I have seen all transistor logic designs....horror of horrors!...but it is a retro way of doing this. Perhaps using wire spring relays or step by step switches would really be interesting....but it would need a couple of racks to build...not really practical. I envision smaller compact designs...like four IN-17 nixies on a board the size of a matchbox. I am sure this has been done already but not with a Cortex MCU...maybe it already has?.....but I really appreciate the information and this may give me enough motive to start something new....regards
Robert On 14 July, 21:25, threeneurons <[email protected]> wrote: > | I have an STK-500 that all it was ever used for was to > | burn some hex for a few chips ... > | I was checking on a little ARM MBED 1768 dev board from > | NXP and it also looked promising. ... if I learn on a more > | sophistated MCU perhaps that would be beneficial later on. > | ... may be overkill > | Regards > | > | Robert > > From a learning standpoint, you could go either way (AVR or ARM). For > a clock app, and ARM is really overkill, but that could be said for an > AVR too. A clock is just a counter string, which can be (and has been) > done with just a few logic chips. But its also a good app, to get feet > wet in this whole idea of embedded programming. Its not as if you were > designing for production, so have fun. > > That MBED looks like it uses the same concept as the AVR Arduino: > > http://mbed.org/http://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/Hardware > > AVR devices come in DIP packages, so you can build your one-off hobby > project straight onto a perf board, if you want to get away from the > arduino. ARM chips are exclusively SMT, and fine pitch parts at that, > so that MBED platform is real handy. It gives the hobbyist a lot a > horsepower to play with. > > To the newbies, an ARM is a serious processor. Comparing it to an AVR, > is like comparing apples, to not oranges, but truck loads of apples. > > And don't worry about the overkill issue. Especially, for learning > purposes. If someone told me, 30-years ago, to use a uC for a chase- > lite circuit, I would have showed the the door, with the pointy end of > my shoe. A little over 10-years ago, I did just that (the chase lite > uC circuit, not the shoe thing). At under a buck, for a low end uC, it > was the logical way to go. It saved both on cost, and labor of the > added hand wiring. > > That being said, there is a strong current in the nixie community, to > go retro. Not just in the tubes, but how they're driven. Screw the > processors. No ARM. No AVR, nor PIC. No old 6502. No TTL logic, or any > other IC. But use discrete components. Preferably using only tubes. A > few have done it. There are about 4 of 5 examples that I'm aware of. I > even have one pencil whipped. But it doesn't count, until there's some > real working hardware. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "neonixie-l" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/neonixie-l?hl=en-GB.
