>> Older chips also want a higher programming voltage applied. But there >>> are cheap DIY PIC programmer kits for hobbyists about. >> >> Indeed: >> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/jppp18/index.html >> >> >>> It is quite cute to make designs fully in circuit programmable. >> >> Doing that puts restrictions on I/O pins. >> Low voltage programming sucks up an other I/O pin. >> That is why I use high voltage programming only. >> And leave the low voltage stuff to the unwary :-) > >You might need removable links or live with the restrictions. >I find it useful YMMV. >> >> Now life on Enceladus? >> Should be easy to do a sample return, not much gravity. >> Bring some bugs over here:-) > >Be careful what you wish for. > >I favour on site mass spec and FTIR as the best tests for interesting >organic molecules - which from the colours in the gas giants and their >moons are almost certainly present. The big question is are they >sufficiently far down the track of self organisation to count as life. I like Dr. Lovelock's approach, which works well if there is any substantial amount of live involved. "All chemistry works in either direction, releasing or absorbing energy in the process. Look for chemical compounds on the higher potential energy side of the equation. If life exists, so will an abundance of those products." He points to Earth, which has an abundance of molecular oxygen in its atmosphere as an obvious case. That wouldn't be possible without life. It would get consumed in a natural lifeless situation here, turning into oxides of various kinds. He recommends it isn't even necessary to visit. One can figure this out just using spectrographic analysis, where there is an atmosphere to "look through," anyway. Likens the idea to looking around at a landscape and either seeing all the boulders near the bottom of nearby peaks or sitting at the tops of those peaks. If you see most everything in its natural condition near the bottoms, then there is nothing there rolling the boulders back up. If you see boulders at precarious positions everywhere, something or someone is putting them back there. Life. Jon >Self organising catalytic reactions are more common than is generally >supposed. One of the simplest and prettiest is the BZ bromate/malonic >acid/cerium mix which is so tolerant that it is demonstrable in a high >school lab. Very cute behaviour when unstirred in a shallow dish. > >Poeple have already done liquid logic with the BZ reaction...and they >are pushing the boundaries with wet chemistry modelling of neurons. > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8452196.stm > >Regards, >Martin Brown |