If you set the output 555s' output pulses to a width which becomes greater than the time between 4017 pulses when you increase the frequency of the 555 astable, then you're in trouble!
But... even more importantly, I've gone back to the beginning of this thread trying to sort out what's been going on, and ISTM that this whole thing has gotten really seriously out of hand.
If all you really want is two pulses 180° apart with a width you can vary and which drive optoisolators, all you need is a 7555, two 555's, two optos and a handful of discretes.
Use the 7555 to get a 50% duty cycle square wave, then invert that output with a transistor to get another square wave 180° out of phase with the first one. Differentiate the falling edges of the square waves and use those edges to drive two 555's. Set the output widths of those 555's to whatever you want (as long as it's not wider than the distance between two consecutive triggers at the highest frequency out of the astable) and use the 555 outputs to drive the optos DIRECTLY! You've got a hundred milliamperes or so the 555 can source, so just connect the outputs through suitable current limiting resistors to the anodes of the opto LEDs, and there ya go!
--- _________ Since you don't use the DISCHARGE output when you're running a 50% duty cycle 7555 astable, you can use it as the inverted version of the output by pulling it up to Vcc, so it looks like the transistor inverter can go away as well.
(See thread " Special "dual" pulse generator circuit " and "Porblems with NTE3083(4N32)" for recent discussion on this project)
I have now modfied my circuit to trigger the pulse width setting 555s on the leading edge of the pulse from the decade counter. See the schematic at:
formatting link
The current problem is that at SOME frequencies, as set by the triggering
555 (leftmost in the diagram), the pulse width of the outputs cannot be set any wider than the width of the pulse out of the 4017 decade counter. That is, the circuit is supposed to allow me to set the output pulse width from something less than 1 ms to 10 or 11 ms for triggering rates between 45 and 260 Hz coming out of the decade counter. Sometimes it works, but at certain freqencies the pulse width is limited to the pulse width th the decade counter output pins. For example, if I set the frequency low, e.g.,
50Hz, and then set the pulse width of the channel 1 output (upper signal flow path in the diagram) to some high value, e.g., 10 ms, then slowly increase the frequency the output pulse width will decrerease, dropping off to 3.8 ms at 260 Hz. Channel 2 appears to be OK at low and high frequencies, but at certain intermediate frequencies the pulse width does change with frequency. None of this should happen; the pukse width should be rock solid as frequency is changed.
I find this very strange, and cannot see why this is happening. I have looked at the signals at points all along both paths and things look pretty much as I would expect. For example, the the output pulses at the decade counter are correct for the set frequency, and the triggering pulse at pin 2 of both pulse width setting
555s is about 0.2 to 0.3 ms. The problem appears at pin 3 of the pulse width setting 555s. It appears that this voltage is sometimes getting pulled back to 0 at the end of the decade counter pulse, rather than the time determined by the
555 RC product.
Try decreasing the length of the output pulser by making the cap coming out of the 4017 smaller, say 62nF. That should decrease the trigger pulse coming into the 555 to something smaller than the output pulse you are after. Also, I don't think you need that 5.1k resistor on the output of the 4017.
Another thing is that the resistor/capacitor you are using for the timing element in the right most 555s are pretty big. They require the
555 to sink alot of current when the trigger occurs. You could scale them both down to 100th of their values, and the timing should be OK, but the 555 will have to sink alot less charge to trigger.
Neither of these may fix the problem, but they may give you more information about what is happening.
--
Regards,
Robert Monsen
"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
That can't happen. The capacitor, fixed resistor and pot at the astable 555 have been selected to limit the frequency between about 44 Hz and 270 Hz. The decade counter outputs are 1/10 of that frequency, 4.4 to 27 Hz. At 4.4 Hz the period is 227 ms, and at 27 Hz it is 37 ms. The capacitors and pots on the monostable 555s are selected to limit pulse widths between about 0.3 ms and 11 ms. Consequently, I should be able to get the full output pulse width at any allowed frequency. So that's not the problem.
I have no doubt that it would work, but unles there is something fundamentally wrong with the circuit I have implemented I'm not inclined to start over. I believe my problems have to do with the details, and my inexperience with design of circuits, not the fundamental design. If this is indeed the case, I expect I'd have similar problems with the new approach. I admit that there might be fewer if the component count could be reduced.
But you raise an interesting point regarding direct use of the 555 outputs to drive the optos. Are you saying to just ground pin 2 of the optos and hook pin 1 to the output of the 555?
Er, rather, scale down the capacitor, scale up the resistor...
--
Regards,
Robert Monsen
"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
|| |___ |___ Q1 _| |___________________________________| |_______ ->| || || |I believe my problems have to do with the details, and my inexperience
--- Reduced to three timers, a transistor, and some passives, so that lets you get rid of the 4017, three transistors, and some passives.
