a hobby class on microcontrollers
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: STUDIOT::Re: low-power-cons, low-cost, uP+DSP combo for H.264 videoencoding & control/monitor application
Next: Multimeter Clock – Styled after the Simpson 260 Multimeter
From: Gary Peek on 29 Jun 2010 07:00 David Brown wrote: > If you are not a Monty Python fan, it might be hard to appreciate the > humour in it, but basically a "dead parrot" is something that is dead, > but some people claim it is actually still alive. I get it now. I should have looked it up! > Unless you have nothing much on the board, or everything else is > socketed, then there are few advantages in having the microcontroller > socketed. In Jon's case I would think it to be an advantage, because it sounds like he wants a board so simple that it may have only the microcontroller on it. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Simon Clubley on 29 Jun 2010 09:12 On 2010-06-28, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker <HBBroeker(a)t-online.de> wrote: > Am 28.06.2010 20:44, schrieb Jon Kirwan: > >> I wanted DIP because I want the _actual_ micro piece used in the >> final project to cost very little, > > I don't think that's a valid line of reasoning. I seriously doubt that > the part being DIP has a guaranteed positived correlation to its > cheapness. Not these days, any more. > Hobbyist here. (At least when it comes to embedded work.) I regard DIP as been cheap, but not because of the price of the component (which is usually a bit more expensive than it's alternatives in other form factors). No, I regard DIP as been cheap because I can take the component and just place it in a breadboard and start experimenting with it. I don't have to make up a full PCB or adapter board before I can start using it. If I had to make up a adapter board/PCB, I would have to either have the materials to hand or have it made up and wait for it to be delivered. Either way, I have to spend additional time and money before I could use the non-DIP component. To Jon: Are you distinguishing between your students hardware and software capabilities ? They may be less developed on the hardware side of things than they are on the software side of things or vice versa. It's certainly true for me; I still use DIP components on Veroboard, but can read (and understand) a datasheet and write drivers for devices without any problems at all. I've also, as a hobbyist, created a RTEMS BSP for a ARM board in the past as well. I tell you this in order to have you think about the possibility that your potential students may be at different levels when it comes to hardware and software. Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley(a)remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world
From: steve on 29 Jun 2010 10:54 On Jun 28, 8:19 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:56:55 -0700 (PDT), steve > > <bungalow_st...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ><snip> > >I think you have conflicting requirements, something easy to use is > >going to require big knobs, cables, big connectors and hopefully > >solderless === big money. A small flat pcb board with nothing but > >holes in it (TI 4.30 etc) is too intimidating for your audience. > > The reality will be in the details. And where all this winds > up, I don't know right now. > > These kits, were you able to actually open them and look > inside, come with large and small switches, knobs, wheels, > gears and gear boxes, dc motors, 40kHz emitters and > receivers, LEDs, and a host of other useful items. I've > already got enough stuff to keep the costs of a successful > project low and I don't need ANY MORE parts, at all, to do > that. So I know the actual cost here. > > It may cost more, once I run out of this stuff. But with > hundreds of boxes like this, that may take a bit of time and > by then I will know more and can work on the exact supplies I > will need. > > On the last point, the intimidation factor might be there > _before_ they get into the classroom. I can't control their > minds before that point in time. So that is why I mentioned > that I need to figure out how to "sizzle" the class. But > once they are there, it is MY JOB to take away any feelings > of intimidation. That's why I get paid the big bucks ($0) to > do this. If I haven't done my job well, then your point is > valid. But if I succeed as I hope I may, then I'm more > worried about specific details I need to smooth over and > resolve than about this. > > But I am very glad for your contributing thoughts, just the > same. I need to hear objections and consider them well. > > Jon We've taught some high school students before, most of it was like a cooking show on TV, you show them some basics, then pull out from underneath a table the completed system they could tinker with. A microprocessor controlled toy car was a big hit, we had all the routines written (turn left, turn right, forward, backward etc), they could call them as they wanted, it was just a bunch of jumps to subroutines. The ones that were really interested wrote their own code, others couldn't care less and just wanted to use the canned routines,everyone was happy. Otherwise kids are used to cell phones, they won't be impressed by blinking LEDs projects.
From: Micke on 29 Jun 2010 11:24 On 28 kesä, 00:22, Jon Kirwan <j...(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > I need to think about a class that will include both young > and old, all of whom have very little experience but at least > the hope of trying to enjoy such a class on microcontrollers > without knowing anything much about what they may be getting > themselves into.> > The "microcontroller" they choose needs to be something > cheap, available in DIP form, has an inexpensive development > environment that isn't hard to use, and will probably have to > come in BASIC, c, c++, and assembly incarnations. Maybe > Forth, too. (Yes, I'm thinking about it.) > Hello ! Since you are considering using Forth, I would suggest FlashForth for PIC18F and dsPIC30F. It is a interactive Forth system which compiles directly to Flash memory. It is very hands on. You can define your own commands to try out what happens with whatever you have hanging of those PIC pins. All the software tools are included on the PIC (native compiler, assembler, interpreter). You just need an (old) PC with a serial terminal and a text editor to create your own programs. Cheers Mikael http://flashforth.sourceforge.net
From: hamilton on 29 Jun 2010 12:44
On 6/29/2010 9:24 AM, Micke wrote: > > Since you are considering using Forth, I would suggest > FlashForth > > Cheers Mikael > http://flashforth.sourceforge.net Please do not force children to understand RPN at such a young age. They will have problems with regular math forever after that. The Logos people have it fairly right, look at the software they have for children. The hardware is almost insignificant, get the software right and you will keep their interest. Software that will get them running and some simple projects. good luck hamilton |