Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #08120
To: "'beam@sgiblab.sgi.com'" beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Wilf Rigter Wilf.Rigter@powertech.bc.ca
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:18:58 -0800
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: bicore or microcore?
Just to make matters even more complicated, there are many networks that
will produce such bi-directional pulses suitable for driving motors. The
attached circuit is sort of unique although it may look familiar. It can
control 3 motors with 3 delays. It uses all non-inverting elements, in this
case a 74HC245 or better yet a 74AC245. The novel oscillator outputs are in
phase but the high/low duty cycle can be independently adjusted with the two
10M resistors! The delay stages are "monocores", similar to slave bicores
but requiring only half the number of parts. The switching is clean and free
of oscillations. The 1M resistors are used for the delay and the 2M
resistors set the ON time. Anyway the top waveforms show how the pulses
propagate and the bottom three waveforms show the voltage across the motors
for the connections shown. When I have some time I will draw out a MS
bicore network. The "ganged" slaves are probably what is used in Tilden's
lamprey circuits.
enjoy
wilf
<<3M3D.gif>>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip A. Ryals [SMTP:phillip@ryals.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 4:36 AM
> To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
> Subject: Re: bicore or microcore?
>
> Wow... forgive my ignorance, but that kinda went over my head. I
> understand the principle, but how do you actually do that? I'm quite used
> to building master/slave bicores now, but only with two motor walkers.
> What
> do you mean by "motor connected to one master output and one slave
> output?"
> And the "ganged" slaves just completely threw me. :)
>
>
> Thanks,
> phillip
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wilf Rigter
> To:
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 5:20 PM
> Subject: RE: bicore or microcore?
>
>
> > You can use either one! The microcore solution is a straight forward
> > sequencer with independent time step adjustments: two (turn left/right)
> Nv
> > stages per motor and one Nv stage for each "no motor running" delay. The
> > Bicore solution is a little more subtle : Use a master-slave Bicore for
> each
> > motor but with motor connected to one master output and one slave
> output.
> > The master controls the frequency and the slave controls the "on" time.
> For
> > more motors use "ganged" slaves to time each step of the sequence. This
> can
> > be an "open ended" chain if you want to have a delay between each
> sequence
> > or the last slave is looped around to retrigger the master and start a
> new
> > sequence.
> >
> > enjoy
> >
> > wilf
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Phillip A. Ryals [SMTP:phillip@ryals.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 12:42 PM
> > > To: Beam@Sgiblab. Sgi. Com
> > > Subject: bicore or microcore?
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I was just thinking dangerously again, and I can't seem to remember...
> > >
> > > Is it a bicore or microcore that will move motors seperately? By that
> I
> > > mean, motor one moves, motor two moves, and so on. I have an idea,
> but
> it
> > > would require a gap in between each movement long enough for gravity
> to
> > > take
> > > effect.
> > >
> > > I was thinking the bicore is the one I need, but just can't remember.
> > >
> > >
> > > So with that in mind...
> > >
> > > How could one adjust the time between movements? And is it possible
> to
> > > chain those movements so that the first motor wouldn't start moving
> again
> > > until the last motor finishes it's sequence? Am I getting into the
> > > microcontroller area now?
> > >
> > > If this is possible, I think it's easy to see some applications.
> > >
> > > Thanks all,
> > > phillip
Attachment: 3M3D.gif
Home