OOPIC Forum

This Forum is Dedicated For all The Object Oriented PIC Lovers .......... The concept behind OOPic is straight forward. Use preprogrammed multitasking Objects from a library of highly optimized Objects to do all the work of interacting with the hardware. Then write small scripts in Basic, C, or Java syntax styles to control the Objects. During operation, the Objects run continuously and simultaneously in the background while the scripts run in the foreground telling the objects what to do.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

[oopic] Re: DDELink bug and linking 2 Oopic Rs

Hi
Thanx for the advice. WHen I get 'em mounted I plan on using a cable
of 3 or 4 inches (due to other physical constraints.) - about 10 cm
or a bit less. Now I'll definitely try to minimize the length! If I
have to put an Oopic C or S in there I'll just forgo the second R
board completely, since a working C or S would completely replace the
functionality anyway.
I also take it the higher value pullups stand a better chance of
working. When I get this all assembled I'll post a followup on my
results.
Thanx again!
P.S. I think your Guinness is safe... for the time being.

--- In oopic@yahoogroups.com, ooPIC Tech Support <dennis.clark@...>
wrote:
>
> I've played with this problem for off and on for a while it seems
and
> can't find any good explanation or reasoning. You should be using
2.7K
> to 4.7K for even short distances (measured in single digit
centimeters)
> but it simply won't work between any two ooPICs that use the
16F877a
> processor and I just don't understand why. Putting an ooPIC S
board in
> the circuit fixes it, so that left out cable length, noise in the
wires
> or just bad connectors. If anyone can figure out why this happens
I
> offer up a 4 pack of Guiness Draught cans as a prize!
>
> DLC
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:oopic-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:oopic-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
oopic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [oopic] Re: DDELink bug and linking 2 Oopic Rs

I've played with this problem for off and on for a while it seems and
can't find any good explanation or reasoning. You should be using 2.7K
to 4.7K for even short distances (measured in single digit centimeters)
but it simply won't work between any two ooPICs that use the 16F877a
processor and I just don't understand why. Putting an ooPIC S board in
the circuit fixes it, so that left out cable length, noise in the wires
or just bad connectors. If anyone can figure out why this happens I
offer up a 4 pack of Guiness Draught cans as a prize!

DLC

rtstofer wrote:
> --- In oopic@yahoogroups.com, ooPIC Tech Support <dennis.clark@...> wrote:
>
>>The most certain way to make sure that the DDE link works is to have an
>>ooPIC S in the loop. Otherwise the high value data and clock resistors
>>need to be used. No one can explain this oddity, but it has something
>>to do with the PIC 16F877a part.
>>
>>DLC
>
>
> If you have to use 22k to 33k resistors, the cable length between the
> OOPics will have to be measured in small numbers of inches. That much
> resistance just won't overcome any kind of capacitance.
>
> A conventional I2C network would have resistors in the 2.2k range.
>
> Unfortunately, I only have a couple of S boards so I can't really test
> the bug to see what is happening.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Clark ooPIC Tech Support
www.oopic.com
------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Monday, October 1, 2007

[oopic] Re: DDELink bug and linking 2 Oopic Rs

--- In oopic@yahoogroups.com, ooPIC Tech Support <dennis.clark@...> wrote:
>
> The most certain way to make sure that the DDE link works is to have an
> ooPIC S in the loop. Otherwise the high value data and clock resistors
> need to be used. No one can explain this oddity, but it has something
> to do with the PIC 16F877a part.
>
> DLC

If you have to use 22k to 33k resistors, the cable length between the
OOPics will have to be measured in small numbers of inches. That much
resistance just won't overcome any kind of capacitance.

A conventional I2C network would have resistors in the 2.2k range.

Unfortunately, I only have a couple of S boards so I can't really test
the bug to see what is happening.

Richard

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [oopic] DDELink bug and linking 2 Oopic Rs

The most certain way to make sure that the DDE link works is to have an
ooPIC S in the loop. Otherwise the high value data and clock resistors
need to be used. No one can explain this oddity, but it has something
to do with the PIC 16F877a part.

DLC

red71956 wrote:
> Hi
> The explanantion of the bug (in the Programming Guide section on DDE
> regarding linking 2 Oopics together) is unclear to me.
> Will using 22k to 33k pullup resistors on the data and clock lines of
> the I2C 'usually' allow communication to succeed with 2 Oopic Rs?
> Or is an Oopic 'S' needed AND the pullups? Is the remark about using
> 2.7k pullup resistors on the Data and Clock lines superceded by
> the 'Bug Workaround'?
> I THINK it reads EITHER an Oopic S OR the pullups have to be on the I2C
> network, with an Oopic S being the more certain method of getting 2 R
> boards to talk together.
> Am I parsing the explanation too much?
> I just don't want to release the 'magic smoke' from my boards!
> Thanx in advance!
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Clark ooPIC Tech Support
www.oopic.com
------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[oopic] DDELink bug and linking 2 Oopic Rs

Hi
The explanantion of the bug (in the Programming Guide section on DDE
regarding linking 2 Oopics together) is unclear to me.
Will using 22k to 33k pullup resistors on the data and clock lines of
the I2C 'usually' allow communication to succeed with 2 Oopic Rs?
Or is an Oopic 'S' needed AND the pullups? Is the remark about using
2.7k pullup resistors on the Data and Clock lines superceded by
the 'Bug Workaround'?
I THINK it reads EITHER an Oopic S OR the pullups have to be on the I2C
network, with an Oopic S being the more certain method of getting 2 R
boards to talk together.
Am I parsing the explanation too much?
I just don't want to release the 'magic smoke' from my boards!
Thanx in advance!

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[oopic] Re: Fwd: New user

What compiler are you using? If you are using the 6.11 release it
should work fine. If you are using one of the 5.xx compilers then if
you are not using the Basic syntax, in some cases the new object types
will also error out. Your best bet is to download the 6.11 compiler and
IDE.

DLC

> Hello all,
>
> I'm a new user who just received an oopic kit. My experience is
> limited to some C++ and intel 8051 programming.
>
> I'm having a little trouble...
>
> In the programmers guide (http://www.oopic.com/pgchap2.htm), there's a
> small program to blink an LED. The hardware is no problem, but when I
> copy/paste the code into the compiler and attempt to download I get
> the following error:
>
> "The identifier 'oLED' has not been defined"
>
> Please help and excuse my noobiness :(
>
> Thanks

--
------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Clark ooPIC Tech Support
www.oopic.com
------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[oopic] New user

Hello all,

I'm a new user who just received an oopic kit. My experience is
limited to some C++ and intel 8051 programming.

I'm having a little trouble...

In the programmers guide (http://www.oopic.com/pgchap2.htm), there's a
small program to blink an LED. The hardware is no problem, but when I
copy/paste the code into the compiler and attempt to download I get
the following error:

"The identifier 'oLED' has not been defined"

Please help and excuse my noobiness :(

Thanks

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Monday, October 1, 2007

Blog Archive