| Richard Erlacher 08/14/07 02:50 Read: 409 times Denver, Co USA |
#143244 - I don't know what to say ... Responding to: Jan Waclawek's previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
Richard,
You are at least as quick in your conclusions as per my engineering-o-troubleshooting methods as I am in guessing your background (which, btw. would be interesting to know, at least to the extent relevant to this discussion - i.e. what is the typical power supply of the equipment of your design, and whether it runs 24/7 - we already know that you are using the RC reset typically). My typical MCU application is a relatively small circuit, of no more than, perhaps 80 IC's, or an equivalent programmable circuit. It has an on-off switch and a reset button. In fewer than 10% of the cases, it uses an 805x. Most of the time it uses an MCU with a negative-going reset, e.g. 'HC11, HC05/08. Power is typically provided by a linear supply derived from a 13-volt CT transformer, a diode bridge or two, one or two, or even three capacitors, using 78xx or LM340-type regulators or an equivalent adjustable with or without a pass member. I'm not fond of LDO's, as their frequency response is not what I prefer. Yes, I do generally rely on RC reset, as it seldom causes problems in cases using negative-going reset. What I present as an anecdote here in fact required a lot of work to discover the root case of the problem (and as I already told here, I presented only a fraction of the problems I and/or my colleagues came accross). Just recall my stories - how do you think we discovered the problem with working '51 and dying peripheral at low VCC, resulting in - in fact, from the viewpoint of the mcu, correct - extraneous input to be accepted and stored in the NVRAM? And, how do you think, we discovered the problem with short reset pulse causing the '51 program starting at address 112h? Do you really believe this is a result of a handwaving approach? I do recall some of the stories, but don't see how they related to your solution, namely using a supervisor, or why that was necessary, nor do I recall you explaining how you pinned the problem to the reset, when it was clearly an out-of-spec power supply. How did you measure the Vcc behavior? How did you and your colleagues determine that the power supply was subsequently correct? How did you persuade yourselves that the problem you had observed and for which you'd applied a "solution" had now been rectified? I never said the problems were not related to insufficient or otherwise suspicios power. Contrary - often this was the root case, indeed. However, as I said many many times, I find it ridiculous to design around a perfect power supply, while this more complicated and expensive than the reset IC - and, in many cases, it won't help, contrary to the reset IC. I don't believe a power supply has to be "perfect." It does have to be adequate, though. That means that it has to have sufficient current to raise Vcc at an acceptable rate and allow it to fall at an acceptable rate as well. There are numerous ways of accomplishing this, some complex, some not, but all require that the power supply not rely on the target board having lots of on-board capacitance, as that will slow the dVcc/dt. Richard, please stop trying to find a problem where there is none. Please accept the facts. I'll accept them when they're presented. Apparently you don't believe there is a "reset problem" though I've seen it brought up again and again. I've never encountered a proven "reset problem" in my own work, though I have seen a problem apparently associated with seemingly incorrect dVcc/dt, probably resulting from excessive on-board capacitance on Vcc. Only after starting to investigate the problem did I encounter what I thought might be a reset issue, in the form of the BBRAM corruption. Jan
|
| Topic | Author | Date |
| 89C2051 oscillator does not oscillate (?) | Rubem Pechansky | 08/06/07 17:08 |
