Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00583
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Terry Newton wtnewton@nc5.infi.net
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:37:04
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: hmmm...i wonder which subject
At 11:12 AM 2/18/99 +0100, Steven Bolt wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Bob Shannon wrote:
>> AS it turns out, the microcore is not predictable enough for the
>> CPU to get along with.
>
>I'm aware of Terry's work, which is very interesting. However, as
>you say, he didn't seem to gain much performance by adding a uC to
>a Nervous Net - though it increased complexity quite a bit.
Nevertheless the walker is much more functional with the
processor than without. Not for intelligence reasons but for
the on/off timer, wakeup on approach, a monitor that resets the
microcore if it saturates, sensor processing, reverse timing, etc.
If I would have hardwired all those neat functions it would of been
much more complicated.
>Btw: Terry, I noticed this passage on one of your pages:
>
> Regular PICs are rated at 3 volts, I run 'em down to 2.5 volts but good
> chance the 'F84 won't go there. The Amtel part is beginning to look really
> good, the data eeprom is built-in and it can be programmed in-circuit with
> little more than a cable and some software. The problem has been getting
> one, none of my suppliers carry it. More for the future.
>
>I can easily spare a couple of the AT90S1200 uCs you seem to be
>referring to. Just tell me the address to mail them to. You may
>have something to trade, or otherwise could but a few dollar in an
>envelope.
Thanks, but Bob Shannon turned me on to the PIC16LF84, it has a
built-in eeprom and runs at 2 volts. At the time I wrote that standard
'F84 parts only went down to 4 volts so I stuck with the old 5x series.
If I ever need the Amtels I'll let you know, they are very hard to find
here. It appears that the 'LF84 can also be programmed in-circuit with
little more than cable and software so I better stick with what I know.
This illustrates the main disadvantage of microprocessors - the thought
of having to learn yet another machine language almost horrifies me!
That stuff is not easy!
>Bob Shannon wrote:
>> Also the microcore does not do anything that cannot also be done
>> directly by the CPU, so why penalize the robot with the microcore
>> at all?
I was making a microcore walker, the cpu part was a separate optional
add-on. An onboard laboratory so that I can study microcore control
methods. It would be pointless to eliminate what I was studying...
Terry Newton
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home