| ??? 12/20/04 07:34 Read: times |
#83492 - CAN Responding to: ???'s previous message |
hi,
I wonder why none of you is backing CAN, Is there any serious problem with it?
I have using CAN for years with Atmel T89C51CC01 and AT89C51CC03. Well, it is nice solution if you know about what you need with. Indeed, CAN is not only interface but a protocol as well. And it is well documented under OSI model. And it is implemented into hardware of many 51s. And CAN arbitration works without collisions and time lags. That`s good. But the main difference of CAN protocol is that it is based on network messages and their priorities/types, not on node numbers. For me it took some time while I elaborated an algoritm of network which is divided on subnets and nodes in where any node may work with any other one in any subnet. And it was not easy task, as I remember. Regards, Oleg |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Control system | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| buses for industrial | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| CAN or RS-485 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one way of master slave | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RS485 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Control system | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Modbus | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| modbus or not | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| rs-485 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Rs485 vs CAN | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| CAN | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| rs-485,high speed? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| UART speed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Speed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Go Speed Racer! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| comments on speed and the above | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Daisy chain | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Daisy,Daisy..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no repeat | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Modbus | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Modbus | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hub ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Modbus | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Modbus | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| More modbus | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Modbus | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
failed links | 01/01/70 00:00 |