| Capacitor value? | Russell Bull | 08/06/07 17:58 |
| 20-40pF indeed | Rubem Pechansky | 08/07/07 08:00 |
| it might be the crystal | Jan Waclawek | 08/07/07 08:05 |
| Probably not | Rubem Pechansky | 08/07/07 08:24 |
| because it\'s crap | Jan Waclawek | 08/07/07 08:31 |
| Not same position | Rubem Pechansky | 08/07/07 08:38 |
| one cap or two makes most probably no difference.. | Jan Waclawek | 08/07/07 09:38 |
| Not on the pins | Rubem Pechansky | 08/07/07 11:45 |
| I'd recomend you re-read the spec's ... | Richard Erlacher | 08/07/07 13:08 |
| It's the same Vcc | Rubem Pechansky | 08/07/07 17:14 |
| Hhm...I wouldn't recommend this paralleling | Kai Klaas | 08/07/07 09:51 |
| hummm... really? In what frequency range? | Jan Waclawek | 08/07/07 10:00 |
| The inductance of the left resonating with... | Kai Klaas | 08/07/07 10:17 |
| interesting | Jan Waclawek | 08/07/07 10:35 |
| Spice models | Kai Klaas | 08/08/07 08:57 |
| Thanks, Kai. | Jan Waclawek | 08/08/07 09:18 |
| Numerical calculation, some examples... | Kai Klaas | 08/09/07 12:09 |
| Wrong reset scheme! | Kai Klaas | 08/06/07 22:24 |
| 10µF reset capacitor to Vcc | Rubem Pechansky | 08/07/07 08:06 |
| Isn't that the mfg's recommended circuit? | Richard Erlacher | 08/07/07 13:10 |
| Which do you mean? | Kai Klaas | 08/08/07 11:43 |
| 10 uF to Vcc and 8.2K (built-in?) to GND | Richard Erlacher | 08/09/07 00:24 |
| no, it is not | Erik Malund | 08/13/07 11:10 |
| If it's in nearly every datasheet ... | Richard Erlacher | 08/13/07 12:55 |
| this is your perception of the things, Richard | Jan Waclawek | 08/13/07 13:04 |
| Here we go again ... | Richard Erlacher | 08/13/07 18:37 |
| ... and again... | Jan Waclawek | 08/13/07 23:22 |
| I don't know what to say ... | Richard Erlacher | 08/14/07 02:50 |
| there is NO out of spec power supply | Jan Waclawek | 08/14/07 03:36 |
| Not only... | Kai Klaas | 08/14/07 07:34 |
| Not allways | Daniel Contarino | 08/15/07 12:24 |
| Have you seen evidence of improvement? | Richard Erlacher | 08/19/07 09:55 |
| Wider spectrum | Kai Klaas | 08/19/07 11:51 |
| maybe ratio of good/bad crystals is the same... | Jan Waclawek | 08/19/07 14:16 |
| In all the various designs I produced ... | Richard Erlacher | 08/19/07 17:10 |
| Never had a failure until now | Grant Beattie | 08/20/07 13:16 |
| I know of lots of crystal problems... | Kai Klaas | 08/21/07 12:02 |
| Could be, but I've never encountered it ... | Richard Erlacher | 08/21/07 12:32 |
| %$#@! Double-post again ... | Richard Erlacher | 08/21/07 12:32 |
| ^%$#@! double-post ... | Richard Erlacher | 08/19/07 09:55 |
| If the datasheet says 1 ms ... | Richard Erlacher | 08/19/07 09:58 |
| more about locomotives | Erik Malund | 08/14/07 06:59 |
| symptoms suggest ... | Richard Erlacher | 08/19/07 10:09 |
| steam locomotives | Erik Malund | 08/13/07 13:15 |
| I like the steam locomotives | Jan Waclawek | 08/13/07 14:26 |
| So do I | Steve M. Taylor | 08/13/07 15:05 |
| me too, said the dog | Erik Malund | 08/13/07 15:10 |
| The kids should be smarter than that! | Richard Erlacher | 08/13/07 18:39 |
| kids are kids | Erik Malund | 08/14/07 06:46 |
| It might not be a clock problem | Stanley Lio | 08/06/07 22:31 |
| Does not work, sorry | Rubem Pechansky | 08/07/07 08:31 |
| Bad Connections or Crystal ? | Richard Houghton | 08/07/07 08:17 |
| A picture may be useful | Rubem Pechansky | 08/07/07 08:28 |
| Breadboards are highly unsuited for micros!! | Kai Klaas | 08/07/07 10:09 |
| Makes sense | Rubem Pechansky | 08/07/07 11:48 |
| breadboards are highly unsuited for ANYTHING! | Richard Erlacher | 08/07/07 13:11 |
| Not at all! | Kai Klaas | 08/07/07 22:26 |
| If you look at the pictures you can see why. | Richard Erlacher | 08/08/07 07:24 |
| Yes, it doesn\'t look properly, but... | Kai Klaas | 08/08/07 08:31 |
| It's too risky! | Richard Erlacher | 08/09/07 00:40 |
| What is the purpose of your posts?? | Kai Klaas | 08/09/07 09:30 |
| My purpose is to point out that there are flaws | Richard Erlacher | 08/09/07 10:43 |