Basically, you'd wind up with a two chip (7555,556) solution!
---
--- Essentially, yes. You'd still need the current limiting resistor in there, but you could get rid of the two bipolars.
---
--- You're welcome.
Just for grins, I'll post the schematic to abse sometime today. I'll probably go ahead and build it too. I've got all the parts and it sounds like a fun project for a slow Sunday. If I do, I'll post pictures and waveforms on abse.
Hey, John, come on now! This is my project! But, since I can't stop you, maybe I ought to ask what is abse? Just in case I want to peek, you understand. No way I'm gunna copy you!
As for me, I've concluded there is an electronic conspiracy afoot. Now matter how I trigger the 555 off the 4017 there is this weird effect of the 4017 pulse width limiting the 555 pulse width. I set up one of the 555s on a separtate board to try out some of Robert Monson's ideas. Whether the coupling is through a cap or just resistance the unwanted effect is there.
What is it that could be causing the 555 to ignor it's RC time constant and obey instead the width of the 4017 pulse, even if all it sees of it is the effect of its leading edge on a capacitor?
I tried leaving out the 5.1k in the triggering NPN. Could't get it to trigger that way, so I put it back and went to a 0.047 mF cap. Works, but same frequency dependency of pulse width.
Also went to a 100k pot and 0.1 mf cap at one of the pulse width setting
555s. Same problem.
In this regard, should I go to same configuration at the triggering 555, i.e., the leftmost one? The reason I ask is that while said before that the problem I'm having is that the pulse width is being limited to no more than the pulse width at the outputs of the 4017, I could as as well have said "limited to the period of the triggering 555, " leading me to wonder if there is a problem with they way I've configured it. Could it be that that 555 is somehow triggering a reset at the pulse width
I just had another thought (dangerous, I know... ;).
The transistions of the 4017 could be affecting the 555, causing it to trigger improperly. Try a 1uF cap between the Vcc and GND pins of the
4017, and another between the power and ground pins of the 555. They have to be close to the chips (preferably right between the pins).
If this is true, you can probably see it by scoping the power rail.
What happens is that when the cmos gates in the 4017 change state, they can bounce the power if it isn't very stiff. This will cause other chips near it to malfunction. The 555 also has this problem, sucking power during transitions.
--
Regards,
Robert Monsen
"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
--
Regards,
Robert Monsen
"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
I think your copy/paste was scrambled. I'm no LT Spice expert, but for example I reckon all those WIRE lines should have a syntax like this: WIRE -704 -384 -704 -624 WIRE -704 -688 -464 -688 etc IOW, 1 per line, 4 co-ordinates each, ending with a Return character.
Running it as it stands gives error: "Unknown schematic syntax".
If I put the scope on the power rail and set it AC I see sort of a square wave. It has a peak-to-peak of 4-5 mV and the same period as the triggering 555!
Does this mean the caps should be between the VCC and GRD pins of the 555 as well as the 4017, or instead of at teh 4107, or both?
I'm off to the electronics store to get come 1uF caps.
I took the IC components back to the breadboard so I could make changes easier. When I changed the input harness to the trirgering 555, multiplying all resistors by 100 and dividing the capacitor by 100 the power rail voltage became clean. However, the bad behavior continued.
Nonetheless, I put the 1 mF cap between pins 15 & 16 on the 4017 and the bad behavior went away! The pulse width is completely independent of the triggering frequency. The circuit now works with purely resistive coupling at the base of the NPN transistor, and the RESET pin of the pulse width setting 555 tied to PIN 2, or with an 0.047 mF capacitor and RESET tied to +12.
Thanks, Robert. You nailed it!
One other question. My original circuit used 10 mF caps and 1k pots in the input harnesses of the 555s, probably because the first 555 example I saw did it that way. But as has been pointed out here, I could as well have used smaller caps and larger pots (and other resistors) to get the same timings, and lower currents. As mentioned above, this cleans up the power rail voltage. May I assume that this is, in general, better practice?
(You really need to start bottom posting. Thats the convention here, and it makes it easier for everybody to read the replies)
Are you talking about microfarad or millifarad caps? mF = millifarad which is 1000x uF.
With larger resistors and smaller caps, there is far less charge and thus current when it discharges. This causes less problems like the one you were seeing. However, there is a limit, which is that at some point, the leakage through the 555 may cause errors, leading up to it not working at all.
The best advice I can give you is to read the datasheet. They understand their device, and can give you advice based on their testing and theoretical knowledge. Learning how to read datasheets is the best thing you can do to learn how to use any chip.
--
Regards,
Robert Monsen
"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.