Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
Most computers and RS-232 interface chips made in the last 10 years support 0-5V as well as +/- 12V. Didier KO4BB Sent from my Droid Razr 4G LTE wireless tracker. -Original Message- From: Bob Camp li...@rtty.us To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement' time-nuts@febo.com Sent: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc Hi Again, I'd say it's the lowest common denominator. Synchronous comm using RS-232 levels on a DB-25 came before asynchronous comm. It's long dead. Being first isn't *always* best. Same could be said of 125V / 60 ma current loops. I suspect serial will easily outlive RS-232 levels though. Bob -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Michael Tharp Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:55 AM To: time-nuts@febo.com Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc On 10/10/2012 11:49 AM, Bob Camp wrote: No easy solution. Serial com is still with us because it's a lowest common denominator. I'm sitting here coding it into a new product right now (once the uber super compiler finishes a build). It's supported on just about every chip set in the universe. I suspect it will outlive the cockroaches. Basic serial has its merits, but it's regrettable that RS-232 came out on top. RS-422 (or full-duplex RS-485, not much difference) would have been a much better choice. Differential so it has good noise resistance, and it doesn't use weird voltages (-12V? come on...) It all looks the same from the software side though. Bytes in, bytes out. -- m. tharp ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
Murray we offered up the same thing for pretty much the same reasons. Good to know I am in fine company. Hmmm Ham + free??? Any link? Regards Paul WB8TSL On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Murray Greenman denw...@orcon.net.nzwrote: Corby, Power Basic certainly does the job. However, there's a fairly big learning curve. I use Just Basic, which is a FREE cut-down version of Liberty Basic. While there are a few limitations, and some things you need to do aren't entirely intuitive, it works very well and the serial comms support is excellent. Not only will it do the higher speeds, it will also talk to any COM port you like, including those USB serial adaptors which typically live up at COM6 or higher. What's more Just Basic works great with Win7. I've attached a screen-shot of one of my programs which drives a serial DDS synthesizer (the FEI FE-56xx Rb synth). Looks good and works great. Regards, Murray ZL1BPU ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
You know there is one other aspect of this question from Corby. How do I say this. Age. If you are using the old basics then things like the latest basic by different names are quite convoluted and distracting. They are designed for mobile phone apps. You know those crazy modern apps that sell. We time nuts need direct control of older equipment. So things like liberty basic or powerbasic will get us what we want quicker. I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far sighted. ;-) Regards Paul WB8TSL On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, paul swed paulsw...@gmail.com wrote: Murray we offered up the same thing for pretty much the same reasons. Good to know I am in fine company. Hmmm Ham + free??? Any link? Regards Paul WB8TSL On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Murray Greenman denw...@orcon.net.nzwrote: Corby, Power Basic certainly does the job. However, there's a fairly big learning curve. I use Just Basic, which is a FREE cut-down version of Liberty Basic. While there are a few limitations, and some things you need to do aren't entirely intuitive, it works very well and the serial comms support is excellent. Not only will it do the higher speeds, it will also talk to any COM port you like, including those USB serial adaptors which typically live up at COM6 or higher. What's more Just Basic works great with Win7. I've attached a screen-shot of one of my programs which drives a serial DDS synthesizer (the FEI FE-56xx Rb synth). Looks good and works great. Regards, Murray ZL1BPU ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards initially. What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred it to be serial and galvanically isolated. On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed paulsw...@gmail.com wrote: I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far sighted. ;-) Regards Paul WB8TSL ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
David it was humor Regards On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM, David davidwh...@gmail.com wrote: What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards initially. What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred it to be serial and galvanically isolated. On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed paulsw...@gmail.com wrote: I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far sighted. ;-) Regards Paul WB8TSL ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
Ah well, I missed it but only because I have seen other people make the same suggestion seriously in the recent past. Where is my box of 2102 DRAMs? I left it around here somewhere. On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:15:32 -0400, paul swed paulsw...@gmail.com wrote: David it was humor Regards On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM, David davidwh...@gmail.com wrote: What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards initially. What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred it to be serial and galvanically isolated. On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed paulsw...@gmail.com wrote: I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far sighted. ;-) Regards Paul WB8TSL ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
