Using Counter IC

A PICAXE, or any other microcontroller. A single chip 8 pin solution.

Dave :)

Hi,

Thanks for the suggestion, but i want to know whether i can design my application without a microcontroller?

Thanks Nick

In that case just use any standard 4 bit counter IC with an AND gate on the Q0 and Q2 outputs. Or even simpler is to use a 4017, the 5th output will go HIGH after 5 clock input pluses.

Use an extra latch in either case if you want the output to stay HIGH indefinitely.

You gave no details on resetting the counter, so I'll leave that up to you.

Use 5 seperate circutis for your 5 signals, or have I mis-interpreted your intention there?

Dave :)

YES

- ummmhh

- You could even probably do it with valves too!

- But why would you want to? The single-chip $1 micro might require a $2 programming interface and you might have to download some free software tools to develop the code, but so what?

However, if what you are REALLY saying is that you receive 5 signals on the one line one after another and they just happen to be 99hrs apart then you can do that with a simple counter chip. Is that what you are saying?

Hi,

Using a PIC controller is a really nice suggestio and i have already started work on that.

The signals come from a same source, a standard electronic timer. I also want to retain the data for atleast 7 days. I am using a battery for this purpose. Can i do it with a counter IC?

Thanks n Regards, Nick

Hi,

The Counter will accept 5 signals give a output and again will start accepting inputs.

I have used a single electronic timer for input, so the signal is the same.

Regards Nick

Hi,

The Counter will accept 5 signals give a output and again will start accepting inputs.

I have used a single electronic timer for input, so the signal is the same.

Regards Nick

Hi,

The Counter will accept 5 signals give a output and again will start accepting inputs.

I have used a single electronic timer for input, so the signal is the same.

Regards Nick

Yes, you can do this with a simple counter chip. There are plenty to choose from but I am still a little confused (extreme lack of data).

Everything you said up to the point that the signals come from a standard electronic timer...ok...but what do you mean when you say you want to retain the data? (maybe you just want to remember the current count?). You are being extremely vague or just not used to explaining yourself properly. Are you saying that you might want to maintain a total count of output pulses??? BTW, the word "data" implies that there is a quantity of information.

If this is the case then you need another counter to count those pulses I suppose. Still, a PIC is a better choice and you could retain "the data" in it's EEPROM. However, all this is useless unless you know what you want to do and that you can also explain it. Hint, detail a diagram perhaps, ask "yourself" questions such as;

1. How many inputs (inputs = actual physical signals) are required?

1. How long does the output need to be active for when it counts the pulses? (Multiple choice here: from 1usec -> 99hrs)

2. If the counter retains data then how will that data be used?

1. What power source are you using? (affects the choice of components)

2. Do you need to validate the inputs? (false pulses etc)

1. What is the worst case scenario and can you live with it? (always ask this one)

2. What questions would your worst critic ask? (consider them)

*Peter*

Nick wrote:

Yes, subject to getting things set up right and having stable power without noise on that or the count clock, and not being placed in a shower of radiation, your typical counter IC should hold it's count value until you stop caring - though if failure has serious consequences you'll want some sort of redundant design.

Any binary counter will work. For example, the 74ACT161 ($0.48 from DigiKey).

Have Fun! Rich

I think the only one who knows the answers to these questions is Nick's teacher.

Good Luck! Rich

Yes. A 4017.

What you want is a decade counter, followed by a divide by 10 to get it into years, then divide by 365, and so on...

;) Bob

Hi,

Yes.

No.

I am working on circuit which includes a 4 bit counter 74ACt161 and will be giving the pulses (from electronic timer, each pulse will have a offtime of 99hrs an ontime of 1 sec) to its clock. I will be building a logic at its output bits to give a high after i get 5 pulses. I am using a battery(non-rechargeble) to give supply to the counter in case of power failure. The electronic timer also stops giving pulses when power is not present. The counter will retain the pulse count as the power for the same is provided by the Battery. I have also found a PIC12F629 (8 bit microcontroller), this has a brown out detect, internal eeprom, 1 comparator, 8 bit timer, internal oscillator and it has in-circuit programming. I hope above things work out soon. Thanks for the help, if there is anything wrong in the above please point out.. Thanks again. Nick.

Hi,

Thanks for the support..

Regards. Nick

Hi Nick,

The PIC is a good choice I feel as this is exactly what I would use, in fact I already use the 675 variant for many little nick-nacky things like this. Yes, you can do it with a simple cmos counter with battery backup but the PIC solution can be completely tailored to your requirements and without need of a battery backup. The pulse count is so slow that it doesn't matter that you maintain the counter in EEPROM. Also, the code for this is ultra-ultra simple, probably only about 20 lines of assembly including the start-up code. Should be a little learning exercise for you but you always have support available anyway.

The cmos counter approach may generate false counts especially on power-up/down which you will need to take care of. With the PIC it is a simple matter of ignoring short pulses, especially at power-up.

Nick wrote:

"Peter Jakacki"

in

The 12F683 only costs a little more (~20%) and has twice the code space, twice the EEPROM space and an extra 8-bit timer. :-) I really like these nanowatt PICs with the 8MHz INTOSC (or INTRC if you prefer), all that matters to me is the 1% clock accuracy and being able to change it on the fly. Good stuff there. ;-)

so

anyway.

Exactly, it will be more than worth the effort when the OP fully realizes what he can do with them.

Right, allot of icky hardware can often be avoided by writing a few lines of code. By "icky" I mean the stuff you have to add to have a known state immediately after power is applied. As you know, it's pretty much an innate ability of a microcontroller to power on in a known state.