| *** THE PICTURES *** | Rubem Pechansky | 08/07/07 12:04 |
| Problem may be breadboard | Ralph Sac | 08/07/07 12:26 |
| Breadboard correction | Ralph Sac | 08/07/07 16:12 |
| How I programmed the 2051 | Rubem Pechansky | 08/07/07 17:55 |
| Must be continuous | Rubem Pechansky | 08/07/07 17:23 |
| there is a good english word \'IS\" | Erik Malund | 08/13/07 11:11 |
| I have the same thing running on my desk... | Stanley Lio | 08/07/07 20:44 |
| really ? | Erik Malund | 08/13/07 11:41 |
| Sadly, it's a trade name | Richard Erlacher | 08/13/07 12:58 |
| yea, but... | Stanley Lio | 08/14/07 16:31 |
| again, replacing one uncertainty with another | Erik Malund | 08/15/07 07:06 |
| I see two points | Kai Klaas | 08/07/07 22:49 |
| When you\'re ready to give up ... try this! | Richard Erlacher | 08/07/07 13:19 |
| wow | Jan Waclawek | 08/07/07 14:10 |
| use the unbuffered parts | Andy Peters | 08/07/07 14:20 |
| It works fine with S, LS, HC, AC, HCT, ACT, etc | Richard Erlacher | 08/08/07 07:28 |
| It's not so foolproof | Kai Klaas | 08/08/07 09:24 |
| I've had pretty good results ... | Richard Erlacher | 08/09/07 01:02 |
| Many thanks, I'll try some of your tips... | Rubem Pechansky | 08/09/07 06:23 |
| Maybe your AT89C2051 is just damaged? | Kai Klaas | 08/09/07 09:14 |
| Overtone | Darek Rogowski | 08/14/07 07:59 |
| 89S51/52 are much more stable | Rubem Pechansky | 08/21/07 17:38 |
| Can you still (re-) program it | Grant Beattie | 08/16/07 10:37 |
| Let's hope that Rubem will come back ... | Kai Klaas | 08/16/07 22:03 |
| Hi again, sorry | Rubem Pechansky | 08/21/07 16:23 |
| Even with no breadboard | Rubem Pechansky | 09/07/07 18:25 |
| What has the programmer to do with the oscillator? | Richard Erlacher | 09/07/07 22:29 |
| The chip is fine | Rubem Pechansky | 08/21/07 17:36 |
| What will that tell you about the oscillator? | Richard Erlacher | 09/07/07 22:40 |
| It is time to tell the manufacturer, that... | Kai Klaas | 09/08/07 07:42 |
| oscillator of 2051? | Jan Waclawek | 09/08/07 08:48 |
| Sorry, maybe I was too harsh | Kai Klaas | 09/08/07 09:02 |
| The MCU and crystals are all working for sure | Rubem Pechansky | 09/08/07 12:29 |
| It was not the 7805 | Rubem Pechansky | 09/08/07 12:35 |
| because you shook/dropped/kicked it | Erik Malund | 09/10/07 07:01 |
| 7805 decoupling | Jan Waclawek | 09/08/07 13:33 |
| LM79XX need a different treatment! | Kai Klaas | 09/09/07 17:38 |
| Good news | Rubem Pechansky | 09/08/07 14:47 |
| Is this >good news< ?? | Kai Klaas | 09/09/07 17:14 |
| Have you considered the "breadboard" effect? | Richard Erlacher | 09/09/07 17:59 |
| Inductance | David Smith | 09/10/07 04:17 |
| Hey! | Jan Waclawek | 09/10/07 04:24 |
| So what? | Kai Klaas | 09/10/07 09:01 |
| specifically | Erik Malund | 09/10/07 09:11 |
| Let\'s not go overboard ... | Richard Erlacher | 09/10/07 11:05 |
| This does not make him learn to swim... | Kai Klaas | 09/10/07 21:13 |
| I have only my own experience ... | Richard Erlacher | 09/11/07 11:22 |
| Not Atmel problem | James Krushlucki | 09/10/07 23:19 |
| things change | Erik Malund | 09/11/07 06:24 |
| looking at the wrong characteristic | Richard Erlacher | 09/11/07 11:31 |
| OT: to Richard | Jon Ledbetter | 09/11/07 11:54 |
| OT: I hadn\'t but I have ... Yes, I\'m interested! | Richard Erlacher | 09/11/07 18:29 |
| You are probably right | Rubem Pechansky | 09/12/07 20:35 |
| do you have a 10-100nF directly across the | Erik Malund | 09/10/07 06:46 |
| *** PCB and schematic *** | Rubem Pechansky | 09/12/07 21:16 |
| I cannot find C1 | Kai Klaas | 09/12/07 21:28 |
| Ahh, it is the supercap! Needs some changes! | Kai Klaas | 09/12/07 22:07 |
| Surprisingly It works like it is | Rubem Pechansky | 09/13/07 11:01 |
No, no... | Kai Klaas | 09/13/07 21:49 |
| I can't really 'read' your PCB but ... | Erik Malund | 09/13/07 06:02 |
| It is connected | Rubem Pechansky | 09/13/07 11:04 |
| Is any old recipe. | Darek Rogowski | 08/21/07 05:12 |