Hi If they had done USB instead of HPIB / GPIB, a lot of the drivers would have been out of service by the time Windows 95 came along. No chance at all of them working under Windows 7. For the complexity, it'd have been better if they used something more like Ethernet. Except in 1968, you would have set up for something other than TCP-IP. Anybody running a Token Ring network in the basement? No easy solution. Serial com is still with us because it's a lowest common denominator. I'm sitting here coding it into a new product right now (once the uber super compiler finishes a build). It's supported on just about every chip set in the universe. I suspect it will outlive the cockroaches. Bob -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of David Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:54 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards initially. What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred it to be serial and galvanically isolated. On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed paulsw...@gmail.com wrote: I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far sighted. ;-) Regards Paul WB8TSL ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
On 10/10/2012 11:49 AM, Bob Camp wrote: No easy solution. Serial com is still with us because it's a lowest common denominator. I'm sitting here coding it into a new product right now (once the uber super compiler finishes a build). It's supported on just about every chip set in the universe. I suspect it will outlive the cockroaches. Basic serial has its merits, but it's regrettable that RS-232 came out on top. RS-422 (or full-duplex RS-485, not much difference) would have been a much better choice. Differential so it has good noise resistance, and it doesn't use weird voltages (-12V? come on...) It all looks the same from the software side though. Bytes in, bytes out. -- m. tharp ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
Hi Again, I'd say it's the lowest common denominator. Synchronous comm using RS-232 levels on a DB-25 came before asynchronous comm. It's long dead. Being first isn't *always* best. Same could be said of 125V / 60 ma current loops. I suspect serial will easily outlive RS-232 levels though. Bob -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Michael Tharp Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:55 AM To: time-nuts@febo.com Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc On 10/10/2012 11:49 AM, Bob Camp wrote: No easy solution. Serial com is still with us because it's a lowest common denominator. I'm sitting here coding it into a new product right now (once the uber super compiler finishes a build). It's supported on just about every chip set in the universe. I suspect it will outlive the cockroaches. Basic serial has its merits, but it's regrettable that RS-232 came out on top. RS-422 (or full-duplex RS-485, not much difference) would have been a much better choice. Differential so it has good noise resistance, and it doesn't use weird voltages (-12V? come on...) It all looks the same from the software side though. Bytes in, bytes out. -- m. tharp ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
Commodore computers in the longago dimdark past serialized the GPIB. They started out with the GPIB as the disk drive and printer interface from the get-go. I used a Commodore as a cheap controller when Hp GPIB controllers cost a small fortune. Don David What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards initially. What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred it to be serial and galvanically isolated. On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed paulsw...@gmail.com wrote: I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far sighted. ;-) Regards Paul WB8TSL ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. -- Neither the voice of authority nor the weight of reason and argument are as significant as experiment, for thence comes quiet to the mind. De Erroribus Medicorum, R. Bacon, 13th century. If you don't know what it is, don't poke it. Ghost in the Shell Dr. Don Latham AJ7LL Six Mile Systems LLP 17850 Six Mile Road POB 134 Huson, MT, 59846 VOX 406-626-4304 www.lightningforensics.com www.sixmilesystems.com ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
I design in asynchronous serial for diagnostics all of the time. It is easy to galvanically isolate if necessary, is easy to debug, uses the fewest pins, and is well supported on both ends although if needed, USB to serial translation always seems to cause more problems than it solves. I do not remember now where I saw it but many years ago, I ran across an RS-232 type of interface where the first edge of the start bit was used as the high precision timing reference for the following message. I am not sure of the exact details but as I recall, the UART had some external glue logic and maybe a synchronous clock so the start bit edge was aligned to the timing reference to within the inherent jitter of the glue logic without any clock uncertainty. The receiver had a standard UART with a parallel low jitter logic path to watch for the start bit. On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:49:13 -0400, Bob Camp li...@rtty.us wrote: Hi If they had done USB instead of HPIB / GPIB, a lot of the drivers would have been out of service by the time Windows 95 came along. No chance at all of them working under Windows 7. For the complexity, it'd have been better if they used something more like Ethernet. Except in 1968, you would have set up for something other than TCP-IP. Anybody running a Token Ring network in the basement? No easy solution. Serial com is still with us because it's a lowest common denominator. I'm sitting here coding it into a new product right now (once the uber super compiler finishes a build). It's supported on just about every chip set in the universe. I suspect it will outlive the cockroaches. Bob -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of David Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:54 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards initially. What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred it to be serial and galvanically isolated. On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed paulsw...@gmail.com wrote: I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far sighted. ;-) Regards Paul WB8TSL ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
