More on Arduino
andre.kesteloot at verizon.net
Sun Apr 15 22:29:36 CDT 2012
On 4/15/2012 23:02 PM, wb4jfi at knology.net wrote:
> -----Original Message----- From: Andre Kesteloot
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 10:12 PM
> To: wb4jfi at knology.net
> Cc: andre.kesteloot at ieee.org ; Tacos
> Subject: Re: More on Arduino
> On 4/13/2012 18:34 PM, wb4jfi at knology.net wrote:
>> I've been looking at the Digilent ChipKIT Max32 for a while now. At
>> $50, it seems to be a much more powerful device than the Arduino
>> 8-bit CPU. The problem is that it does not have I2S support, so
>> connecting audio codecs (for I/Q sampling) is problematic. I'm not
>> sure that the 16-bit ADCs inside the PIC chip are quiet enough.
>> Another problem may be that the Digilent board only supplies 3.3V to
>> the shields, no 5V. This according to the article below, but the
>> schematics seem to have 5V shown. The Arduino ethernet shield uses
>> 5V, for example. While the Digilent boards have their own ethernet
>> shield, it uses an SMC LAN8720 ethernet chip instead of the (now)
>> Arduino-standard Wiznet W5100. I think the article is incorrect about
>> no 5V, at least on the ChipKIT Max32.
> One of the great advantages of the Arduino UNO, IMO, is its simplicity.
> Simple to buy (Micro-Center, and by mail order), simple to power up
> (USB), and simple to program (a pared-down version of C).
> Also lots of books and articles available.
> Once we go for higher-power processors, etc, then we may as well forget
> about simplicity and attractiveness to your average Ham operator.
> (That's is what I am trying to encourage: your regular ham deciding to
> buy an Arduino UNO and connecting it to his/her USB port).
> I mentioned the above information specifically because my concerns
> addressed the article that you forwarded to tacos about expanding
> Arduinos and more advanced target platforms (your email on 4/13/12,
> ). I was not promoting more sophisticated hardware, THAT ARTICLE was.
> Within that article, the Digilent ChipKIT 32 seem to be highlighted as
> the next step up in the Arduino ladder. My email meant to highlight
> that while they are more powerful than basic Arduinos, there are still
> issues if you plan to use them for more advanced projects.
> I did not mean to indicate that Unos are not usable for projects. I
> am using them to do lots of fun stuff. However, I also don't think
> you should mix up simplicity with ease-of-use. More sophisticated
> Arduino variants can be just as easy to use, but provide more I/O
> pins, or more sophisticated interfaces that are demanded by more
> advanced projects.
> This is AMRAD, in my opinion we should not limit ourselves to ONLY
> basic devices (and therefore ONLY basic projects), just because we
> arbitrarily set a goal of only using 8-bit processors with only 8 or
> 16 or 24 pins. That is NOT the way to move this hobby forward. Is CW
> a good-enough mode of operation, why use SSB? Packet is totally
> unnecessarily, we already have the National Traffic Systems and ARRL
> codes. PSK-31 is too hard to do, requiring all that extra junk just
> to replace model 19 RTTY terminals. etc...
> The average amateur will never write C code for ANY
> processor/development board. To him or her, it's all about being able
> to implement what someone else has done. If you want to build a
> device that receives Kenwood/Elecraft CAT commands and parse them out
> to three different ham rigs or equipment (using isolated RS232 ports),
> you cannot easily do that on an Uno. But, you CAN do that on an
> Arduino Mega 2560. If you need more memory or faster speed than an
> Uno's 16MHz, or even the Mega, the Digilent ChipKIT32 (80MHz clock)
> can provide the hardware platform, and the development GUI, to
> accomplish that. There aren't enough pins on a Uno to support audio
> demodulation of PSK-31, and then display the data on an 16x2 LCD, plus
> support a rotary encoder and a couple of other switches. Should
> someone abandon that (or other) project just because it does not fit
> into a Uno?
> My original point is that even the ChipKIT Max32, which the article
> you forwarded a link to seems to be touting, is not capable of
> handling some needs, especially in the world of SDR or other basic
> audio processing. Plus, either the article is wrong about no 5V, or
> the Digilent ChipKIT schematics and documentation appear to be wrong.
> While I applaud what the Arduino Uno can do, its design, and
> especially its development software, I don't think it's fair to not
> build a project just because it won't fit on a Uno. After all, none
> of them can run CP/M.
> By the way, who says C programming is simple, even a pared-down
> version? Or, especially a pared-down version. I have found that the
> Arduino can take a LOT of more standard C statements than I have found
> on any Arduino documentation site. I've ended up trying a statement,
> and if it works, I use it. For example, there are a lot more
> traditional "C" string handlers that the Arduino development
> environment accepts than I can find documented anywhere. Maybe we
> should not use these, and stick to the "approved" statements only?
> Lastly, the Arduino environment seems to be a mix of C and C++. It
> does some of both, but not all of either.
yes it is a mixture of both,
> So, I challenge your assertion that higher-power processors
> necessarily eliminates the simplicity and attractiveness to the
> average Ham operator. So there.
> Terry, WB4JFI
as you wish.
My desire is to encourage AMRADers to DO something, anything.
And starting in a simple way is better than not starting at all :-)
More information about the Tacos