| ??? 05/30/07 13:17 Read: times |
#140061 - an xcellent idea Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Do some research. You'll have a working, robust solution using a PLC much faster than trying to cobble something up yourself. At the minumum, using a PLC you can show a working concept quickly to give everyone a warm, fuzzy feeling.
I would not consider "to give everyone a warm, fuzzy feeling" the most important advantage of what Russell suggest. I would use this approach to get to know all pitfalls and pratfalls in the implementation using "known good" stuff before committing to a design be that PLC or custom circuitry. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| 12 parallel pulses counting | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How fast are these pulses? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| pulses speed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| More info | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Pulse rate | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Isn't it slightly more complicated? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Stretching pulses | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Another Quick Way | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sampling timer with a buffer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Showing Vertical Couners | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes other interrupt are also there | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Avoid using interrupts where possible | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Run signals frequency... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| PLC can be dirt cheap | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| PLCs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
an xcellent idea | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sample with 2 74LS165 parallel loadShiftRegisiters | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| would not the output pins drop... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No Extra Hardware Needed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No Extra Hardware Needed - I do not agree | 01/01/70 00:00 |